Citation
Articulating the Business and Ethical Arguments for Sustainable Construction

Material Information

Title:
Articulating the Business and Ethical Arguments for Sustainable Construction
Copyright Date:
2008

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Air quality ( jstor )
Buildings ( jstor )
Commercial buildings ( jstor )
Construction costs ( jstor )
Construction materials ( jstor )
Demolition ( jstor )
Landfills ( jstor )
Life cycle costs ( jstor )
Operating costs ( jstor )
Recycling ( jstor )

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Embargo Date:
5/1/2005

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text












ARTICULATING THE BUSINESS AND ETHICAL ARGUMENTS FOR
SUSTAINABLE CONSTRUCTION













By

LEAH GRIFFIN


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

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


2005

































Copyright 2005

by

Leah Griffin
































This thesis is dedicated to my friend Jim Sullivan-a small token for a big heart.















ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I want to thank a few important people that have helped me directly and indirectly

succeed in completing this thesis. Of course, this would not have been possible without

the guidance and support of my committee. Many thanks go to Dr. Charles Kibert, Dr.

Raymond Issa, and Dr. Leon Wetherington. Dr. Kibert inspired my interest in green

building two years ago. I hope I can make a green difference during my career in the

construction industry. Dr. Issa has been my biggest supporter since my first semester in

BCN, and I will be forever grateful for that. I cannot imagine the Rinker School without

Dr. Wetherington. He, too, has believed in me from the start. I will miss Doc's hugs.

The best part of this thesis has been making a new best friend, Bryce. I am

thankful to her and Roy for truly being my best friends during this final semester. And of

course, love goes to Luke.















TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S ................................................................................................. iv

ABSTRACT ............... ......................................... vii

CHAPTER

1 INTRODUCTION ............... .................................. ................... 1

2 M E TH O D O L O G Y .................................................................... .......................... 4

3 LITER A TU RE REV IEW .................................................. ............................... 5

G reen Building D efined................. ........................................................ ............... 6
Environmental and Ecological Impacts of Building ...............................................7
Green Building Today .................................................................. ....
B a rrie rs ...............................................................................1 2
C o sts ........................................ ...............................1 6
Contractors and Cost: Bidding Climate ....................................... ...............18
C o st R ecov ery .................. ...................................... ........... ................ 19
A Contractor's Role in Green Building................................................................... 20
M ore on M aterials............... ............ ..... ......................... .. .......... ......... ..............2 2
Life-Cycle Costs Applied to W hole Buildings .............. .. ... ............. ....................24
L E E D and the G reen C M ........................................ ............................................24

4 R E S U L T S .............................................................................2 8

It's the right thing to do. ... ............ .................. ................... .. ........ .... 28
Green building guidelines are becoming legal mandates. ........................................31
Sustainability enhances profitability........................ ............................. 35
Contractors who build green increase their market share.................................. 37
Green buildings often cost the same or less than conventional buildings ................42
Builders can help develop the economies of scale for green building materials........42
Building sustainably goes hand-in-hand with design-build............................43
Green building government incentives can aid successful project delivery ..............44
Constructing green buildings can improve a company's image................................45
Forward-looking companies attract quality employees...........................................45
Green practices reduce contractor liability. .............. .................. ...............46
Green building can lower the health risks construction workers face......................48









5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................... 50

APPENDIX

L IST O F A R G U M E N T S ........................................................................ .....................52

W hy should a contractor build green? ............................................. ............... 52

L IST O F R E FE R E N C E S ....................................................................... ... ...................53

B IO G R A PH IC A L SK E TCH ..................................................................... ..................57














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

ARTICULATING THE BUSINESS AND ETHICAL ARGUMENTS FOR
SUSTAINABLE CONSTRUCTION


By

Leah Griffin

May 2005

Chair: Charles Kibert
Cochair: Raymond Issa
Major Department: Building Construction

Environmentally conscious building and development continue to infiltrate the

mainstream as more people begin to understand the tremendous impact that the built

environment has on nature. Building green can reduce the negative impacts of

construction related to land, air, and water pollution. Sustainable buildings offer

operating cost savings, and improved working and living conditions. These aspects

appeal to owners, occupants, developers, and architects. But what about builders?

Construction firms who adopt sustainable practices remain the exception. To many

contractors, green construction is viewed as an unnecessary, expensive add-on. Limited

data are available as to whether it is in a builder's best interest to construct sustainable

buildings. This research aims to determine the quantitative and qualitative benefits that

green building may offer contractors. The objective is to develop a comprehensive list of

compelling arguments in favor of builders embracing sustainable construction.














CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

Natural systems and resources are being rapidly destroyed and depleted, and the

construction industry plays a substantial role in that. The creation, operation, and

disposal of the built environment dominates humanity's impact on the natural world

(Kibert et al. 2000). Especially during the past decade, worldwide movements have been

underway to address the environmental effects of construction. Green building is

breaking into the mainstream, and the construction industry is slowly being forced to

change its traditional practices-for ethical and economical reasons.

Buildings use 30 percent of U.S. energy and 40 percent of materials. Buildings

consist of 90 percent of all extracted materials, and 135 million tons of construction and

demolition waste is generated annually. Environmental concerns include land, water, and

air pollution. Green buildings aim to protect the earth's natural systems (Kibert et al.

2000). Construction, engineering, and design processes aim to reduce energy

consumption and expenditures, decrease environmental impact, and boost workers'

health and productivity without adding substantial up-front costs. They do so, for

example, by achieving significant reductions in energy consumption, using renewable

resources, and incorporating reused or recycled materials.

According to the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC), a nonprofit organization

that is one of the foremost authorities on the subject, about 5 percent of new construction

starts in the United States are attempting to go green (Gonchar 2005). The USGBC's

Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) rating system certifies green









buildings at four levels. In addition to expanding beyond the U.S., the council is adapting

LEED to more types of projects. In November 2004, it released a version focusing on

operation and maintenance of existing buildings and another addressing tenant space

construction and renovation. The new versions join LEED-NC, which primarily is

geared to commercial and institutional new construction. Adaptations tailored to the core

and shell of speculative buildings, residential construction, and neighborhood

developments are in the works. The council itself has grown 1,000 percent in the past

four years. There now are 5,300 member organizations, which include corporations,

government agencies and nonprofits (Cassidy 2004).

The main objective of this research is to provide arguments in favor of contractors

embracing the sustainable building movement. A primary factor in doing so is that

building green may not always be a choice; about 35 municipalities have laws in place

requiring green building in new construction. Some area governments have outlawed

construction waste from entering their landfills. In 2004, San Francisco and Boston

announced requirements that city-owned projects achieve at least a silver LEED rating.

Other users include Chicago, Austin, Seattle, and Portland. Many companies,

government agencies, and academic institutions are aggressively adopting sustainable

building techniques. Federal, state, and local governments have built 40 percent of the

green buildings that are LEED certified. The U.S. Air Force, Navy, and most recently the

Army require all new domestic structures to incorporate sustainable standards. Federal

agencies that have adopted LEED include the General Services Administration and

Department of State. Corporations building green facilities include Starbucks, Ford, and

Toyota (Gonchar 2004).









The push for green offers builders access to a rapidly growing niche market.

Forward-thinking companies, like Turner Construction and Skanksa, are already

incorporating sustainability into their operations. They are among the companies that

have realized the economic value of building green, especially by adopting standardized

construction waste management systems. Diverting materials from landfills offers costs

savings in most cases, which can in turn increase a builder's profit. At the same time, the

perceived value of high performance buildings is increasing, while financial costs are

going down. Green schools and offices can cost an average of 0.5 to 6.5 percent more to

build; however, owner costs decrease for energy, water, operations, and maintenance

(Cassidy 2004). This offers a unique marketing opportunity to builders, because owners

will turn to contractors experienced in green building. Accordingly, this research intends

to illustrate it is in a builder's best interest financially to embrace sustainability.














CHAPTER 2
METHODOLOGY

An extensive literature review forms the basis for this research analysis. Current

practices and case studies of sustainable building projects were considered and

incorporated, as well as the most recent cost analysis studies available. The hypothesis

was that constructing high-performance sustainable buildings is in a builder's best

interest, ethically and economically. Data to support this hypothesis exists, but it has not

been compiled and considered from the perspective of a construction management

organization. The objective of the research was to develop a comprehensive list of the

reasons builders should practice sustainability, and this objective has been realized. It is

intended for practical use primarily by commercial contractors. Barriers to green

building from a builder's perspective also were analyzed.

Limitations included the finite extent of the research. Ample data was collected to

support the hypothesis, but the information available is extensive and ever-changing.

Also, since the focus was placed primarily upon commercial builders, the analysis is

limited accordingly; however, residential construction was not specifically excluded and

is referenced when appropriate.














CHAPTER 3
LITERATURE REVIEW

The construction industry's overall impact on people and society cannot be

overestimated. People spend an average 90 percent of each day-working and

sleeping-in the built environment. By providing housing and infrastructure, the

industry makes a vital contribution to the social and economical development of every

country (Wallbaum and Buerkin 2003). The economical impact and influence of the

construction industry is enormous. According to the International Council for Research

and Innovation in Building and Construction, one dollar spent on construction may

generate up to three dollars of economic activity in other sectors (UNEP 2003). In North

America alone, the design and construction market is a $358 billion industry responsible

for building 20,000 commercial, industrial, institutional, and multifamily structures

annually (Cassidy 2004). Construction represents 12 percent of the GDP in the United

States (UNEP 2003).

Having such an impact has its consequences, though. The construction industry is

one of the largest destroyers of the natural environment (Woolley 2000). It is a major

consumer of non-renewable resources, produces substantial waste, pollutes air and water,

and contributes to land dereliction (Wallbaum and Buerkin 2003). "Buildings and the

construction industry make the largest contribution to CO2 emissions and pollution and

waste in general, yet the general public fail to recognize the impact that buildings and

building materials have on our health and the environment" (Woolley 2000).









Industry leaders, however, have begun to not only recognize this impact but take

responsibility for it as well. There is much potential-and much realized at that-for the

construction industry to cause less damage. As an example, it is estimated that 90

percent of demolition and construction debris can be reused or recycling (Karolides

2002). As potentially the primary contributor to achieving sustainable development, the

industry should accept its responsibility to minimize negative environmental and social

impacts and maximize positive contributions (Sustainable Development Task Force

2003).

Green Building Defined

In 1987, the World Commission on Environment and Development defined

sustainable development as "development that meets the needs of the present without

compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs" (Strand and

Fossdal 2003). A primary goal of sustainability is to reduce humanity's environmental or

ecological footprint on the planet. Canadian economist William Rees defines the

ecological footprint of cities as the land required to supply them with food and timber

products, and to absorb their CO2 output (Girardet 2000).

Especially in the last decade, a push toward the development of sustainable

construction industry practices has given rise to the green building movement. Green

buildings offer the same quality or performance, if not better, but have a less negative

impact on the environment. Most green building practices fall into seven basic

categories: energy saving, water saving, land saving, stormwater runoff-reducing,

material conservation, and pollution reduction (ECONorthwest 2001). Traditionally,

attempts to minimize construction costs lead to higher energy bills and wasted materials.

A green building uses an average of 30 percent less energy than a conventional building,









the primary factor in decreasing operating costs (Economist 2004). What makes a

building green? Material waste generated during construction is reduced and/or recycled.

Materials are reused. Energy efficiency is improved, perhaps by relying on the use of

natural light and ventilation or solar power. Less water is used, or a rainwater harvesting

system is installed to ensure wiser use.

"Measures being taken to make buildings and construction more sustainable rely

increasingly on life-cycle approaches. Life-cycle thinking in the construction sector takes

account of every stage-from a structure's conception to the end of its service life, and

from raw material extraction to a building's demolition or dismantling. It also takes

account of all actors, from land-use planners and property developers through building

owners and users to salvage firms and landfill operators" (UNEP 2003). The result:

buildings that ensure occupant health and are more resource and cost efficient.

Environmental and Ecological Impacts of Building

Buildings have major environmental costs. If current expansion patterns continue,

the built environment will destroy or disturb natural habitats and wildlife on more than 70

percent of the Earth's land by 2032 (UNEP 2003). Around one-third of the energy used

by humans is related to buildings and their utilization, although a considerable proportion

of this energy use could be avoided. Climate change associated with greenhouse gas

emissions to the atmosphere is a significant, if not the most significant, threat to the

global environment. The primary source of these emissions is the use of fossil fuels

(Wenblad 2003). The built environment accounts for as much as 40 percent of the

world's greenhouse gas emissions. The carbon dioxide emissions of U.S. buildings alone

are second only to those of China (Kats 2003).









Cement production in particular-through burning of fossil fuels and breakdown of

raw materials-impacts global warming. If current patterns continue, carbon dioxide

emissions from the cement industry will quadruple by 2050. Virtually all the cement

industry's output is used for construction, especially for concrete. Twice as much

concrete is used worldwide than the total of all other building materials combined (UNEP

2003).

Construction activities are estimated to consume about half of the resources

humans take from nature (UNEP 2003). The construction industry is also estimated to

generate 50 percent of total waste (Edwards and Bennett 2003). And half of all CFC and

HCFC use is building related. "These figures relate to what buildings are built of, and

how we heat, cool, light and use them. If we add all the things we put into buildings, and

use in and near buildings (which is nearly everything we buy) and the travel between

buildings, the figures go up. Once we become aware of the magnitude of the statistics, it

becomes obvious that everything we build has major environmental repercussions" (Day

2000).

In the United States, as per the Department of Energy, buildings consume 39

percent of the energy and 70 percent of the electricity (Cassidy 2004). According to the

U.S. Geological Survey, construction accounts for 60 percent of all materials used in the

U.S. for purposes other than food and fuel (EPA 2002). Meanwhile, construction debris

accounts for 30 percent of all landfill material in the U.S. (Cassidy 2004). More than 136

million tons of building debris from construction and demolition sites is generated every

year in the U.S., making it the single largest source in the waste stream. According to

EPA figures, a typical new commercial building generates an average of 3.9 pounds of









waste per square foot of building area. For example, a new 50,000-square-foot

building-the average size of a college residence hall-produces almost 100 tons of

waste. Demolition sites produce even more waste-an average of 155 pounds per square

foot of commercial building area. For a 50,000-square-foot building, that translates to

about 4,000 tons of waste (C&D Recycling 2004).

Construction-related pollution is not always readily apparent. "In addition to

immediate emissions of air and water pollutants, dust and noise during construction,

pollutant concentrations within buildings (stemming from finishes, paints, backing

materials, and other components) can be over twice as high-in some cases as much as

100 times as high-as concentrations outside" (UNEP 2003). Hazardous substances used

in construction can endanger both construction workers and building occupants.

Green Building Today

Sustainable design has its roots in the energy conservation movement of the 1970s

and 1980s, when energy costs rose alongside concern for the environment and 'sick

building syndrome' (Economist 2004; ECONorthwest 2001). In 1993, 250 founding

members founded the nonprofit U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) to promote

environmentally responsible buildings. Today, the USGBC represents the nation's

leading authority and voice of green building. A coalition of industry leaders, the council

has grown to more than 5,300 member companies and organizations that include builders,

architects, universities, and government agencies.

Five years ago, the council introduced its Leadership in Energy and Environmental

Design (LEED) Green Building Rating System. LEED has become widely accepted as

the standard measurement of sustainable building, and it has been adopted nationwide by

various federal agencies, state and local governments, and private companies. LEED is a









feature-oriented rating system through which credits are awarded to certify green

buildings at four levels: Certified, Silver, Gold, and Platinum. The credits cover six

categories: site selection; water efficiency; energy and atmosphere; materials and

resources; indoor environmental quality; and innovation and design. A Gold building is

estimated to have reduced its environmental impact by 50 percent in comparison to a

conventional building of similar size; a Platinum building, by more than 70 percent

(Economist 2004).

As of February 2005, more than 1,700 projects in 50 states were in the process of

seeking LEED certification, representing about 5 percent of new construction starts.

Another 167 buildings are LEED certified (Gonchar 2005). The USGBC is in the

process of adapting LEED to more types of projects. In November 2004, it released a

version focusing on operation and maintenance of existing buildings and another

addressing tenant space construction and renovation. The new versions join LEED-NC,

which primarily is geared to commercial and institutional new construction. Adaptations

tailored to the core and shell of speculative buildings, residential construction, and

neighborhood developments are in the works (Cassidy 2004).

Governments have created most of the initial demand for sustainable buildings.

Federal, state, and local governments have built 40 percent of the buildings that are

LEED certified (Gonchar 2004). "The cost of funds for government is low, and the time

horizon for the average life of a public building is long. Buildings are typically owned,

financed, operated and occupied by a governmental agency. Wearing these multiple hats

makes it easier for governmental owners to design buildings to maximize their

performance and occupant health on a long-term perspective" (Gottfried 2003).









About 35 U.S. municipalities have laws in place requiring green building in new

construction. Some area governments have outlawed construction waste from entering

their landfills. In 2004, San Francisco and Boston announced requirements that city-

owned projects achieve at least a silver LEED rating. Other users include Chicago,

Austin, Seattle, and Portland. In the military, the Air Force and Navy require all

domestic structures be green. Federal agencies that have adopted LEED include the

General Services Administration and Department of State (Gonchar 2004). Green

building has been slowly gaining momentum in the private sector; Ford, Toyota, and

Wal-Mart have constructed green buildings (Gottfried 2003). There is now sufficient

real-world cost-benefit analysis available to verify the financial advantages of sustainable

building, and as a result, investors are increasingly recognizing the positive economic

outcomes of sustainability (SDTF 2003).

According to the EPA, building tenants can save 50 cents per square foot each year

through no-cost, environmentally responsible operating and management practices

(Fortune 2004). Building commissioning-which serves as a check to ensure building

systems function as designed-can reduce building operating costs for heating, cooling,

and ventilation as much as 40 percent, according to the Lawrence Berkeley National

Laboratory (Karolides 2002). Other economic benefits can include improved property

values and rental returns, and the utilization of various national, state, and local green

building incentive programs.

The USGBC advocates that green building results in a triple bottom line-offering

environmental, social, and quantifiable financial benefits. Using less energy and water

lessens both operating costs and a building's environmental impact. From a people









perspective, occupant health and productivity improve. Evidence shows that productivity

rises and absenteeism falls in well-designed sustainable buildings (Pitts 2004). Students

in naturally lit classrooms perform up to 20 percent better (Economist 2004). And at

PNC Financial Services Group's green headquarters in Pittsburgh, sustainable

improvements have helped lift personnel retention rates to 50 percent above those at a

conventional workplace facility (Fortune 2004).

Barriers

The barriers to sustainable building specific to a contractor are numerous. A

definite learning curve is involved. "A lot of green building is predicated on making

smarter decisions at every step" (Fortune 2004). Green building requires more planning

by the entire project team-builders, architects, engineers, and developers (Economist

2004). For contractors new to LEED, the waste management requirements especially can

seem daunting. Reusing, salvaging, and recycling materials requires additional planning;

the contractor needs to designate staging and storage locations, allot time for sorting

materials, find buyers or recycling centers, and possibly deliver materials to buyers

(Karolides 2002). And all this must be carefully documented to meet LEED certification

requirements. How much additional time and effort will be required at each project

phase for both planning and documentation depends on the experience of the project

team. A Seattle-area contractor spent an estimated 400 hours documenting its first LEED

project. But now, working on its third registered building, the contractor has cut the

hours needed significantly-about 20 to 40 preconstruction hours, five hours a week

during construction, and another 20 to 30 to prepare final submissions (Gonchar 2005).

In terms of costs, there are perceptions of higher costs and actual higher costs

involved in sustainable construction. "When presented with unfamiliar materials in









project specifications, the first reaction of construction organizations is suspicion-of

potentially higher costs, more complex or unfamiliar jobsite handling and construction

methods, and lower productivity. If they are given the opportunity to investigate the true

impact of a new material on a project, construction organizations can more accurately

determine whether the material is best suited to the project and provide realistic costing

information, rather than prices inflated due to undefined potential risks" (Riley et al.

2003).

Some contractors have realized costs savings by incorporating recycling into their

waste policies. However, the feasibility of recycling varies greatly according to project

location. In most areas of the United States it is cheaper to landfill construction waste

than it is to recycle it; profit margins at the end of the recycling process remain low for

many materials. The National Demolition Association identifies 14 recyclable building

components. Of those, only three-metals, aggregates, and wood-have current

economic value in the United States (Cassidy 2004). The market for recycled-content

products is not fully developed. The infrastructure for recycling construction waste is in

the very early stages of development as well, and even that is in limited areas (Riley et al.

2003). The major single limitation for recycling programs remains the nature of the local

recycling infrastructure (Cassidy 2004).

Another cost deterrent: many green building products still cost more than their

traditional counterparts. Most producers of green products take advantage of a niche

market, charging a value-added premium for materials with a green label. Americans pay

more for organic food, shouldn't the same hold true for sustainable lumber? (Woolley

2000). Choosing green products as replacements involves research; if it difficult to find









and price green substitutions, builders will continue to use what they are accustomed to

using (Johnston 2000).

Building green requires a more holistic approach. For contractors to recognize this,

they must move past the common belief that green building is just a fad. Too much is at

stake for it to be simply a fad (Economist 2004). According to Wall Street Journal, green

is proving itself a potent trend, and rising energy prices will continue to fuel the

movement (Frangos 2005). In an industry resistant to any type of change, some believe

that environmental issues will be ignored by builders unless they must adhere to

applicable legislation. Competition could also help bring about the appropriate changes

in the industry's psychology and infrastructure. "If construction organizations are to

maximize their contributions to green building projects, they must shift their paradigm-

away from a fragmented and bid package perspective toward a more holistic and

integrated view of projects. The inextricable relationships between water, site, energy

and indoor environmental quality issues must be woven into estimating and planning

processes, subcontractor education and overall business practices. Some organizations

will make this shift voluntarily. Others will only do it when forced by competition"

(Riley et al. 2003).

The fragmentation of the construction industry limits widespread acceptance and

utilization of sustainable practices on several levels. For one, it slows adoption patterns

of new methods. Successful green building requires more collaboration among project

team members, but traditionally, designers, architects, engineers, developers, and builders

each make decisions that serve their own interests-regardless of whether this creates

inefficiencies overall (Economist 2004). What is considered desirable during









construction may be viewed quite differently by owner and designer (Pultar 2000).

According to a Pennsylvania State University study, the potential of builders to enhance

green projects can only be fully realized if they are part of the team during the design

stage. "Broad change is hindered by the fact that green building efforts are largely being

led by the design profession-the segment of the industry which is still most resistant to

integrated teams that include the construction organizations. Perceived as a threat to the

design process, many design professionals are most comfortable when contractors are

relegated to a low-price commodity on a building project rather than a valuable service

provider to a project team" (Riley et al. 2003).

The study also found that many design and construction professionals believe a

contractor's green contribution is limited tojobsite recycling. Implementing ajobsite

recycling plan just because it is mandated is a "one-dimensional approach to

sustainability." That being said, a contractor's role beyond jobsite recycling is not

always well defined, even on LEED projects. "More guidance is needed in defining the

contracting methods, organizational structures and services that enable green buildings.

For example, the LEED system recognizes inclusion of a LEED accredited professional

but does little to encourage integrated teams formed through design-build contracting and

design-assist services by construction firms" (Riley et al. 2003).

For a contractor to be successful in green building, all employees and trades people

need to buy-in to the benefits of sustainability and actively contribute. This requires

effort, education, and leadership-contractors cannot just tell their subcontractors to build

green and expect full cooperation (Johnston 2000).









Costs

There are numerous examples of green buildings not costing more. And over the

past two years, several thorough studies have been completed to attempt to quantify any

cost differences between high performance and conventional buildings. Costing Green:

A Comprehensive Cost Database and Budgeting Methodology (July 2004) by Lisa Fay

Matthiessen and Peter Morris of Davis Langdon Adamson, a cost consulting company, is

one such study (Matthiessen and Morris 2004).

The researchers compared the cost of 45 buildings seeking LEED certification

against 93 similar, non-LEED-seeking buildings of comparable design and construction.

They randomly selected 10 non-LEED buildings from those 93, then created a LEED

checklist for each of those 10 to determine which, if any, credits each project would

qualify for with its current design. The analysis concluded that the non-LEED projects

achieved 15 to 25 credits with their established designs; one project was estimated to

qualify for 29-enough for a LEED Certified rating. More in-depth analysis of the non-

LEED and LEED buildings suggested that an average of about 12 credits could be earned

without any design changes-"due simply to the building's location, program, or

requirements of the owner or local codes." Up to 18 additional credits could be earned

with minimal effort at little or no added cost (Matthiessen and Morris 2004).

Consequently, the researchers found that many green projects achieve their

sustainable goals without additional funding, suggesting that the cost per square foot for

LEED buildings falls into the existing range of costs for buildings of similar program

type. The researchers draw four main conclusions:

* There is a very large variation in costs of buildings, even within the same building
program category.









* Cost differences between buildings are due primarily to program type.

* There are low-cost and high-cost green buildings.

* There are low-cost and high-cost non-green buildings.

Therefore, the researchers assert, buildings cannot be compared simply by

averaging budgets because normal variations between buildings are significantly large.

"There is no 'one size fits all' answer to the question of the cost of green....Comparing

the average cost per square foot for one set of buildings to another does not provide any

meaningful data for any individual project to assess what-if any-cost impact there

might be for incorporating LEED and sustainable design" (Matthiessen and Morris 2004).

Assessment of green building costs, according to the research, is more accurate if

made on a project-specific basis. Taking into consideration the project's distinct goals

and circumstances will reveal the impacts of the many factors that affect green building

cost variations. The feasibility and cost impacts of numerous LEED credits can vary

substantially, for better or worse, by how experienced the members of the design and

construction teams are with sustainable building. Was the team reluctant to adopt

established green methods? To effectively budget for sustainable buildings, high-

performance features must not be seen as upgrades or additions that require additional

costs. "Simply choosing to add a premium to a budget for a non-green building will not

give any meaningful reflection of the cost for that building to meet its green goals. The

first question in budgeting should not be 'How much more will it cost?', but 'How will

we do this?'" Establishing project goals during the programming stage and evaluating

conformance at every stage of design and construction is critical to effective cost control

(Matthiessen and Morris 2004).









Contractors and Cost: Bidding Climate

Contractors, as bidders, can have a substantial impact on the cost of sustainable

projects. The researchers in the Davis Langdon study refer to the bidding climate as

"perhaps the most significant single factor in the cost of sustainable design."

Specifically, how do builders respond to the green requirements in a contract? Are they

even willing to bid? Measurable direct costs of sustainable building for a contractor can

include the cost of material credits documentation, implementing construction indoor air

quality credits, and schedule impacts of building flush-out (Matthiessen and Morris

2004).

However, sustainable requirements perceived as risky by the builder can have a

much more substantial impact on bids than direct costs. Some construction contracts

specifically mandate that the contractor ensure the project achieves LEED-thereby

making the contractor obligated to and responsible for achieving the certification. This

can introduce a 'green premium' into the bid if the builder is unfamiliar with green

building. "Firstly bidders are inclined to add contingencies or risk premiums to cover the

perceived risk; secondly, the bid pool diminishes, leading to poorer competition and

higher bid prices." The green premium will exist until contractors become more familiar

with sustainable building and competition increases (Matthiessen and Morris 2004).

To lessen the green premium, the researchers suggest designers write reasonable

specifications and contracts and treat the contractor as a collaborator-"possibly even

including training and bonuses for compliance, rather than transferring risks and applying

penalties for failure." An example: a contract that stipulates that the contractor shall

"deliver a finished work product that assists the owner in achieving a LEED green









building rating." In this case, the builder may be less inclined to seek compensation for

perceived risks (Matthiessen and Morris 2004).

The amount of work available in a particular area must also be considered. If there

is sufficient work available, contractors are less likely to bid and less motivated to bid

low on work they consider unfamiliar and therefore more difficult (Matthiessen and

Morris 2004).

Cost Recovery

If there is an increase in construction costs to go green versus conventional

building, those costs are usually recovered quickly. According to the USGBC, the

average 2 percent increase in construction costs required to reach LEED Gold typically

pays for itself via lower operating costs within two years. The increase in productivity of

occupants in green buildings also helps recover costs. Absenteeism fell 15 percent after

engineering firm Lockheed Martin moved 2,500 employees into a green building in

Sunnyvale, California; the productivity increase paid for the building's higher upfront

costs within a year. Stores with skylights have seen sales increase as much as 15 percent.

And from a building lifetime perspective, green buildings are not as apt to lead to 'sick

building' lawsuits for the owners (Economist 2004).

The first concern of almost any owner considering green building is what the

project will cost. Hence, the most common approach to choosing LEED points is on a

first-cost basis by which the least expensive points are pursued to achieve the desired

certification level. "Traditionally, construction dollars (first costs) are budgeted and

spent with little regard for future operating expenses. In fact, they should be linked.

When life-cycle costs are taken into account, it becomes apparent that lower operating

costs can recoup higher first costs in a reasonable time frame, often in one or two years.









When considered as an investment rather than an expense, an increased first cost with a

five-year payback period is a 20 percent ROI" (Deane 2004).

A greater return on the expenses of new construction plays a major role in that

economics is now driving the market toward sustainable design. Also contributing: green

materials and techniques have begun to fall in price (Economist 2004). As the market

continues to shift, the financial benefits associated with building sustainably should

increase. Home Depot and other building suppliers already supply some green-certified

building materials. "When builders use environmentally harmful materials and practices,

somebody eventually has to pick up the tab. As the tab gets larger, society will press for

greater use of green building practices" (ECONorthwest 2001).

A Contractor's Role in Green Building

Researchers at Pennsylvania State University and the Partnership for Achieving

Construction Excellence conducted a study on the role of construction organizations in

the successful delivery of sustainable buildings. Their objectives were to identify the

value of a contractor on such projects and to develop proactive techniques for

constructors to position themselves as valued contributors. The study was based on case

studies of more than 20 green building projects in the United States and interviews with

more than 40 construction professionals (Riley et al. 2003).

"Successful sustainable building design and construction processes are
characterized as collaborative and interdisciplinary. In many cases, however,
procurement of construction services is not perceived as one of the necessary steps
in the design and delivery of a sustainable building project. Contractors are often
viewed merely as brokers of construction services, who simply follow drawings
and specifications and are able to contribute to sustainable building projects only
through job-site recycling plans. The most significant ways in which construction
firms can contribute include the most obvious, such as estimating and jobsite
recycling. Nevertheless, case studies show clearly that construction firms, given
the opportunity, have the potential to make useful contributions to all phases of
green building projects including the areas of material selection, indoor air quality









management, and the vast need to educate specialty contractors about green
building methodologies and processes." (Riley et al. 2003)

Though the researchers expect perceptions of the role of contractors in green

project delivery to broaden as the industry gains experience, they highlight four key areas

of contribution for constructors involved in green building: estimating, green building

materials, waste minimization and recycling, and indoor air quality management.

Estimating: Sustainable project features should be selected based on the owner's

budget and priorities as well as up-to-date cost information. Preconstruction estimates

calculated by the contractor are vital in providing the accurate cost information needed to

make design decisions.

Green building materials: Designers are not the only ones that can impact green

building material selection; a variety of products used by general and specialty

contractors should be selected using the same environmental standards applied to finish

materials. Such items include caulk, joint sealants, drywall compounds, fireproofing

materials, adhesives, duct cement and insulation. Contractors' knowledge can aid in this

effort-and beyond. For instance, Sellen Construction of Seattle was among the first to

suggest that money saved by diverting construction waste from landfills should be

incorporated in the project budget to offset any higher costs of using recycled content

materials. This enables owners to choose recycled materials at no net cost increase, and

drives the market for such materials.

Waste minimization and recycling: Of the contractors experienced injobsite

recycling, many have incorporated into company policy based on their success.

"Through experience and alliances with waste haulers, many construction firms have

become quite adept at recycling and the related jobsite psychology and infrastructure









needed to fully implement a waste minimization and jobsite recycling plan. Often these

company-based policies result in diversion rates of up to 80 percent, far in excess of a

mandated recycling program" (Riley et al. 2003).

Indoor air quality management: Construction activities have a direct impact on

indoor air quality, which has a direct impact on the health of a building. To protect

indoor air quality, contractors protect HVAC systems from pollutants, incorporate

building purges into their construction schedules, and sequence work to minimize

material exposure to potential contamination. Making sure certain materials stay dry, for

example, can help prevent mold growth (Riley et al. 2003).

More on Materials

How much of an impact do building materials have on the environment? Well,

buildings consist of 90 percent of all extracted materials (Kibert et al. 2002). "Most

building materials today are synthetic and are derived either from the petrochemicals

industry or are harvested from natural sources that cannot be replaced. Even small

reductions in the vast consumption of resources would significantly reduce our negative

impact on the planet" (Woolley 2000).

Many paints and finishes contain volatile organic compounds that can be harmful

to construction workers and building occupants. And if a material pollutes the inside of a

building, it is likely to pollute the environment (Woolley 2000). With LEED and other

green labels beginning to enter the mainstream, choosing environmentally responsible

construction products is becoming more viable. The source and manufacture of a

material must be considered to evaluate its sustainability, as there are distinct differences

in the nature of materials and extraction and manufacturing technologies. Health and

safety concerns for workers involved in the product's manufacture or installation should









also be evaluated (Edwards and Bennett 2003). "Many architects specify tropical

hardwoods with little concern about where they come from, or how the forests in Third

World countries are being managed. To change such a policy requires a principled

decision by client, builder and specifier and a certain amount of openness from the

supplier" (Woolley 2000).

An environmentally responsible building features products that are appropriate for

the specific design and site. Still, project teams must be careful to not view the use of

green materials as a single solution to sustainability. "After all, timber accredited by the

Forest Stewardship Council produces just as much methane in landfills as uncertified

timber. The key to greener material use is to use the material in a way that changes the

"one-way trip" mentality" (Edwards and Bennett 2003).

Life-cycle assessment (LCA) of a product considers how the product is produced,

how it is used, and what occurs when its 'first life' is over-can it be designed for

deconstruction? Using the manufacture and use of a brick wall as an example, LCA

would factor the environmental impacts associated with:

* Extraction and transport of clay to the brickworks;
* Manufacture and transport of ancillary materials;
* Extraction and distribution of natural gas for the brick kiln;
* Mining and transport of fuels to generate electricity for use in the factory;
* Production and transport of raw materials for packaging;
* Manufacture and transport of packaging for bricks;
* Manufacture of brick in the brickworks;
* Transport of bricks to the building site;
* Extraction of sand and production of cement for the mortar;
* Building of the brick wall;
* Maintenance of the wall, such as painting or repointing;
* Demolition of the wall;
* The fate of the products after demolition
(Edwards and Bennett 2003)









Life-Cycle Costs Applied to Whole Buildings

"Green building is an economic responsibility to...investors, and a social one to

society. It is rooted in the definition of value, quality, and performance over the life of

the asset" (Gottfried 2003). Design and construction quality has great potential to reduce

life-cycle costs, including costs-in-use and eventual disposal of a structure. The

International Organization for Standardization defines life-cycle costing (LCC) as "the

total cost of a building or its parts throughout its life, including the costs of planning,

design, acquisition, operations, maintenance and disposal, less any residual value." LCC

can be used to determine whether higher initial costs are justified by lower future costs,

seeking to optimize life performance of a building. By optimizing performance, future

costs and risks are reduced. LCC of a building considers the following: functional design

in regard to building purpose; complete design of the structure; detailed design of each

assembly and component; the construction process; lifetime maintenance; ultimate

disposal; and project costs, including construction and life-cycle costs (Clift 2003).

LEED and the Green CM

Of the 69 possible LEED credits, more than a dozen prerequisites and credits

depend directly or indirectly on the construction manager. Those dependent on the

builder include: prerequisites Erosion and Sediment Control and Basic Commissioning;

Additional Commissioning (1 credit); Indoor Air Quality During Construction and Pre-

occupancy (2 credits); Low-emitting Materials (4 credits); Recycled Content, Local and

Regional Sources, Rapidly Renewable Materials, and FSC-certified Wood (6 credits).

The construction organization also can provide the project with a LEED Accredited

Professional for 1 point, and be responsible for or help contribute to one or more of the

four possible innovation credits (Deane 2004). The city of Portland, Oregon, for









example, has proposed a new innovation point for green building projects that use clean-

emission, low-sulfur diesel-powered construction equipment (Cassidy 2004).

A construction manager (CM) experienced in sustainable building-a 'green

CM'-can make designing and building a LEED project much easier and less expensive.

For instance, a green CM has the ability to evaluate all costs for various construction

options-first costs, life cycle costs, and O&M costs-in order to help the owner

comprehend the real costs and benefits of sustainability to prioritize LEED points based

on value over time (Deane 2004). The CM can assist the design team with pricing

methods that acknowledge the interlinked benefits of systems, or help the project team

seek cost savings in a project's less crucial areas to facilitate the higher initial cost of

energy-efficient building systems and green materials (Riley et al. 2003). A CM

knowing the current market costs and availability of green materials also assists the

project team in making cost-effective choices (Deane 2004).

A green CM can contribute in the following ways at the various stages of LEED

project construction:

Pre-construction: Involving the CM in the design process ensures accurate cost

estimates and allows the CM to advise the project team on the constructability of various

options. The CM can identify products with recycled content and materials harvested or

manufactured regionally. The CM can also evaluate MEP specifications for energy and

water usage and their potential impact on indoor environmental quality (Deane 2004).

Procurement: The CM should meet with all bidders to ensure they fully

understand their trade's green requirements and the sustainability goals of the project

overall. Scopes of work can be developed that specifically call out LEED requirements









as applicable to each trade, such as documentation and submittal requirements. A green

CM can assist subcontractors with procurement and documentation requirements, helping

keep their costs down and passing savings on to the owner. Subcontractors

understanding their role and responsibilities can result in accurate, competitive bids and

aid in project execution later. A green CM may also be able to provide a list of

subcontractors that likewise offer experience in green building. "The CM will negotiate

the best price, making sure it is not inflated with any 'fear factor' mark-up and will stop

bidders from artificially inflating the cost of allegedly 'hard to find' green materials"

(Deane 2004).

Construction: Since LEED documentation is submitted to the USGBC for review

after construction is complete, the project team must keep in mind during design and

construction the critical need for accurate, complete documentation. The CM must

closely monitor submittals for compliance with LEED requirements to ensure that no

LEED points are lost due to carelessness. The CM should meet with the selected

subcontractors at regular intervals during the project-typically weekly-and until all

documentation is submitted to guarantee full compliance. The CM must diligently track

and report construction waste; by material category, percent recycled by material type,

and final destination of all waste. And O&M manuals must be submitted to assist in the

commissioning process. Construction activities need to be monitored to ensure

compliance with site management protocol, construction waste management, erosion and

sediment control, indoor air quality, and commissioning requirements (Deane 2004).

The USGBC reports that LEED Silver and Gold submissions are many times easier

to approve than those striving for Certified, perhaps because the project team is more









experienced in green building processes and has a better understanding of credit and

documentation requirements. "Less experienced teams aim lower because they have less

confidence in their knowledge and have a harder time with compliance and

documentation" (Deane 2004).

The CM may be responsible for directly managing the LEED submission process.

To help manage documentation, Bovis Lend Lease has developed spreadsheets that track

points and their status. Items are closed when all required documentation is complete,

and the matrix is included in the contractor's monthly reports to its project owners

(Deane 2004).














CHAPTER 4
RESULTS

It's the right thing to do.

The majority of builders are unaware of, and therefore take no responsibility for,

the impact of buildings and construction activities on people and the environment.

Applying ethics to the built environment calls for those involved in construction to take

responsibility for their actions. As green building enters more markets, contractors face

increasing responsibility to learn the environmental impacts of the materials they use

(Riley et al. 2003). In general, humans threaten the planet's ecosystem by their

behaviors. With respect to the built environment, buildings and the methods used to

construct them threaten the health of both people and the environment (Kibert and

Moretti 2004). When contractors decide to adopt ethical business practices, they take

corporate responsibility-environmental and social-for their actions.

Ethics considers "the dynamics of people in their relationships with one another." It

addresses these relationships by providing rules of conduct generally agreed to govern

good behavior. "Sustainable development requires a more extensive set of ethical

principles to guide behavior because it questions relationships between generations."

Sustainable development is defined as meeting present needs without compromising the

ability of future generations to meet their respective needs. The responsibility of one

generation to future generations, as well as the rights of those future generations, are

fundamental concepts of sustainable development. "The alteration or destruction of non-

human living and non-living systems affects the quality of life for future generations by









reducing their choices. The choices of a given population in time will directly affect the

quantity and quality of resources remaining for future inhabitants of Earth, impact the

environmental quality they will experience, and alter their experience of the physical

world" (Kibert and Moretti 2004). Builders play a very real role in these choices made,

especially in terms of resource use.

Several principles and facets of ethical theory may be applied to the built

environment. Distributional equity (or distributive justice) refers to the rights of all

people to an equal share of resources such as materials, land, energy, water, and

environmental quality. To ensure such equity in the future, responsibility is taken to

ensure economic systems are moral and just, and meet obligations to future populations.

Simarly, resource-based principles specify that all people should have access to the same

level of resources. Per the precautionary principle, caution should be exercised when one

makes a decision that may adversely affect human health or the environment-even if the

cause and effect relationships are not fully recognized or understood. For example, the

potentially catastrophic outcome of global warming should motivate people to cautiously

limit carbon greenhouse gas emissions. (Critics assert that the precautionary principle is

a threat to progress.) Like the precautionary principle, the reversibility principle is to be

considered prior to the adoption of a new technology. To respect the reversibility

principle, a decision is made based on whether the action can be undone by future

generations (Kibert and Moretti 2004).

As opposed to considering the overall impact of buildings, the potential health

hazards of various construction products and building materials in particular has ethical

implications. Laura Zeiher lists nearly 800 toxic substances common in building









materials in her book The Ecology of Architecture. Many health effects of building

materials are linked to asthma. "While little research has been carried out on the links

between indoor air quality and asthma, many of the toxic materials used in building cause

occupational asthma in the factories where they are produced." Many carcinogenic

materials, chemical pesticides, and toxic timber treatment chemicals are widely used in

buildings (Woolley 2000).

In the United States, gypsum waste accounts for 1 percent of the total waste stream.

As a percentage of total construction and demolition waste, it accounts for 15 percent.

As a general rule, 1 pound of gypsum board waste is generated for every square foot of

floor area. In 1984, the Greater Vancouver Regional District in British Columbia,

Canada, stopped accepting construction and demolition waste at its municipal landfills

after studies discovered that gypsum-board waste buried in landfills in high-rainfall areas,

including British Columbia, was producing noxious hydrogen sulfide gas. Dangerous to

humans at levels of greater than 1,000 parts per million, with a distinct odor similar to

that of rotten eggs, one landfill was found to have gas levels in excess of 5,000 PPM.

Hydrogen sulfide gas is produced when buried gypsum (calcium sulfate) waste combines

with anaerobic bacteria and organic matter, and, with high moisture levels present, sulfate

ions are released. The study found that the gas levels peaked between six and 15 years

after burial. And gypsum-board waste was not the only danger at the landfills; other

construction debris, such as metal, was emitting toxic leachates (Walls & Ceilings 2003).

Aside from construction materials disposed of in landfills, the materials that

comprise a building itself can affect the health of future occupants. Sick building

syndrome is the most well-known potential health risk associated with buildings. Though









sick building syndrome has its critics, it has been attributed to tighter buildings and poor

indoor air quality. Causes of poor indoor quality can include the following: off-gassing

of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from modem finish materials such as paints,

adhesives, carpet, and vinyl; poorly vented combustion appliances; use of equipment and

chemicals such as copiers and cleaning products; tobacco smoke; soil gases such as

radon, pesticides, and industrial site contaminants; molds and microbial organisms; and

intake of outdoor air contaminated with pollen, pollution, or building exhaust. Those

with compromised immune systems-children, elderly people, and people with allergies

and asthma-are at high risk for sick building health hazards. Typical symptoms include

headache, fatigue, congestion, coughing, sneezing, dizziness, and nausea (Karolides

2002).

Green building guidelines are becoming legal mandates.

In a growing number of areas across the United States, green building is already

mandated, leaving contractors no choice but to incorporate sustainable practices into their

construction activities. Voluntary guidelines are becoming legal requirements, and it

behooves contractors to adapt now.

The U.S. General Services Administration, which oversees the construction of all

non-military government facilities, requires that all new project and renovations must

reach LEED status. The GSA is one of the largest real estate owners and managers in the

United States; it owns or leases 350 million square feet in which almost one million

federal employees work. The GSA budgets 2.5 percent of the total cost for each

construction project to cover extra expenses involved in achieving green goals, which it

has found is more than offset by fuel efficiencies and other cost savings in a reasonable

amount of time (Fortune 2004).









Ten cities require LEED certification for their public buildings, including Chicago;

Portland, Oregon; Seattle; New York City; San Francisco; Boston; and Austin, Texas.

San Francisco's ordinance went into effect in 2004 and applies to all city-owned projects,

including renovations and additions. The city's long-term goal is to extend the ordinance

to cover private projects as well (Post 2004). As in San Francisco, the city of Boston

requires public projects to achieve at least a Silver LEED rating. In Arlington County,

Virginia, LEED certification is not mandated for private projects, but the county requires

all projects to complete a LEED scorecard in an effort to educate the building community

and keep track of progress. As designed, most private projects are eligible for 21 LEED

points; five more would qualify the project for certification (Cassidy 2004).

Regulations in the residential arena should also be noted. Boulder, Colorado, and

Frisco, Texas, are among several cities that have code-mandated residential green

standards; builders are required to show how their houses will earn certification before

the city will grant them building permits (Cassidy 2004).

Colleges and universities are also taking a proactive role in attempting to make

sustainable building the norm. For example, Rinker Hall at the University of Florida

achieved LEED gold; thanks to the project's success, all new buildings on the campus are

expected to meet or exceed LEED silver. The University of California Board of Regents

has adopted a university-wide policy for green building as well (Amatruda 2004).

For the most part, the above cities, schools, and agencies have issued ordinances or

guidelines to ensure sustainability in new construction. Some governments and agencies

are specifically incorporating their green standards into their respective building codes.

Such codes legally bind contractors to adhere to minimum acceptable standards intended









to protect public health, safety, and welfare (EPA 2002). The implication of green codes

from the contractor's perspective is obvious. Again, in such cases, building sustainably is

not an option but the required way of conducting business.

The city of Chicago is realigning its building code to accommodate sustainable

design, and is considering creating a green building code (Cassidy 2004). In Portland,

Oregon, building codes require the recycling of materials generated onsite for all projects

with costs exceeding $25,000, including construction and demolition. Santa Monica,

California, requires C&D waste management. The code also requires the specifying of

wood from sustainably managed sources and the use of low-emission finishes and

materials. The U.S. Navy's Sustainable Development Requirements for its family

housing include the following: "All Navy Family Housing Construction, Improvement,

Repair and Privatization projects shall incorporate Sustainable Development principles.

Application of these principles will reduce consumption of energy, and other non-

renewable resources; minimize waste of water and materials; prevent pollution and

associated environmental impacts and liabilities, increase energy and resource efficiency,

and improve human health. The result will reduce life-cycle operating costs for Navy

Families" (EPA 2002).

Construction waste in particular has been addressed in various areas across the

United States. Some landfills prohibit C&D waste, which has the potential to limit

contractors' options and increase their disposal costs. "As landfill becomes scarcer,

states and local jurisdictions are going to crack down on contractors to keep C&D waste

out of their dumps. Better for the construction industry to take care of the problem

voluntarily than to wait for the regulatory hammer to strike" (Cassidy 2004).









The EPA has urged every state to address C&D waste disposal; 38 have done so

(Cassidy 2004). Massachusetts is among the latter. Designed to take effect in 2005,

impending regulations in Massachusetts will ban asphalt, brick, concrete, wood, and

metal from landfills, and enforce an existing ban on corrugated cardboard. This is the

first such statewide ban. Other materials are to be added to the ban later; the

Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection wants to divert 88 percent of all

non-municipal solid waste from landfills by the year 2010. One million tons of waste

goes from Massachusetts construction sites to landfills, accounting for approximately 25

percent of all Massachusetts landfill deposits and 95 percent of all non-municipal solid

wastes (Fournier 2004).

The state of California also has taken a proactive approach to recycling, going so

far as to mandate that every city or county recycle at least 50 percent of its waste. Under

a program begun in 2001, the city of San Jose, California, requires contractors to pay a

recycling deposit before they can be granted a building permit for most commercial and

residential projects. Commercial demolition projects, where the steel and concrete can be

easily recycled, are usually charged a lower deposit than a residential remodeling project,

since roofing, carpet, appliances, and other materials are not as easily recycled. The

deposits range from 10 cents to $1.16 a square foot, depending on the project type.

Contractors must prove they have diverted at least half of the construction and demolition

debris from their projects from landfills to get their deposits back. San Jose officials have

certified a dozen disposal facilities that have agreed to recycle at least 50 percent of the

construction material they receive. The program is exceeding its goal: San Jose diverted









about 62 percent of its waste through recycling and reuse of materials in 2002 (Muto

2004).

Sustainability enhances profitability.

Perhaps the most powerful example of sustainable practices increasing contractor

profits is that waste management plans can and are saving contractors money. Depending

on a contractor's experience level and the local recycling infrastructure, diverting waste

from landfills can offer significant cost savings. At Toronto's Pearson International

Airport, recycling was to save the Terminal 1 replacement project an estimated $664,000.

All concrete, asphalt, and metal products from the demolition of the 40-year-old,

156,077-sq-m terminal were recycled. The materials were being used as backfill for a

900-feet terminal pier and as subbase for a new apron, saving substantial trucking costs

(ENR 11/15/04). Consigli Construction Co. achieved an overall C&D diversion rate of

97 percent at a $6.9 million, 100,000-SF office/warehouse project in Massachusetts.

Source separation and recycling resulted in cost savings of nearly $260,000 (Cassidy

2004). In New Jersey, the average cost to recycle concrete rubble is $4.85 per ton vs. an

average of $75 per ton to haul and dispose of the material in a landfill. Similar cost

savings came from recycling asphalt ($5.70 per ton) and bricks and blocks ($5.49). Even

recycling wood at $45.63 per ton is economical compared to the $75 average

transportation and disposal cost, according to the state's Department of Environmental

Protection. Several of the concrete and asphalt recyclers included in the study did not

charge to dump clean, separated material at their sites, which is common practice in

competitive recycling markets (C&D Recycling 2004). Numerous similar examples exist.

In a testament to the increased use of sustainable jobsite waste management, the

Associated General Contractors released its Environmental Management System program









in 2004. The program, developed with the U.S. EPA, is designed to aid contractors in

establishing waste management plans that include C&D recycling; the 148-page manual

provides guidelines and templates (Cassidy 2004).

Many design and construction organizations new to green building are faced with

the need to rethink almost every aspect of their operations. What they discover in doing

so is that sustainable practices "create incentives to adopt logical and much needed

improvements to the traditional sequential design and construction process. In an

industry that has clung to traditions of dysfunctional business practices and adversarial

team relationships, many are beginning to realize that sustainable building projects might

be more appropriately referred to as sensible building projects." Sustainability

incorporates lean principles proven by manufacturers to reduce waste and inefficiencies.

Green and lean are closely aligned in maximizing total process efficiency and waste

reduction (Riley et al. 2003). When attention is paid to wastes and inefficiency, future

profitability is enhanced. Integrating sustainability can lead to better management

processes and increased productivity. It's smart growth: "Smart growth is a key phrase

frequently used to signify the types of development to be pursued in the future; it

indicates an approach which permits economic advancement, but in a more sustainable

way" (Pitts 2004).

In essence, synergies exist between sustainability and constructability. During the

renovation of the Pentagon, for example, the design-build project team not only

contributed to the sustainable design efforts, it observed significant savings in labor

productivity through waste minimization and simplified construction methods (Riley et

al. 2003). Overall, the process of rating buildings has revealed the inefficiency of









traditional buildings and construction methods. Traditional buildings can sometimes

waste up to 30 cents on the dollar, thanks to energy and materials use, water waste, and

inefficient subsystem choices (Economist 2004). Sustainable practices can equate to

resource and labor efficiency. And reduced inefficiencies can equate to increased profit

for a builder.

Builders can capitalize on a structure's operating savings. Sustainable buildings

offer lower future utility bills and other operating costs. Owners, therefore, can apply the

lifetime savings of the building to construction costs (ECONorthwest 2001). The

reduction in operating costs will pay for modest green upgrades in a relatively short

period of time (Pitts 2004). Owners that recognize these savings are willing to pay for

green upgrades, and larger contracts equate to greater profit potential. Market surveys

have found that if the expected utility savings are well documented, buyers will pay a

premium the benefits and amenities associated with high-performance buildings

(ECONorthwest 2001). (According to one survey of homebuyers, 55 percent were

willing to pay an additional $5,000 to $10,000 for green features.) (Macaluso 2002)

Green buildings are often more marketable in general. The market is demanding better

quality buildings, and future owners and tenants are prepared to pay a premium (Pitts

2004). "Many potential buyers or tenants will pay more for the cachet of being in a

building that can readily be identified as complying with the principles of green

construction" (ECONorthwest 2001).

Contractors who build green increase their market share.

Instead of waiting until forced to do so-by the market or government

regulations-contractors that adopt sustainable construction methods today can create a

competitive advantage. Already, owners seeking construction services on green projects









are differentiating between prospective builders based on their environmental policies

(Riley et al. 2003) and experience in green building. "Good business is a lot more than

building a good product at a reasonable price. You have to be different and better than

the competition in order to get buyers' attention.... Green builders are the change leaders

in the building industry. By keeping one eye to the future and the other on the bottom

line, you can learn how to do better business while creating a new market niche for your

company" (Johnston 2000).

Green building is not simply a fad; as owners continue to realize its benefits,

demand continues to increase. According to the USGBC, about 5 percent of all new

construction project starts in the United States have registered for LEED certification.

Considering the rating system was introduced only five years ago, the green building

industry has experienced tremendous growth. It is predicted that cumulative LEED

registration totals will approach 5,000 by the end of 2007. If more than 1,200 project

register for LEED certification in 2007, as per forecasted demand, that would represent

about 20 percent of the commercial and institutional building market (Yudelson 2004).

"The delivery of better performing buildings is an economic and environmental

necessity and an ever-increasing expectation. Within the decade any new building that is

not delivered green will likely be viewed as 'under-performing'" (University of Buffalo

2004). Numerous economic incentives, such as rebates and tax credits, already are

available to developers and owners. High-performance buildings maximize future value

while minimizing future risk, and this translates into demand. The improved design

quality of high-performance buildings is appreciated in a competitive market (Pitts 2004).









Conversely, contractors who assume that green buildings cost more may avoid

pursuing such work. And, if they do bid on a sustainable project, faced with unfamiliar

materials or construction methods, they tend to add a premium to their bid to cover the

learning curve and anticipated extra costs associated with additional time and planning

(Woolley 2000). But on a hard bid, this 'green premium' resulting from fear of the

unknown can mean the difference between being award the job or not. This potential loss

in market share creates a strong argument for builders to at least research current

sustainable construction practices so that if they are approached to bid or pursue green

work, they need not add a green premium.

Some of the largest contractors in the nation are leading the way. These

organizations believe that to continue to lead their industry, they must incorporate

principles of sustainable construction because it is in the best interest of their clients and

the environment. In the last decade, Turner Construction Co., the country's largest

commercial builder, has completed more than 85 green projects valued at $7.6 billion. In

2004, Turner implemented jobsite recycling on all its projects, not just those seeking

LEED certification. Initially, Turner will implement C&D recycling at a 50 percent

level; the end goal is to recycle 100 percent of C&D waste on all new projects (Cassidy

2004).

Turner "played an unexpectedly valuable role" as the contractor for Toyota Motor

Corporation's new U.S. Financial and Customer Service Headquarters in Torrance,

California. The 624,000-square-foot facility was awarded LEED Gold; Turner

contributed by recycling 98 percent of construction waste and provided detailed

management of indoor air quality issues during construction. Turner's efforts to manage









indoor air quality during construction saved significant time and money in the

commissioning process (Riley et al. 2003).

Skanska, one of the world's largest construction companies, has incorporated

sustainability in its business practices for three primary reasons: to strengthen the

Skanska brand, for risk management, and to benefit its current and future employees.

"Many of our most important clients are actively engaged in addressing sustainability

issues, and they expect nothing less from their contractor." Skanska is listed on the Dow

Jones Sustainability Index for responsible investing, and in 2004 ranked third in the

world on Fortune's list of Most Admired Companies for engineering and construction

(Wenblad 2003). Skanska was the first contractor in the United States to receive ISO

14001 certification-an international standard that recognizes organizations who have a

comprehensive environmental management system in place (Nelson 2003).

The Environment section of Skanska's Code of Conduct reads as follows:

"Caring about the environment permeates all of our work. Compliance with

relevant legal and other environmental requirements, especially from our clients, provides

the foundation for our environmental ambition. We are committed to preventing and

continually minimizing adverse environmental impact and to conserving resources.

* We think ahead to determine how our work will affect the environment and base
our decisions on available relevant facts.
* We avoid materials and methods with environmental risks when there are suitable
alternatives available. We strive to recommend that clients use environmentally
better alternatives whenever the circumstances permit.
* We do not engage in activities that have unacceptable environmental and social
risks.
* We aim to identify such risks as early as possible to facilitate timely and adequate
actions and decisions."
(Skanska 2005)









Skanska advocates that with current technology, energy efficiency can be improved

by at least 30 percent. To reduce use of the most hazardous substances used in

construction, some groups within Skanska have developed 'black' and 'grey' lists of

substances to avoid and/or phase out (Wenblad 2003).

DPR Construction, based in Redwood City, California, is another major U.S.

contractor who embraces green construction. DPR's office building in Sacramento,

California, is a LEED Silver building. DPR boasts more LEED Accredited Professionals

than any other general contractor in the nation to help customers determine the best

strategies for effectively designing and constructing sustainable facilities. The company

offers the following green services: Owner/Architect Training, Project Visioning and

Goal Establishment, Charrette Facilitation, Preconstruction Analysis and Peer Reviews,

Environmental Value Analysis, Life Cycle Cost Analysis, MEP Analysis and

Commissioning, and LEED Project Management. To assist owners in LEED

management, design, and construction, the company developed its LEED Preconstruction

Analysis Tool. DPR uses this tool to chart costs and perform cash flow analyses of

potential savings and returns on investment over a building's lifetime. The company

used the program to determine that the payback of the additional first costs of 1.4 percent

for its Sacramento office would be achieved in two and a half years with water and

energy savings (DPR 2005).

In a 2004 speech, Thomas Leppert, chairman and CEO of Turner, aptly described

the competitive advantage that he forecasts his company will benefit from when green

building becomes the norm. "When that day comes, when it's not a choice, we can tell









clients, "No problem. We've been doing this for years. We'll show you how." (Leppert

2004)

Green buildings often cost the same or less than conventional buildings.

Concerns about green buildings costing more should not discourage construction

organizations from considering adoption of sustainable practices. It is shortsighted and

simply not true that first costs associated with building high-performance structures must

increase. "Capital costs of sustainable design can be similar or even lower than

conventional figures through good design to meet specification; additional design and

specialist construction costs can be offset by reduced needs for building services systems

and reduced wastage" (Pitts 2004). Three recent studies in particular have compared

costs of conventional versus high-performance buildings:

* A study of 33 green buildings conducted for the state of California by Greg Kats of
Capital E found a range of zero to 2 percent incremental first cost, significant ROI
attributed to lower operating costs, and no real correlation between cost and level of
sustainability (Kats 2003).
* A LEED cost study for the General Services Administration that used GSA
courthouse and office building design standards identified the following: no
correlation exists between point value of LEED credits and their costs; a range of
strategies often can be applied to achieve a specific individual LEED credit; the
cost of several credits varies significantly according to building type and program;
and finally, some credit costs vary based on regional or project-specific issues
(Amatruda 2004).
* Conclusions drawn from the Davis Langdon study (see Chapter 3) are similar to the
GSA study findings. The Davis Langdon study compared construction costs of
green buildings to comparable, non-LEED-seeking projects and found that projects
can achieve LEED certification within the same cost range as non-LEED projects.
The data indicates that many factors-such as building program type-affect
building cost, and of those, LEED tends to have a lesser impact on total costs
(Matthiessen and Morris 2004).

Builders can help develop the economies of scale for green building materials.

As sustainable building continues to become mainstream, the premium for buying green

materials and products is lessening or has diminished. "Whether because of supplier









competition for this new and growing market or because of contractor competition to get

the job (and probably a combination of both), many products such as low-VOC paint,

non-ureaformaldehyde particleboard, recycled carpet, and 100 percent recycled

sheetrock, have all become virtually cost-neutral and widely available" (Deane 2004).

Home Depot, for example, sells sustainably harvested lumber. As the demand and use of

sustainable materials increases, prices will decrease (Woolley 2000). It is in the best

interest of builders to help hasten this process by using environmentally responsible

materials and developing relationships with distributors of such materials.

Building sustainably goes hand-in-hand with design-build.

As more construction firms begin to favor the design-build approach, they may

want to heed that the integrative collaboration that marks successful sustainable project

delivery lends itself to this approach. "The very concept of designing, building, and

operating a green building pushes the designer, constructor, and owner to work in a

collaborative way, often encouraging all three to 'think outside the box.'" The process

exposes all three actors to new technology and alternate methods, allowing them to

acquire valuable knowledge and experience in sustainable building they can apply in later

projects (Macaluso 2002). With design-build, contractors are involved in project design.

As such, they can position themselves as value-added contributors by bringing their green

building experience to the table. "As more construction organizations gain design-build

experience on green building projects, they will be better equipped to align themselves

and develop preconstruction services that will enhance the green design process" (Riley

et al. 2003).

Government agencies and state and local governments represent the leading owners

seeking high-performance buildings. Concurrently, many of these owners are also









moving toward the use of design-build (Riley et al. 2003). A design-build contract was

used for the LEED Silver EPA National Computer Center in North Carolina, and its use

fostered cooperation, communication, and creativity among the project team. "This

approach encouraged the team to constantly strive for and implement additional

environmental enhancements to the facility in a cost-effective manner." That is a primary

benefit of design-build-architects and contractors help, not work against, each other and

work together to develop creative, less costly solutions (Nelson 2003). It is design-build

teams that offer the broadest point of view in terms of defining the role of contractors in

sustainable building (Riley et al. 2003).

Green building government incentives can aid successful project delivery.

Building sustainably can shorten the development time line, saving contractors as

well as developers and owners money (ECONorthwest 2001). In Portland, Oregon, a

streamlined permit review progress applies to sustainable projects. The city of Chicago is

considering expedited reviews as well (Cassidy 2004). In general, builders are more

likely to gain community and government support for a green project, in turn helping

them avoid legal delays and permitting problems (ECONorthwest 2001). Builders may

enjoy "green tape" as opposed to the traditional "red tape" of permitting bureaucracy

(Elefante 2005).

Incentives are more established in the local green home programs. Builders

participating in residential green building programs may enjoy improved relations with

local government officials, who control zoning, construction permitting, and building

codes. Builders in nearly 100 jurisdictions benefit from the following incentives: lower

permit fees, faster plan checks, priority field inspections, and complimentary advertising.

And some programs offer training in cost-effective green construction methods and green









home marketing strategies (Cassidy 2004). It is likely that the success of these residential

incentives will soon cross over to the commercial building sector.

Constructing green buildings can improve a company's image.

Contractors who practice sustainable methods of construction are viewed more

positively by the public. In a 2004 Associated General Contractors survey, 72 percent of

contractors felt that C&D recycling improved their company's public image (Cassidy

2004). Sustainability, therefore, is a marketable asset companies can promote, especially

at a time when more organizations are basing financial decisions upon ethical principles.

"Companies, organizations, and individuals that are prepared to invest to create a strong

perception of design quality and interest in sustainability and the future are likely to be

more positively viewed by the public and other organizations when choices are made

about spending, investment and other activities" (Pitts 2004).

Sustainable practices improve a builder's image in the community because builders

are often seen as the major culprits behind unwanted growth and development, such as

urban sprawl. People are attracted to a company with integrity and a higher purpose, and

green builders can capitalize upon this preference. The community will recognize the

organization "as the builder who cares" (Johnston 2000).

Forward-looking companies attract quality employees.

A company's culture and values usually underline its recruitment goals and efforts.

Companies that embrace the future trends of the construction industry-namely the green

building movement-are likely to attract employees that do so as well. Such employees

may be more open-minded and receptive to change, making them an asset to a forward-

looking organization and perpetuating green building growth. Turner Construction helps

sponsor the USGBC's Emerging Builders Program to "help improve the sustainable









building curriculum at colleges and recognize students who will promote future green

building growth" (Cassidy 2004). As more universities incorporate sustainable

construction into their curriculum and campus structures, more future builders become

convinced of its positive qualities-and that becomes a factor in determining at which

company they want to work. Skanska strives to be an environmentally responsible

company, and keep and recruit the best employees. It recognizes that a company's values

must appeal to its employees. "Employees want to work for a company they are proud

of, and with whose values they can identify" (Wenblad 2003). When a company

commits to building sustainably, employees feel their jobs and their company contribute

to a greater purpose-not solely the bottom line-resulting in a more loyal, productive

workforce. In turn, prospective employees are attracted to the company's reputation as a

great place to work (Johnston 2000).

The future success of companies within the construction industry may reveal itself

to be partially dependent upon a company's willingness to incorporate sustainability into

its practices. Regardless, the success of any company depends upon its ability to attract

the industry's youth. And it is the young people within the building industry that "are

fervent about the adoption of these new principles" (Gillette 2004).

Green practices reduce contractor liability.

Green building addresses indoor air quality (IAQ) during construction. Though

contractors may view keeping gypsum board dry on the jobsite as a hindrance, for

example, they actually are reducing their liability. A number of lawsuits have been filed

against contractors claiming that toxic mold in buildings they constructed causes health

problems for occupants. In January 2003, plaintiffs suing developers, contractors, and

the city of Carson City, Nevada, settled for $14 million in a case regarding mold present









at a housing development (Salkever 2003). In 2001, a $12 million settlement was

reached to conclude a two-year lawsuit resulting from extensive mold growth at a

courthouse in San Martin, California. The lawsuit was between Santa Clara County and

the project team, including the general contractor, architect, the contractor's surety, and

more than a dozen subcontractors and suppliers. Of note, 12 courthouse employees filed

personal injury actions against the contractors, architects, and suppliers (ENR 8/13/2001).

Excessive moisture is usually to blame for mold growth in buildings. Although it

remains unclear to what extent mold causes health problems, it does pose a risk to public

health. Research has linked indoor mold to coughing, wheezing, and upper respiratory

problems in otherwise healthy people and to asthma symptoms in susceptible people

(Solomon 2004). Research also has shown an increased risk of infection associated with

hospital and laboratory construction (Riley et al. 2003). Mold has been called the

asbestos of this generation. U.S. insurers awarded more than $3 billion in mold-related

claims in 2002. As a result of the growing number of claims, numerous companies that

provide comprehensive general liability insurance to contractors have begun excluding

mold coverage from new policies (Solomon 2004).

Builders who apply sustainable construction methods can decrease potential risks

associated with mold. For example, one LEED IAQ credit calls for installing materials in

a sequence that will prevent contamination of absorptive materials such as insulation,

carpeting, ceiling tile, and gypsum wallboard. Another green practice is to correctly size

a building's HVAC system-air-conditioning systems are typically oversized. Not only

does this lead to unnecessary energy usage, it increases the probability of mold growth.

If a unit is oversized, the cooling mode does not come on often enough or stay on long









enough to allow for proper dehumidification-a leading factor in mold formation

(Solomon, 2004). These examples of focusing on IAQ management during design and

construction reduce the risk of contamination and, therefore, contractor risk (Riley et al.

2003).

Green building can lower the health risks construction workers face.

Construction workers frequently are exposed to many hazardous materials and

practices: "Drillers, sandblasters, drywall sanders, and brick masons risk inhaling

particles of dust, sand, and crystalline silica, which can lead to lung cancers, tuberculosis,

and silicosis. Asphalt used in paving and roofing has been linked to throat irritation,

nausea, and chronic lower respiratory infections. Workers doing finishing work can

breathe in toxic fumes from paints, adhesives, floor finishes, and other materials. And

renovation and demolition...can expose workers to lead paint, asbestos, and toxic molds"

(Tibbetts 2002).

As these risks have been researched and publicized, building industry awareness

has grown. Consumers have begun to demand the use of greener, safer materials, and

government agencies specify their purchase. Interest in LEED has increased demand for

green building materials, assisting project teams in selecting environmentally friendly

materials and processes. Up to four LEED credits can be earned by the use of low-

emitting materials. For one credit, adhesives and paints must not exceed designated VOC

limits; for another, composite wood must not contain added urea-formaldehyde resins

(Tibbetts 2002).

Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are used frequently in such building materials

as solvents, binding agents, and cleaning agents. High-VOC paint has traditionally been

the industry standard; VOCs enhance paint color and spreadability. But these organic









chemicals become breathable vapors at room temperature, resulting in emissions during

paint application and curing as well as after the paint dries. To construction workers and

building occupants, these emissions can lead to headaches, respiratory problems, and

allergic reactions. Formaldehyde is a VOC that has for decades been used to help bind

wood chips and sawdust together to make particleboard and plywood. But exposure to

formaldehyde can lead to brain impairment, with symptoms such as delayed reaction

time, clumsiness, short-term memory loss, and elevated anger and confusion. It also has

been linked to a rise in lung and other cancers (Tibbetts 2002).

Fortunately, most manufacturers have significantly reduced the quantity of VOCs

in their paints and other products during the last decade. The use of acrylic- and water-

based paints lower in VOCs continues to become more widespread, and their quality has

greatly improved. Meanwhile, government regulations and nonprofit trade groups have

driven a reduction in formaldehyde levels in building products (Tibbetts 2002). In

general, construction workers are handling fewer toxic materials. Construction

organizations can help drive this trend. By using green building materials, contractors

have the opportunity to both protect their workers' health and help protect the

environment. It is a matter of logic and ethics.














CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The following arguments can be made as to the advantages of contractors adopting

sustainable construction methods.

* It's the right thing to do.

* Green building guidelines are becoming legal mandates.

* Sustainability enhances profitability.

* Contractors who build green increase their market share.

* Green buildings often cost the same or less than conventional buildings.

* Builders can help develop the economies of scale for green building materials.

* Building sustainably goes hand-in-hand with design-build.

* Green building government incentives can aid successful project delivery.

* Constructing green buildings can improve a company's image.

* Forward-looking companies attract quality employees.

* Green practices reduce contractor liability.

* Green building can lower the health risks construction workers face.



Research focused on green building from the contractor's perspective is limited.

As such, the arguments presented in this study offer opportunities for much further

research. For example, contractors could be surveyed as to why many remain hesitant to

embrace green building-is cost indeed the primary factor? There is a need for much

more in-depth financial analysis of the costs associated with sustainable construction









strictly from a contractor's perspective. Furthermore, contractors experienced in green

building are as yet an underutilized resource source. Namely, what is the learning curve

associated with such practices, do costs decrease as experience levels increase, and are

they recognizing the benefits as proposed in this study's arguments? Surveying

contractors whom are currently practicing sustainability has numerous practical

implications. A sustainable construction resource guide specifically for commercial

contractors could be developed, for example. Also, in terms of worker health, the need

exists for further studies on the health effects of the use of conventional building

materials.

Research focused on green building from the contractor's perspective is limited.

As such, the arguments presented in this study offer opportunities for much further

research. For example, contractors could be surveyed as to why many remain hesitant to

embrace green building-is cost indeed the primary factor? There is a need for much

more in-depth financial analysis of the costs associated with sustainable construction

strictly from a contractor's perspective. Furthermore, contractors experienced in green

building are as yet an underutilized resource source. Namely, what is the learning curve

associated with such practices, do costs decrease as experience levels increase, and are

they recognizing the benefits as proposed in this study's arguments? Surveying

contractors whom are currently practicing sustainability has numerous practical

implications. A sustainable construction resource guide specifically for commercial

contractors could be developed, for example. Also, in terms of worker health, the need

exists for further studies on the health effects of the use of conventional building

materials.














APPENDIX
LIST OF ARGUMENTS

Why should a contractor build green?

* It's the right thing to do.

* Green building guidelines are becoming legal mandates.

* Sustainability enhances profitability.

* Contractors who build green increase their market share.

* Green buildings often cost the same or less than conventional buildings.

* Builders can help develop the economies of scale for green building materials.

* Building sustainably goes hand-in-hand with design-build.

* Green building government incentives can aid successful project delivery.

* Constructing green buildings can improve a company's image.

* Forward-looking companies attract quality employees.

* Green practices reduce contractor liability.

* Green building can lower the health risks construction workers face.
















LIST OF REFERENCES


Amatruda, John. 2004. "Defining LEED costs for the U.S. General Services
Administration." The cost and benefits of high performance buildings, ed. Pamela
Lippe. Earth Day New York: 2004. Pages 27-32.

C&D Recycling. 2004. "The price is right." Construction & Demolition Recycling.
September/October 2004. Vol. 6: No. 5.

Cassidy, Robert, ed. 2004. "Progress report on sustainability." Building Design and
Construction. November 2004.
http://www.bdcmag.com/newstrends/bdc04White_paper.pdf Last accessed: March
1, 2005.

Clift, Michael. 2003. "Life-cycle costing in the construction sector." Industry and
environment: sustainable building and construction. United Nations Environment
Programme. April September 2003. Vol. 26: No. 2-3, p. 37-40.

Day, Christopher. 2000. "Ethical building in the everyday environment." Ethics and the
built environment, ed. Warwick Fox. Routledge, London: 2000. Pages 127-138.

Deane, Michael. 2004. "The CM's role in achieving LEED certification." The cost and
benefits of high performance buildings, ed. Pamela Lippe. Earth Day New York:
2004. Pages 114-116.

DPR Construction. 2005. http://www.dprinc.com/projects/greenbuildtechexp.cfm Last
accessed: February 15, 2005.

Economist. 2004. "The rise of the green building." December 4, 2004. Vol. 373: No.
8404.

ECONorthwest. 2001. "Green building: saving money and the environment;
Opportunities for Louisiana." ECONorthwest, Eugene, Oregon: October 2001.
http://www.leanweb.org/qoflife/Green.pdf Last accessed: March 19, 2005.

Edwards, Suzy, and Philip Bennett. 2003. "Construction products and life-cycle
thinking." Industry and environment: sustainable building and construction.
United Nations Environment Programme. April September 2003. Vol. 26: No.
2-3, p. 57-61.

Elefante, Carl. 2005. "Greening historic preservation." Lecture at the University of
Florida. March 15, 2005.









Engineering News-Record. 8/13/2001. "County and project team reach settlement in
toxic mold case."

Engineering News-Record. 11/15/2004. "Construction week: waste not want not."

EPA. 2002. "Building for the future." WasteWise Update. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency: February 2002.
http://www.resourcesaver.org/file/toolmanager/CustomO 16C45F53196.pdf Last
accessed: February 15, 2005.

Fortune. 2004. "Green building." Special advertising section in partnership with U.S.
Green Building Council. Fortune. October 18, 2004.

Foumier, Paul. 2004. "On-site waste separation: Consigli Construction adopts C&D
source separation policy for all of its jobs." New England Construction. October
25, 2004.

Frangos, Alex. 2005. "Greener and higher." Wall Street Journal. January 31, 2005.

Gillette, Jim. 2004. "Perspective: the transformation of an industry." Environmental
Design + Construction. December 2004/January 2005.

Girardet, Herbert. 2000. "Greening urban society." Ethics and the built environment,
ed. Warwick Fox. Routledge, London: 2000. Pages 15-30.

Gonchar, Joann. 2004. "'Green' builders tackling sensitive technical issues."
Engineering News-Record. November 22, 2004.

Gonchar, Joann. 2005. Rapidly evolving rating system draws applause and criticism.
Engineering News-Record. February 28, 2005.

Gottfried, David. 2003. "A blueprint for green building economics." Industry and
environment: sustainable building and construction. United Nations Environment
Programme. April September 2003. Vol. 26: No. 2-3, p. 20-21.

Johnston, David. 2000. Building green in a black and white world. Home Builder Press,
NAHB, Washington, D.C.: 2000.

Karolides, Alexis. 2002. "Green building approaches." Green building: project
planning and cost estimating, ed. Andrea Keenan and Danielle Georges. RSMeans,
Kingston, Massachusetts: 2002. Pages 3-21.

Kats, Gregory H. 2003. "Green building costs and financial benefits." Massachusetts
Technology Collaborative: 2003.
http://www.cap-e.com/ewebeditpro/items/059F3481.pdf Last accessed: February
20, 2005.









Kibert, Charles, and M. Moretti. 2004. "Toward an ethics of sustainability." University
of Florida. Unpublished manuscript.

Kibert, Charles, Jan Sendzimir, and G. Bradley Guy. 2000. "Defining an ecology of
construction." Construction ecology: Nature as the basis for green buildings, ed.
Kibert, Sendzimer, and Guy. Spon Press, New York: 2000. Pages 7-28.

Leppert, Thomas C. 2004. "Why is Turner talking green?" Vital Speeches of the Day.
November 15, 2004. Vol. 71: No. 3.

Macaluso, Joseph. 2002. "Economic incentives and funding sources." Green building:
project planning and cost estimating, ed. Andrea Keenan and Danielle Georges.
RSMeans, Kingston, Massachusetts: 2002. Pages 197-207.

Matthiessen, Lisa Fay, and Peter Morris. 2004. "Costing green: a comprehensive cost
database and budgeting methodology." Davis Langdon: July 2004.
http://www.dladamson.com/Attachment%20Files/Research/costinggreen.pdf Last
accessed: March 5, 2005.

Muto, Sheila. 2004. "From recycled rubble come roads, parking lots, savings." Wall
Street Journal. May 26, 2004.

Pitts, Adrian. 2004. Planning and design strategies for sustainability andprofit:
Pragmatic sustainable design on building and urban scales. Architectural Press,
Boston: 2004.

Post, Nadine M. 2004. "Rating system makes headway." Engineering News-Record.
November 8, 2004.

Pultar, Mustafa. 2000. "The conceptual basis of building ethics." Ethics and the built
environment, ed. Warwick Fox. Routledge, London: 2000. Pages 155-169.

Riley, David, Kim Pexton, and Jennifer Drilling. 2003. "Procurement of sustainable
construction services in the United States: the contractor's role in green buildings."
Industry and environment: sustainable building and construction. United Nations
Environment Programme. April September 2003. Vol. 26: No. 2-3, p. 66-69.

Salkever, Alex. 2003. "Ganging up on mold." Business Week. June 30, 2003.

Skanska. 2005. Skanska code of conduct.
http://www.skanska.com/files/documents/pdf/code_of conduct.pdf Last accessed:
February 19, 2005.

Solomon, Nancy B. 2004. "Mold may not be a severe health menace, but it is still a
complex problem." Architectural Record. September 2004. Vol. 192: No. 9.









Strand, Sigrid Melby, and Sverre Fossdal. 2003. "Do standards and regulations supply
the necessary incentive for sustainable building?" Industry and environment:
sustainable building and construction. United Nations Environment Programme.
April September 2003. Vol. 26: No. 2-3, p. 33-36.

Sustainable Development Task Force. 2003. "Drivers for sustainable construction."
Industry and environment: sustainable building and construction. United Nations
Environment Programme. April September 2003. Vol. 26: No. 2-3, p. 22-25.

Tibbetts, John. 2002. "Building a safer industry." Environmental Health Perspectives.
March 2002. Vol. 110: No. 3.

UNEP. 2003. "Sustainable building and construction facts and figures." Industry and
environment: sustainable building and construction. United Nations Environment
Programme. April September 2003. Vol. 26: No. 2-3; p. 5-8.

University of Buffalo. 2004. UB High Performance Building Guidelines. University of
Buffalo, State University of New York. 2004. Last accessed: March 5, 2005.
http://wings.buffalo.edu/ubgreen/leos/ubhpguidelines.pdf

Wallbaum, Holger, and Claudia Buerkin. 2003. "Concepts and instruments for a
sustainable construction sector." Industry and environment: sustainable building
and construction. United Nations Environment Programme. April September
2003. Vol. 26: No. 2-3, p. 53-57.

Walls & Ceilings. 2003. "Lead by example: can waste gypsum really be recycled? One
Canadian company proves it every day." March 2003. Vol. 66: No. 3.

Wenblad, Axel. 2003. "Sustainable construction: a Swedish company's approach."
Industry and environment: sustainable building and construction. United Nations
Environment Programme. April September 2003. Vol. 26: No. 2-3, p. 70-71.

Woolley, Tom. 2000. "Green building: establishing principles." Ethics and the built
environment, ed. Warwick Fox. Routledge, London: 2000. Pages 44-56.

Yudelson, Jerry. 2004. "Perspective: forecasting market demand for green buildings
2004-2007." Environmental Design + Construction. December 2004/January
2005.















BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Leah Elida Griffin was born in Fort Lauderdale on February 26, 1979, to Fred and

Cindy Griffin. She and her younger sister, Amy, were raised in Davie, Florida. Their

father passed away in 1990 after suffering a brain aneurysm. Leah graduated from

Hollywood Hills High School before coming to the University of Florida in 1997. She

earned her bachelor's degree in journalism with highest honors in 2001. Later that year,

she moved to Birmingham, Alabama, and worked as a copy editor at Cooking Light

magazine.

Leah is grateful to have chosen to return to UF in January 2003 as a graduate

student in the Rinker School of Building Construction. In the summer of 2004, Leah

worked as a project engineer intern at James B. Pirtle Construction in Davie, and also

became a LEED Accredited Professional. Upon her graduation in April 2005, Leah plans

to return to Pirtle to begin her construction career.




Full Text

PAGE 1

ARTICULATING THE BUSINESS AND ETHICAL ARGUMENTS FOR SUSTAINABLE CONSTRUCTION By LEAH GRIFFIN A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE IN BUILDING CONSTRUCTION UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2005

PAGE 2

Copyright 2005 by Leah Griffin

PAGE 3

This thesis is dedicated to my friend Jim Sullivan—a small token for a big heart.

PAGE 4

iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I want to thank a few important people that have helped me directly and indirectly succeed in completing this thesis. Of course this would not have been possible without the guidance and support of my committee. Ma ny thanks go to Dr. Charles Kibert, Dr. Raymond Issa, and Dr. Leon Wetherington. Dr. Kibert inspired my interest in green building two years ago. I hope I can make a green difference during my career in the construction industry. Dr. Issa has been my biggest supporter since my first semester in BCN, and I will be forever grateful for that I cannot imagine the Rinker School without Dr. Wetherington. He, too, has believed in me from the start. I will miss DocÂ’s hugs. The best part of this thesis has been making a new best friend, Bryce. I am thankful to her and Roy for truly being my best friends during this fi nal semester. And of course, love goes to Luke.

PAGE 5

v TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.................................................................................................iv ABSTRACT......................................................................................................................v ii CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................1 2 METHODOLOGY.......................................................................................................4 3 LITERATURE REVIEW.............................................................................................5 Green Building Defined................................................................................................6 Environmental and Ecological Impacts of Building.....................................................7 Green Building Today..................................................................................................9 Barriers....................................................................................................................... 12 Costs.......................................................................................................................... .16 Contractors and Cost: Bidding Climate......................................................................18 Cost Recovery.............................................................................................................19 A ContractorÂ’s Role in Green Building......................................................................20 More on Materials.......................................................................................................22 Life-Cycle Costs Applied to Whole Buildings...........................................................24 LEED and the Green CM...........................................................................................24 4 RESULTS...................................................................................................................28 ItÂ’s the right thing to do..............................................................................................28 Green building guidelines are becoming legal mandates...........................................31 Sustainability enhan ces profitability...........................................................................35 Contractors who build green increase their market share...........................................37 Green buildings often cost the same or less than conventional buildings..................42 Builders can help develop th e economies of scale for green building materials........42 Building sustainably goes hand-in-hand with design-build........................................43 Green building government incentives can aid successful project delivery...............44 Constructing green buildings can improve a companyÂ’s image.................................45 Forward-looking companies attract quality employees..............................................45 Green practices reduce c ontractor liability.................................................................46 Green building can lower the health risks construction workers face........................48

PAGE 6

vi 5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.....................................................50 APPENDIX LIST OF ARGUMENTS...................................................................................................52 Why should a contractor build green?........................................................................52 LIST OF REFERENCES...................................................................................................53 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.............................................................................................57

PAGE 7

vii Abstract of Thesis Presen ted to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Bu ilding Construction ARTICULATING THE BUSINESS AND ETHICAL ARGUMENTS FOR SUSTAINABLE CONSTRUCTION By Leah Griffin May 2005 Chair: Charles Kibert Cochair: Raymond Issa Major Department: Building Construction Environmentally conscious building and de velopment continue to infiltrate the mainstream as more people begin to unders tand the tremendous impact that the built environment has on nature. Building gr een can reduce the negative impacts of construction related to land, air, and wate r pollution. Sustainable buildings offer operating cost savings, and improved work ing and living conditions. These aspects appeal to owners, occupants, developers, a nd architects. But wh at about builders? Construction firms who adopt sustainable practices remain the exception. To many contractors, green constructi on is viewed as an unnecessar y, expensive add-on. Limited data are available as to whether it is in a bu ilderÂ’s best interest to construct sustainable buildings. This research aims to determine the quantitative and quali tative benefits that green building may offer contractors. The object ive is to develop a comprehensive list of compelling arguments in favor of builders embracing sustainable construction.

PAGE 8

1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Natural systems and resources are being rapidly destroyed an d depleted, and the construction industry plays a substantial ro le in that. The creation, operation, and disposal of the built environment dominat es humanity’s impact on the natural world (Kibert et al. 2000). Especially during the pa st decade, worldwide movements have been underway to address the environmental eff ects of construction. Green building is breaking into the mainstream, and the constr uction industry is slowly being forced to change its traditional practices—f or ethical and economical reasons. Buildings use 30 percent of U.S. energy a nd 40 percent of materials. Buildings consist of 90 percent of all extracted mate rials, and 135 million tons of construction and demolition waste is generated annually. Enviro nmental concerns include land, water, and air pollution. Green buildings aim to protec t the earth’s natural systems (Kibert et al. 2000). Construction, engineering, and de sign processes aim to reduce energy consumption and expenditures, decrease environmental impact, and boost workers’ health and productivity without adding substa ntial up-front costs. They do so, for example, by achieving significant reductions in energy consumption, using renewable resources, and incorporating re used or recycled materials. According to the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC), a nonprofit organization that is one of the foremost authorities on th e subject, about 5 percen t of new construction starts in the United States are attempti ng to go green (Gonchar 2005). The USGBC’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental De sign (LEED) rating system certifies green

PAGE 9

2 buildings at four levels. In addition to expanding beyond th e U.S., the council is adapting LEED to more types of projects. In N ovember 2004, it released a version focusing on operation and maintenance of existing build ings and another addr essing tenant space construction and renovation. The new versions join LEED-NC, which primarily is geared to commercial and institutional new cons truction. Adaptations ta ilored to the core and shell of speculative buildings, re sidential construc tion, and neighborhood developments are in the works. The counc il itself has grown 1,000 percent in the past four years. There now are 5,300 member or ganizations, which include corporations, government agencies and nonprofits (Cassidy 2004). The main objective of this research is to provide arguments in favor of contractors embracing the sustainable building movement. A primary factor in doing so is that building green may not always be a choice; about 35 municipalities have laws in place requiring green building in new constructi on. Some area governments have outlawed construction waste from entering their la ndfills. In 2004, San Francisco and Boston announced requirements that city-owned projec ts achieve at least a silver LEED rating. Other users include Chicago, Austin, S eattle, and Portland. Many companies, government agencies, and academic institutions are aggressively adopting sustainable building techniques. Federal, state, and lo cal governments have bui lt 40 percent of the green buildings that are LEED certified. The U.S. Air Force, Navy, and most recently the Army require all new domestic structures to incorporate sustainable standards. Federal agencies that have adopted LEED include the General Services Administration and Department of State. Corporations building green facilities include Starbucks, Ford, and Toyota (Gonchar 2004).

PAGE 10

3 The push for green offers builders access to a rapidly growing niche market. Forward-thinking companies, like Turner Construction and Skanksa, are already incorporating sustainability into their ope rations. They are among the companies that have realized the economic value of buildi ng green, especially by adopting standardized construction waste management systems. Diverting materials from landfills offers costs savings in most cases, which can in turn increas e a builderÂ’s profit. At the same time, the perceived value of high performance buildings is increasing, while financial costs are going down. Green schools and offices can cost an average of 0.5 to 6.5 percent more to build; however, owner costs decrease for en ergy, water, operations, and maintenance (Cassidy 2004). This offers a unique marke ting opportunity to builders, because owners will turn to contractors experi enced in green building. Accordingly, this research intends to illustrate it is in a builderÂ’s best in terest financially to embrace sustainability.

PAGE 11

4 CHAPTER 2 METHODOLOGY An extensive literature review forms the ba sis for this research analysis. Current practices and case studies of sustainable building projec ts were considered and incorporated, as well as the most recent cost analysis studies available. The hypothesis was that constructing high-performance sustai nable buildings is in a builderÂ’s best interest, ethically and economica lly. Data to support this hyp othesis exists, but it has not been compiled and considered from the perspective of a construction management organization. The objective of the research was to develop a comprehensive list of the reasons builders should practice su stainability, and this objective has been realized. It is intended for practical use primarily by co mmercial contractors. Barriers to green building from a builderÂ’s pers pective also were analyzed. Limitations included the finite extent of th e research. Ample data was collected to support the hypothesis, but the information av ailable is extensive and ever-changing. Also, since the focus was placed primarily upon commercial builders, the analysis is limited accordingly; however, residential cons truction was not specifically excluded and is referenced when appropriate.

PAGE 12

5 CHAPTER 3 LITERATURE REVIEW The construction industry’s overall imp act on people and society cannot be overestimated. People spend an average 90 percent of each day—working and sleeping—in the built environment. By pr oviding housing and infrastructure, the industry makes a vital contribution to the so cial and economical development of every country (Wallbaum and Buerkin 2003). The economical impact and influence of the construction industry is enormous. Accordi ng to the International Council for Research and Innovation in Building and Constructi on, one dollar spent on construction may generate up to three dollars of economic activity in other sectors (UNEP 2003). In North America alone, the design and construction market is a $358 billion industry responsible for building 20,000 commercial, industrial, in stitutional, and multifamily structures annually (Cassidy 2004). Construction represen ts 12 percent of the GDP in the United States (UNEP 2003). Having such an impact has its consequen ces, though. The construction industry is one of the largest destroyers of the natural environment (W oolley 2000). It is a major consumer of non-renewable resources, produces substantial waste, pollutes air and water, and contributes to land dere liction (Wallbaum and Buerki n 2003). “Buildings and the construction industry make the largest contribution to CO2 emissions and pollution and waste in general, yet the general public fa il to recognize the impact that buildings and building materials have on our health and the environment” (Woolley 2000).

PAGE 13

6 Industry leaders, however, have begun to not only recognize this impact but take responsibility for it as well. There is much potential—and much realized at that—for the construction industry to cause less damage. As an example, it is estimated that 90 percent of demolition and construction debris can be reused or recycling (Karolides 2002). As potentially the primary contributo r to achieving sustainable development, the industry should accept its responsibility to minimize negative environmental and social impacts and maximize positive contributions (Sustainable Development Task Force 2003). Green Building Defined In 1987, the World Commission on Envi ronment and Development defined sustainable development as “development th at meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generati ons to meet their own needs” (Strand and Fossdal 2003). A primary goal of sustainability is to reduce humanity’s environmental or ecological footprint on the planet. Canadian economist William Rees defines the ecological footprint of cities as the land required to supply them with food and timber products, and to absorb their CO2 output (Girardet 2000). Especially in the last decade, a push toward the development of sustainable construction industry practices has given rise to the green building movement. Green buildings offer the same quality or performan ce, if not better, but have a less negative impact on the environment. Most green building practices fall into seven basic categories: energy saving, water saving, land saving, stormwater runoff-reducing, material conservation, and pollution reduc tion (ECONorthwest 2001). Traditionally, attempts to minimize construction costs lead to higher energy bills and wasted materials. A green building uses an average of 30 per cent less energy than a conventional building,

PAGE 14

7 the primary factor in d ecreasing operating costs ( Economist 2004). What makes a building green? Material wast e generated during construction is reduced and/or recycled. Materials are reused. Energy efficiency is improved, perhaps by relying on the use of natural light and ventilation or solar power. Less water is used, or a rainwater harvesting system is installed to ensure wiser use. “Measures being taken to make buildings and construction more sustainable rely increasingly on life-cycle appro aches. Life-cycle thinking in the construction sector takes account of every stage—from a structure’s con ception to the end of its service life, and from raw material extraction to a building’s demolition or dismantling. It also takes account of all actors, from land-use planne rs and property developers through building owners and users to salvage firms and la ndfill operators” (UNEP 2003). The result: buildings that ensure occupant health and are more resource and cost efficient. Environmental and Ecological Impacts of Building Buildings have major environmental costs. If current expansio n patterns continue, the built environment will destroy or disturb na tural habitats and wildlife on more than 70 percent of the Earth’s land by 2032 (UNEP 2003 ). Around one-third of the energy used by humans is related to build ings and their utilization, a lthough a considerable proportion of this energy use could be avoided. C limate change associated with greenhouse gas emissions to the atmosphere is a significant, if not the most significant, threat to the global environment. The primary source of these emissions is the use of fossil fuels (Wenblad 2003). The built environment accounts for as much as 40 percent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions. The carbon dioxide emissions of U.S. buildings alone are second only to those of China (Kats 2003).

PAGE 15

8 Cement production in particular—through bur ning of fossil fuels and breakdown of raw materials—impacts global warming. If current patterns continue, carbon dioxide emissions from the cement industry will quadruple by 2050. Virtually all the cement industry’s output is used for construction, especially for concrete. Twice as much concrete is used worldwide than the total of all other building mate rials combined (UNEP 2003). Construction activities are estimated to consume about half of the resources humans take from nature (UNEP 2003). The construction industry is also estimated to generate 50 percent of total waste (Edwards and Bennett 2003) And half of all CFC and HCFC use is building related. “These figures relate to what buildi ngs are built of, and how we heat, cool, light and use them. If we add all the things we put into buildings, and use in and near buildings (which is nearly everything we buy) and the travel between buildings, the figures go up. Once we become aw are of the magnitude of the statistics, it becomes obvious that everything we build ha s major environmental repercussions” (Day 2000). In the United States, as per the Depa rtment of Energy, buildings consume 39 percent of the energy and 70 pe rcent of the electr icity (Cassidy 2004). According to the U.S. Geological Survey, constr uction accounts for 60 percent of all materials used in the U.S. for purposes other than food and fuel (EPA 2002). Meanwhile, construction debris accounts for 30 percent of all la ndfill material in the U.S. (Cassidy 2004). More than 136 million tons of building debris from constr uction and demolition sites is generated every year in the U.S., making it th e single largest source in the waste stream. According to EPA figures, a typical new commercial build ing generates an average of 3.9 pounds of

PAGE 16

9 waste per square foot of building area For example, a new 50,000-square-foot building—the average size of a college residence hall—produces almost 100 tons of waste. Demolition sites produce even more waste—an average of 155 pounds per square foot of commercial building area. For a 50,000-square-foot building, that translates to about 4,000 tons of waste ( C&D Recycling 2004). Construction-related polluti on is not always readily a pparent. “In addition to immediate emissions of air and water pollutants, dust a nd noise during construction, pollutant concentrations within buildings (stemming from finishes, paints, backing materials, and other components) can be over twice as high—in some cases as much as 100 times as high—as concentrations outside” (UNEP 2003). Hazardous substances used in construction can endanger both constr uction workers and building occupants. Green Building Today Sustainable design has its roots in the energy conservation movement of the 1970s and 1980s, when energy costs rose alongsid e concern for the environment and ‘sick building syndrome’ ( Economist 2004; ECONorthwest 2001). In 1993, 250 founding members founded the nonprofit U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) to promote environmentally responsible buildings. Today, the USGBC represents the nation’s leading authority and voice of gr een building. A coalition of industry leaders, the council has grown to more than 5,300 member companie s and organizations that include builders, architects, universities, and government agencies. Five years ago, the council introduced its Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Green Building Rating System. LEED has become widely accepted as the standard measurement of sustainable bui lding, and it has been adopted nationwide by various federal agencies, stat e and local governments, and private companies. LEED is a

PAGE 17

10 feature-oriented rating system through whic h credits are awarded to certify green buildings at four levels: Certified, Silver, Gold, and Platinum. The credits cover six categories: site selection; water efficiency; energy and atmosphere; materials and resources; indoor environmental quality; and innovation and design. A Gold building is estimated to have reduced its environmenta l impact by 50 percent in comparison to a conventional building of similar size; a Pl atinum building, by more than 70 percent ( Economist 2004). As of February 2005, more than 1,700 projects in 50 states were in the process of seeking LEED certification, representing abou t 5 percent of new construction starts. Another 167 buildings are LEED certified (Gonchar 2005). The USGBC is in the process of adapting LEED to more types of projects. In November 2004, it released a version focusing on operation and maintena nce of existing buildings and another addressing tenant space construction and re novation. The new versions join LEED-NC, which primarily is geared to commercial a nd institutional new construction. Adaptations tailored to the core and sh ell of speculative buildings, residential construction, and neighborhood developments are in the works (Cassidy 2004). Governments have created most of the in itial demand for sustainable buildings. Federal, state, and local governments have built 40 percent of the buildings that are LEED certified (Gonchar 2004). “The cost of f unds for government is low, and the time horizon for the average life of a public buildi ng is long. Buildings are typically owned, financed, operated and occupied by a governme ntal agency. Wearing these multiple hats makes it easier for governmental owners to design buildings to maximize their performance and occupant health on a l ong-term perspective” (Gottfried 2003).

PAGE 18

11 About 35 U.S. municipalities have laws in place requiring green building in new construction. Some area governments have outlawed construction waste from entering their landfills. In 2004, San Francisco a nd Boston announced requirements that cityowned projects achieve at least a silver LEED rating. Other users include Chicago, Austin, Seattle, and Portland. In the m ilitary, the Air Force and Navy require all domestic structures be green. Federal ag encies that have adopted LEED include the General Services Administration and Depa rtment of State (Gonchar 2004). Green building has been slowly gaining momentum in the private sector; Ford, Toyota, and Wal-Mart have constructed gr een buildings (Gottfried 2003) There is now sufficient real-world cost-benefit analysis available to verify the financial advantages of sustainable building, and as a resu lt, investors are increasingly r ecognizing the positive economic outcomes of sustainability (SDTF 2003). According to the EPA, building tenants can save 50 cents per squa re foot each year through no-cost, environmentally responsible operating and management practices ( Fortune 2004). Building commissioning—which se rves as a check to ensure building systems function as designed—can reduce build ing operating costs for heating, cooling, and ventilation as much as 40 percent, according to the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Karolides 2002) Other economic benefits can include improved property values and rental returns, a nd the utilization of various national, state, and local green building incentive programs. The USGBC advocates that green building results in a triple bottom line—offering environmental, social, and quantifiable fina ncial benefits. Using less energy and water lessens both operating costs and a building’ s environmental impact. From a people

PAGE 19

12 perspective, occupant health and productivity improve. Ev idence shows that productivity rises and absenteeism falls in well-designed sustainable buildings (P itts 2004). Students in naturally lit classrooms perf orm up to 20 percent better ( Economist 2004). And at PNC Financial Services Group’s green h eadquarters in Pitt sburgh, sustainable improvements have helped lift personnel retention rates to 50 percent above those at a conventional workplace facility ( Fortune 2004). Barriers The barriers to sustainable building sp ecific to a contractor are numerous. A definite learning curve is i nvolved. “A lot of green build ing is predicated on making smarter decisions at every step” ( Fortune 2004). Green building requires more planning by the entire project team—builders, arch itects, engineers, and developers ( Economist 2004). For contractors new to LEED, the waste management requirements especially can seem daunting. Reusing, salvaging, and recyc ling materials requires additional planning; the contractor needs to designate staging and storage locations, allot time for sorting materials, find buyers or recycling centers, and possibly deliver materials to buyers (Karolides 2002). And all this must be carefully documen ted to meet LEED certification requirements. How much additional time and effort will be required at each project phase for both planning and documentation de pends on the experience of the project team. A Seattle-area contractor spent an estimated 400 hours documenting its first LEED project. But now, working on its third regi stered building, the contractor has cut the hours needed significantly—about 20 to 40 pr econstruction hours, five hours a week during construction, and anothe r 20 to 30 to prepare final submissions (Gonchar 2005). In terms of costs, there are perceptions of higher costs and actual higher costs involved in sustainable construction. “W hen presented with unfamiliar materials in

PAGE 20

13 project specifications, the fi rst reaction of construction or ganizations is suspicion—of potentially higher costs, more complex or unfamiliar jobsite handling and construction methods, and lower productivity. If they are given the opportunity to investigate the true impact of a new material on a project, c onstruction organizations can more accurately determine whether the material is best suited to the project and pr ovide realistic costing information, rather than prices inflated due to undefined potential risks” (Riley et al. 2003). Some contractors have realiz ed costs savings by incorpor ating recycling into their waste policies. However, the feasibility of recycling varies greatly according to project location. In most areas of the United States it is cheaper to la ndfill construction waste than it is to recycle it; profit margins at th e end of the recycling process remain low for many materials. The National Demolition Asso ciation identifies 14 recyclable building components. Of those, only three—me tals, aggregates, and wood—have current economic value in the United States (Cassi dy 2004). The market for recycled-content products is not fully developed. The infrastruc ture for recycling cons truction waste is in the very early stages of development as well, a nd even that is in limited areas (Riley et al. 2003). The major single limitation for recycling programs remains the nature of the local recycling infrastructure (Cassidy 2004). Another cost deterrent: many green building products still cost more than their traditional counterparts. Most producers of green products take advantage of a niche market, charging a value-added premium for materials with a green label. Americans pay more for organic food, shouldn’t the same hol d true for sustainable lumber? (Woolley 2000). Choosing green products as replacements involves research; if it difficult to find

PAGE 21

14 and price green substitutions, builders will continue to use what they are accustomed to using (Johnston 2000). Building green requires a more holistic appro ach. For contractors to recognize this, they must move past the common belief that gr een building is just a fad. Too much is at stake for it to be simply a fad ( Economist 2004). According to Wall Street Journal green is proving itself a potent tr end, and rising energy prices will continue to fuel the movement (Frangos 2005). In an industry resi stant to any type of change, some believe that environmental issues will be ignored by builders unless they must adhere to applicable legislation. Comp etition could also help bring about the appropriate changes in the industry’s psychology and infrastructu re. “If construction organizations are to maximize their contributions to green building projects, they must shift their paradigm— away from a fragmented and bid package perspective toward a more holistic and integrated view of projects. The inextricab le relationships between water, site, energy and indoor environmental quality issues mu st be woven into estimating and planning processes, subcontractor edu cation and overall business prac tices. Some organizations will make this shift voluntarily. Others will only do it when forced by competition” (Riley et al. 2003). The fragmentation of the construction i ndustry limits widespread acceptance and utilization of sustainable practices on seve ral levels. For one, it slows adoption patterns of new methods. Successful green building requires more collaboration among project team members, but traditionall y, designers, architects, engine ers, developers, and builders each make decisions that serve their own inte rests—regardless of whether this creates inefficiencies overall ( Economist 2004). What is considered desirable during

PAGE 22

15 construction may be viewed quite differe ntly by owner and designer (Pultar 2000). According to a Pennsylvania State University study, the potential of builders to enhance green projects can only be fully realized if they are part of the team during the design stage. “Broad change is hinde red by the fact that green bui lding efforts are largely being led by the design profession—the segment of the industry which is still most resistant to integrated teams that include the construction organizations. Perceive d as a threat to the design process, many design professionals ar e most comfortable when contractors are relegated to a low-price commodity on a buildin g project rather than a valuable service provider to a project team” (Riley et al. 2003). The study also found that many design and construction professionals believe a contractor’s green contribution is limited to jobsite recycling. Implementing a jobsite recycling plan just becaus e it is mandated is a “one-dimensional approach to sustainability.” That being said, a contra ctor’s role beyond jobs ite recycling is not always well defined, even on LEED projects. “More guidance is needed in defining the contracting methods, organizationa l structures and services th at enable green buildings. For example, the LEED system recognizes in clusion of a LEED accredited professional but does little to encourage integrated team s formed through design-build contracting and design-assist services by construc tion firms” (Riley et al. 2003). For a contractor to be successful in green building, all employees and trades people need to buy-in to the benefits of sustaina bility and actively contribute. This requires effort, education, and leadershi p—contractors cannot just tell their subcontractors to build green and expect full cooperation (Johnston 2000).

PAGE 23

16 Costs There are numerous examples of green bu ildings not costing more. And over the past two years, several thorough studies have been completed to attempt to quantify any cost differences between high performance a nd conventional buildings Costing Green: A Comprehensive Cost Database and Budge ting Methodology (July 2004) by Lisa Fay Matthiessen and Peter Morris of Davis Langdon Adamson, a cost consulting company, is one such study (Matthiessen and Morris 2004). The researchers compared the cost of 45 buildings seeking LEED certification against 93 similar, non-LEED-seeking buildings of comparable design and construction. They randomly selected 10 non-LEED buildings from those 93, then created a LEED checklist for each of those 10 to determine which, if any, credits each project would qualify for with its current design. The anal ysis concluded that the non-LEED projects achieved 15 to 25 credits with their establis hed designs; one project was estimated to qualify for 29—enough for a LEED Certified rating. More in-depth analysis of the nonLEED and LEED buildings suggested that an av erage of about 12 cred its could be earned without any design changes—“due simply to the building’s location, program, or requirements of the owner or local codes.” Up to 18 additional credits could be earned with minimal effort at little or no added cost (Matthiessen and Morris 2004). Consequently, the researchers found th at many green projects achieve their sustainable goals without additional funding, sugge sting that the cost per square foot for LEED buildings falls into the existing range of costs for buildings of similar program type. The researchers draw four main conclusions: There is a very large variation in costs of buildings, even within the same building program category.

PAGE 24

17 Cost differences between buildings are due primarily to program type. There are low-cost and high-cost green buildings. There are low-cost and highcost non-green buildings. Therefore, the researchers assert, bu ildings cannot be compared simply by averaging budgets because normal variations be tween buildings are significantly large. “There is no ‘one size fits all’ answer to the question of the cost of green….Comparing the average cost per square foot for one set of buildings to anothe r does not provide any meaningful data for any individual proj ect to assess what—if any—cost impact there might be for incorporating LEED and sustaina ble design” (Matthiess en and Morris 2004). Assessment of green building costs, accordi ng to the research, is more accurate if made on a project-specific basis. Taking into consideration the proj ect’s distinct goals and circumstances will reveal the impacts of the many factors that affect green building cost variations. The feasib ility and cost impacts of nu merous LEED credits can vary substantially, for better or worse, by how experienced the members of the design and construction teams are with sustainable bui lding. Was the team reluctant to adopt established green methods? To effectiv ely budget for sustainable buildings, highperformance features must not be seen as upgrades or additions that require additional costs. “Simply choosing to add a premiu m to a budget for a non-green building will not give any meaningful reflection of the cost fo r that building to meet its green goals. The first question in budgeting should not be ‘How much more will it cost?’, but ‘How will we do this?’” Establishing project goals during the programming stage and evaluating conformance at every stage of design and constr uction is critical to effective cost control (Matthiessen and Morris 2004).

PAGE 25

18 Contractors and Cost: Bidding Climate Contractors, as bidders, can have a subs tantial impact on the cost of sustainable projects. The researchers in the Davis Langdon study refer to the bidding climate as “perhaps the most significant single factor in the cost of sustainable design.” Specifically, how do builders respond to the gr een requirements in a contract? Are they even willing to bid? Measurable direct cost s of sustainable buildi ng for a contractor can include the cost of material credits documentation, implem enting construction indoor air quality credits, and schedule impacts of building flush-out (M atthiessen and Morris 2004). However, sustainable requirements percei ved as risky by the builder can have a much more substantial impact on bids than di rect costs. Some construction contracts specifically mandate that the contractor ensure the project achieves LEED—thereby making the contractor obligated to and respons ible for achieving the certification. This can introduce a ‘green premium’ into the bi d if the builder is unfamiliar with green building. “Firstly bidders are in clined to add contingencies or risk premiums to cover the perceived risk; secondly, the bid pool dimini shes, leading to poorer competition and higher bid prices.” The green premium will exist until contractors become more familiar with sustainable building and competiti on increases (Matthie ssen and Morris 2004). To lessen the green premium, the resear chers suggest designers write reasonable specifications and contracts a nd treat the contractor as a collaborator—“possibly even including training and bonuses for compliance, rather than transfe rring risks and applying penalties for failure.” An example: a contract that stipulates that the contractor shall “deliver a finished work product that assists the owner in achieving a LEED green

PAGE 26

19 building rating.” In this case, the builder may be less inclin ed to seek compensation for perceived risks (Matth iessen and Morris 2004). The amount of work available in a particular area must also be considered. If there is sufficient work available, contractors are less likely to bid and less motivated to bid low on work they consider unfamiliar and therefore more difficult (Matthiessen and Morris 2004). Cost Recovery If there is an increase in construction costs to go green versus conventional building, those costs are usually recovered quickly. According to the USGBC, the average 2 percent increase in construction costs required to reach LEED Gold typically pays for itself via lower operating costs within two years. The increas e in productivity of occupants in green buildings al so helps recover costs. Ab senteeism fell 15 percent after engineering firm Lockheed Martin move d 2,500 employees into a green building in Sunnyvale, California; the productivity increa se paid for the building’s higher upfront costs within a year. Stores with skylights have seen sales increase as much as 15 percent. And from a building lifetime pers pective, green buildings are not as apt to lead to ‘sick building’ lawsuits for the owners ( Economist 2004). The first concern of almost any owner considering green building is what the project will cost. Hence, the most comm on approach to choosing LEED points is on a first-cost basis by which the least expensive points are pursued to achieve the desired certification level. “Traditionally, construc tion dollars (first costs) are budgeted and spent with little regard for fu ture operating expenses. In fact, they should be linked. When life-cycle costs are taken into account it becomes apparent that lower operating costs can recoup higher first cost s in a reasonable time frame, often in one or two years.

PAGE 27

20 When considered as an investment rather than an expense, an increased first cost with a five-year payback period is a 20 percent ROI” (Deane 2004). A greater return on the expenses of new construction plays a major role in that economics is now driving the market toward su stainable design. Also contributing: green materials and techniques ha ve begun to fall in price ( Economist 2004). As the market continues to shift, the fina ncial benefits associated w ith building sustainably should increase. Home Depot and other building s uppliers already supply some green-certified building materials. “When builders use envi ronmentally harmful materials and practices, somebody eventually has to pick up the tab. As the tab gets larger, society will press for greater use of green building practices” (ECONorthwest 2001). A Contractor’s Role in Green Building Researchers at Pennsylvania State Univer sity and the Partnership for Achieving Construction Excellence conducted a study on th e role of constructi on organizations in the successful delivery of sustainable buildi ngs. Their objectives were to identify the value of a contractor on such projects and to develop proactive techniques for constructors to position themselves as valu ed contributors. The study was based on case studies of more than 20 green building projects in the United States and interviews with more than 40 construction professionals (Riley et al. 2003). “Successful sustainable building de sign and construction processes are characterized as collaborative and inte rdisciplinary. In many cases, however, procurement of construction services is not perceived as one of the necessary steps in the design and delivery of a sustainable building projec t. Contractors are often viewed merely as brokers of constructi on services, who simply follow drawings and specifications and are able to contribu te to sustainable bu ilding projects only through job-site recycling pl ans. The most significant ways in which construction firms can contribute include the most obvious, such as estimating and jobsite recycling. Nevertheless, case studies show clearly that construction firms, given the opportunity, have the poten tial to make useful cont ributions to all phases of green building projects including the areas of material selection, indoor air quality

PAGE 28

21 management, and the vast need to edu cate specialty contractors about green building methodologies and pro cesses.” (Riley et al. 2003) Though the researchers expect perceptions of the role of contractors in green project delivery to broaden as the industry ga ins experience, they highlight four key areas of contribution for constructors involved in green building: estimating, green building materials, waste minimization and recycl ing, and indoor air quality management. Estimating : Sustainable project features shoul d be selected based on the owner’s budget and priorities as well as up-to-date co st information. Preconstruction estimates calculated by the contractor are vital in provi ding the accurate cost information needed to make design decisions. Green building materials : Designers are not the only one s that can impact green building material selection; a variety of products used by general and specialty contractors should be selected using the same environmental standards applied to finish materials. Such items include caulk, jo int sealants, drywall compounds, fireproofing materials, adhesives, duct cement and insulati on. Contractors’ knowle dge can aid in this effort—and beyond. For instance, Sellen Constr uction of Seattle was among the first to suggest that money saved by diverting c onstruction waste from landfills should be incorporated in the project budget to offset any higher costs of us ing recycled content materials. This enables owne rs to choose recycled material s at no net cost increase, and drives the market for such materials. Waste minimization and recycling : Of the contractors experienced in jobsite recycling, many have incorporated into company policy based on their success. “Through experience and alliances with wast e haulers, many construction firms have become quite adept at recycling and the re lated jobsite psychology and infrastructure

PAGE 29

22 needed to fully implement a waste minimizati on and jobsite recycling plan. Often these company-based policies result in diversion ra tes of up to 80 percent, far in excess of a mandated recycling program” (Riley et al. 2003). Indoor air quality management : Construction activities have a direct impact on indoor air quality, which has a direct impact on the health of a building. To protect indoor air quality, contractor s protect HVAC systems from pollutants, incorporate building purges into their construction schedules, and sequence work to minimize material exposure to potential contamination. Making sure certain materials stay dry, for example, can help prevent mold growth (Riley et al. 2003). More on Materials How much of an impact do building mate rials have on the environment? Well, buildings consist of 90 percen t of all extracted materials (Kibert et al. 2002). “Most building materials today are synthetic and are derived either from the petrochemicals industry or are harvested from natural sour ces that cannot be replaced. Even small reductions in the vast consumption of res ources would significantl y reduce our negative impact on the planet” (Woolley 2000). Many paints and finishes c ontain volatile organic com pounds that can be harmful to construction workers and building occupants. And if a material pol lutes the inside of a building, it is likely to pollute the envir onment (Woolley 2000). With LEED and other green labels beginning to enter the mainst ream, choosing environmentally responsible construction products is becoming more vi able. The source a nd manufacture of a material must be considered to evaluate its sustainability, as there ar e distinct differences in the nature of materials and extraction and manufacturi ng technologies. Health and safety concerns for workers involved in th e product’s manufacture or installation should

PAGE 30

23 also be evaluated (Edwards and Bennett 2003). “Many archit ects specify tropical hardwoods with little concern about where they come from, or how the forests in Third World countries are being managed. To ch ange such a policy requires a principled decision by client, builder and specifier and a certain amount of openness from the supplier” (Woolley 2000). An environmentally responsible building f eatures products that are appropriate for the specific design and site. St ill, project teams must be car eful to not view the use of green materials as a single solution to sust ainability. “After all, timber accredited by the Forest Stewardship Council produces just as much methane in landfills as uncertified timber. The key to greener material use is to use the material in a way that changes the “one-way trip” mentality” (Edwards and Bennett 2003). Life-cycle assessment (LCA) of a produc t considers how the product is produced, how it is used, and what occurs when its ‘first life’ is over—can it be designed for deconstruction? Using the manufacture and use of a brick wall as an example, LCA would factor the environmenta l impacts associated with: Extraction and transport of clay to the brickworks; Manufacture and transport of ancillary materials; Extraction and distribution of na tural gas for the brick kiln; Mining and transport of fuels to generate electricity for use in the factory; Production and transport of ra w materials for packaging; Manufacture and transport of packaging for bricks; Manufacture of brick in the brickworks; Transport of bricks to the building site; Extraction of sand and production of cement for the mortar; Building of the brick wall; Maintenance of the wall, such as painting or repointing; Demolition of the wall; The fate of the products after demolition (Edwards and Bennett 2003)

PAGE 31

24 Life-Cycle Costs Applied to Whole Buildings “Green building is an economic responsibil ity to…investors, and a social one to society. It is rooted in the definition of value, quality, a nd performance over the life of the asset” (Gottfried 2003). Design and construction quality has great potential to reduce life-cycle costs, including costs-in-use and eventual disposal of a structure. The International Organization for Standardization defines life-cycle costing (LCC) as “the total cost of a building or its parts throughout its life, in cluding the costs of planning, design, acquisition, operations, maintenance and di sposal, less any residual value.” LCC can be used to determine whether higher initi al costs are justified by lower future costs, seeking to optimize life perfor mance of a building. By optim izing performance, future costs and risks are reduced. LCC of a build ing considers the follo wing: functional design in regard to building purpose; complete desi gn of the structure; detailed design of each assembly and component; the construction pr ocess; lifetime maintenance; ultimate disposal; and project costs, including c onstruction and life-cycle costs (Clift 2003). LEED and the Green CM Of the 69 possible LEED credits, more th an a dozen prerequi sites and credits depend directly or indirectly on the cons truction manager. Those dependent on the builder include: prerequisites Erosion and Sediment Control and Basic Commissioning; Additional Commissioning (1 credit); Indoor Air Quality During Construction and Preoccupancy (2 credits); Low-emitting Materials (4 credits); Recycled Content, Local and Regional Sources, Rapidly Renewable Material s, and FSC-certified Wood (6 credits). The construction organization also can provi de the project with a LEED Accredited Professional for 1 point, and be responsible for or help contribute to one or more of the four possible innovation credits (Deane 2004). The city of Portland, Oregon, for

PAGE 32

25 example, has proposed a new innovation point for green building proj ects that use cleanemission, low-sulfur diesel-powered construction equipment (Cassidy 2004). A construction manager (CM) experienced in sustainable building—a ‘green CM’—can make designing and building a LEED pr oject much easier and less expensive. For instance, a green CM has the ability to evaluate all costs fo r various construction options—first costs, life cy cle costs, and O&M costs—in order to help the owner comprehend the real costs and benefits of su stainability to prioritize LEED points based on value over time (Deane 2004). The CM can assist the design team with pricing methods that acknowledge the interlinked benefi ts of systems, or he lp the project team seek cost savings in a project’s less crucial ar eas to facilitate the higher initial cost of energy-efficient building systems and green materials (Riley et al. 2003). A CM knowing the current market costs and availabi lity of green materials also assists the project team in making cost-e ffective choices (Deane 2004). A green CM can contribute in the follow ing ways at the various stages of LEED project construction: Pre-construction : Involving the CM in the design process ensures accurate cost estimates and allows the CM to advise the pr oject team on the constructability of various options. The CM can identify products with recycled content and materials harvested or manufactured regionally. The CM can also evaluate MEP specifications for energy and water usage and their potentia l impact on indoor environmental quality (Deane 2004). Procurement : The CM should meet with all bidders to ensure they fully understand their trade’s green requirements and the sustainability goals of the project overall. Scopes of work can be develope d that specifically call out LEED requirements

PAGE 33

26 as applicable to each trade, such as documentation and submittal requirements. A green CM can assist subcontractors with procurem ent and documentation requirements, helping keep their costs down and passing savings on to the owner. Subcontractors understanding their role and res ponsibilities can result in ac curate, competitive bids and aid in project execution later. A green CM may also be able to provide a list of subcontractors that likewise offer experience in green building. “The CM will negotiate the best price, making sure it is not inflated with any ‘fear factor’ mark-up and will stop bidders from artificially infla ting the cost of allegedly ‘har d to find’ green materials” (Deane 2004). Construction : Since LEED documentation is submitted to the USGBC for review after construction is complete, the project team must keep in mind during design and construction the critical need for accurat e, complete documentation. The CM must closely monitor submittals for compliance with LEED requirements to ensure that no LEED points are lost due to carelessness. The CM shoul d meet with the selected subcontractors at regular intervals during the project—typically weekly—and until all documentation is submitted to guarantee full compliance. The CM must diligently track and report construction waste; by material category, percent recycled by material type, and final destination of all waste. And O&M manuals must be submitted to assist in the commissioning process. Construction activ ities need to be monitored to ensure compliance with site management protocol, construction waste management, erosion and sediment control, indoor air quality, a nd commissioning requirements (Deane 2004). The USGBC reports that LEED Silver and Gold submissions are many times easier to approve than those striving for Certified, perhaps because the project team is more

PAGE 34

27 experienced in green building processes a nd has a better understanding of credit and documentation requirements. “Less experienced teams aim lower because they have less confidence in their knowledge and have a harder time with compliance and documentation” (Deane 2004). The CM may be responsible for directly managing the LEED submission process. To help manage documentation, Bovis Lend L ease has developed spr eadsheets that track points and their status. Items are closed wh en all required documentation is complete, and the matrix is included in the contracto r’s monthly reports to its project owners (Deane 2004).

PAGE 35

28 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS It’s the right thing to do. The majority of builders are unaware of, a nd therefore take no responsibility for, the impact of buildings and construction activities on people and the environment. Applying ethics to the built environment calls for those involved in construction to take responsibility for their actions. As green bui lding enters more markets, contractors face increasing responsibility to le arn the environmental impacts of the materials they use (Riley et al. 2003). In general, humans th reaten the planet’s ecosystem by their behaviors. With respect to the built envir onment, buildings and the methods used to construct them threaten the health of both people and the environment (Kibert and Moretti 2004). When contractors decide to adopt ethical business practices, they take corporate responsibility—environmen tal and social—for their actions. Ethics considers “the dynamics of people in their relationships w ith one another.” It addresses these relationships by providing rules of conduct generally agreed to govern good behavior. “Sustainable development re quires a more extensive set of ethical principles to guide behavior because it questions relations hips between generations.” Sustainable development is defined as mee ting present needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their respective needs. The responsibility of one generation to future generations, as well as the rights of those future generations, are fundamental concepts of sustai nable development. “The al teration or destruction of nonhuman living and non-living systems affects the quality of life for fu ture generations by

PAGE 36

29 reducing their choices. The choices of a give n population in time will directly affect the quantity and quality of resources remaining fo r future inhabitants of Earth, impact the environmental quality they will experience, and alter their experience of the physical world” (Kibert and Moretti 2004). Builders play a very real role in these choices made, especially in terms of resource use. Several principles and facets of ethical theory may be applied to the built environment. Distributional e quity (or distributive justice) refers to the rights of all people to an equal share of resources su ch as materials, land, energy, water, and environmental quality. To ensure such equity in the future, responsibility is taken to ensure economic systems are moral and just, and meet obligations to future populations. Simarly, resource-based principles specify that all people shou ld have access to the same level of resources. Per the precautionary prin ciple, caution should be exercised when one makes a decision that may adversely affect hu man health or the environment—even if the cause and effect relationships are not fully recognized or understood. For example, the potentially catastrophic outcome of global wa rming should motivate people to cautiously limit carbon greenhouse gas emissions. (Critics a ssert that the precautionary principle is a threat to progress.) Like the precautionary pr inciple, the reversibility principle is to be considered prior to the a doption of a new technology. To respect the reversibility principle, a decision is made based on whether the action can be undone by future generations (Kibert and Moretti 2004). As opposed to considering the overall imp act of buildings, the potential health hazards of various construction products and building materials in particular has ethical implications. Laura Zeiher lists nearly 800 toxic substances common in building

PAGE 37

30 materials in her book The Ecology of Architecture Many health effects of building materials are linked to asthma. “While littl e research has been carried out on the links between indoor air quality and asthma, many of the toxic materials used in building cause occupational asthma in the factories wher e they are produced.” Many carcinogenic materials, chemical pesticides, and toxic timb er treatment chemicals are widely used in buildings (Woolley 2000). In the United States, gypsum waste accounts for 1 percent of the total waste stream. As a percentage of total construction and demolition waste, it accounts for 15 percent. As a general rule, 1 pound of gypsum board wast e is generated for every square foot of floor area. In 1984, the Great er Vancouver Regional District in British Columbia, Canada, stopped accepting construction and demo lition waste at its municipal landfills after studies discovered that gypsum-board wast e buried in landfills in high-rainfall areas, including British Columbia, was producing noxious hydrogen sulfide gas. Dangerous to humans at levels of greater than 1,000 part s per million, with a dist inct odor similar to that of rotten eggs, one landfill was found to have gas levels in excess of 5,000 PPM. Hydrogen sulfide gas is produced when buried gypsum (calcium sulfate) waste combines with anaerobic bacteria and or ganic matter, and, with high mois ture levels present, sulfate ions are released. The study found that the gas levels peaked between six and 15 years after burial. And gypsum-board waste was not the only danger at the landfills; other construction debris, such as metal, was emitting toxic leachates ( Walls & Ceilings 2003). Aside from construction materials disposed of in landfills, the materials that comprise a building itself can affect the heal th of future occupants. Sick building syndrome is the most well-known potential health risk associated with buildings. Though

PAGE 38

31 sick building syndrome has its critics, it has been attributed to tighter buildings and poor indoor air quality. Causes of poor indoor qua lity can include the following: off-gassing of volatile organic compounds ( VOCs) from modern finish materials such as paints, adhesives, carpet, and vinyl; poorly vented combustion appliances; use of equipment and chemicals such as copiers and cleaning products; tobacco smoke; soil gases such as radon, pesticides, and industrial site contaminants; molds and microbial organisms; and intake of outdoor air contaminated with pol len, pollution, or building exhaust. Those with compromised immune systems—children, el derly people, and people with allergies and asthma—are at high risk for sick buildi ng health hazards. Typical symptoms include headache, fatigue, congestion, coughing, sn eezing, dizziness, and nausea (Karolides 2002). Green building guidelines are becoming legal mandates. In a growing number of areas across the United States, green building is already mandated, leaving contractors no choice but to in corporate sustainable practices into their construction activities. Voluntary guidelin es are becoming legal requirements, and it behooves contractors to adapt now. The U.S. General Services Administrati on, which oversees the construction of all non-military government facilities, requires th at all new project and renovations must reach LEED status. The GSA is one of the larg est real estate owners and managers in the United States; it owns or leases 350 million square feet in which almost one million federal employees work. The GSA budgets 2.5 percent of the total cost for each construction project to cover extra expenses involved in achieving green goals, which it has found is more than offset by fuel efficien cies and other cost sa vings in a reasonable amount of time ( Fortune 2004).

PAGE 39

32 Ten cities require LEED certi fication for their public build ings, including Chicago; Portland, Oregon; Seattle; New York City; Sa n Francisco; Boston; and Austin, Texas. San FranciscoÂ’s ordinance went into effect in 2004 and applies to all city-owned projects, including renovations and additions The cityÂ’s long-term goal is to extend the ordinance to cover private projects as well (Post 2004). As in San Francisco, the city of Boston requires public projects to ach ieve at least a Silver LEED rating. In Arlington County, Virginia, LEED certification is not mandated fo r private projects, but the county requires all projects to complete a LEED scorecard in an effort to educate the building community and keep track of progress. As designed, mo st private projects are eligible for 21 LEED points; five more would qualify the pr oject for certifica tion (Cassidy 2004). Regulations in the residen tial arena should also be not ed. Boulder, Colorado, and Frisco, Texas, are among several cities that have code-mandated residential green standards; builders are required to show how their houses will earn certification before the city will grant them building permits (Cassidy 2004). Colleges and universities are also taking a proactive role in attempting to make sustainable building the norm. For example, Rinker Hall at the University of Florida achieved LEED gold; thanks to the projectÂ’s success, all new buildings on the campus are expected to meet or exceed LEED silver. Th e University of California Board of Regents has adopted a university-wide policy for green building as well (Amatruda 2004). For the most part, the above cities, schools, and agencies have issued ordinances or guidelines to ensure sustaina bility in new construction. Some governments and agencies are specifically incorporating their green sta ndards into their respective building codes. Such codes legally bind contractors to adhere to minimum acceptable standards intended

PAGE 40

33 to protect public health, safety, and welfar e (EPA 2002). The implication of green codes from the contractor’s perspective is obvious. Again, in such cases, building sustainably is not an option but the required way of conducting business. The city of Chicago is realigning its building code to accommodate sustainable design, and is considering creating a green building code (Cassidy 2004). In Portland, Oregon, building codes require th e recycling of materials gene rated onsite for all projects with costs exceeding $25,000, including construction and demolition. Santa Monica, California, requires C&D waste management. The code also requires the specifying of wood from sustainably managed sources a nd the use of low-emission finishes and materials. The U.S. Navy’s Sustainable Development Requirements for its family housing include the following: “All Navy Fa mily Housing Construction, Improvement, Repair and Privatization projects shall inco rporate Sustainable Development principles. Application of these principles will re duce consumption of energy, and other nonrenewable resources; minimize waste of wa ter and materials; prevent pollution and associated environmental impacts and liabiliti es, increase energy and resource efficiency, and improve human health. The result will reduce life-cycle ope rating costs for Navy Families” (EPA 2002). Construction waste in particular has b een addressed in various areas across the United States. Some landfills prohibit C&D waste, which has the potential to limit contractors’ options and increase their disposal costs. “As landfill becomes scarcer, states and local jurisd ictions are going to crack down on contractors to keep C&D waste out of their dumps. Better for the constr uction industry to take care of the problem voluntarily than to wait for the regulat ory hammer to strike” (Cassidy 2004).

PAGE 41

34 The EPA has urged every state to addre ss C&D waste disposal; 38 have done so (Cassidy 2004). Massachusetts is among the la tter. Designed to take effect in 2005, impending regulations in Massachusetts wi ll ban asphalt, brick, concrete, wood, and metal from landfills, and enforce an existi ng ban on corrugated cardboard. This is the first such statewide ban. Other materials are to be added to the ban later; the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Pr otection wants to divert 88 percent of all non-municipal solid waste from landfills by the year 2010. One million tons of waste goes from Massachusetts construction sites to landfills, accounting for approximately 25 percent of all Massachusetts landfill deposits and 95 percen t of all non-municipal solid wastes (Fournier 2004). The state of California also has taken a pr oactive approach to recycling, going so far as to mandate that every city or county r ecycle at least 50 percent of its waste. Under a program begun in 2001, the city of San Jose California, requires contractors to pay a recycling deposit before they can be grante d a building permit for most commercial and residential projects. Commercial demolition projects, where the steel and concrete can be easily recycled, are usually charged a lower de posit than a residentia l remodeling project, since roofing, carpet, applianc es, and other materials are not as easily recycled. The deposits range from 10 cents to $1.16 a squa re foot, depending on the project type. Contractors must prove they have diverted at least half of the construction and demolition debris from their projects from landfills to get their deposits back. San Jose officials have certified a dozen disposal facili ties that have agreed to recy cle at least 50 percent of the construction material they receive. The pr ogram is exceeding its goal: San Jose diverted

PAGE 42

35 about 62 percent of its waste through recy cling and reuse of materials in 2002 (Muto 2004). Sustainability enhances profitability. Perhaps the most powerful example of sust ainable practices increasing contractor profits is that waste management plans can and are saving contra ctors money. Depending on a contractorÂ’s experience level and the loca l recycling infrastructure, diverting waste from landfills can offer significant cost savi ngs. At TorontoÂ’s Pearson International Airport, recycling was to save the Termin al 1 replacement project an estimated $664,000. All concrete, asphalt, and metal products from the demolition of the 40-year-old, 156,077-sq-m terminal were recycled. The mate rials were being used as backfill for a 900-feet terminal pier and as subbase for a new apron, saving substantial trucking costs ( ENR 11/15/04). Consigli Construction Co. achie ved an overall C&D diversion rate of 97 percent at a $6.9 million, 100,000-SF office/wa rehouse project in Massachusetts. Source separation and recycli ng resulted in cost savings of nearly $260,000 (Cassidy 2004). In New Jersey, the average cost to r ecycle concrete rubble is $4.85 per ton vs. an average of $75 per ton to haul and dispose of the material in a landfill. Similar cost savings came from recycling asphalt ($5.70 per ton) and bricks and blocks ($5.49). Even recycling wood at $45.63 per ton is ec onomical compared to the $75 average transportation and disposal cost, according to the stateÂ’s Department of Environmental Protection. Several of the c oncrete and asphalt recyclers included in the study did not charge to dump clean, separated material at their sites, which is common practice in competitive recycling markets ( C&D Recycling 2004). Numerous similar examples exist. In a testament to the increased use of sustainable jobsite waste management, the Associated General Contractors released it s Environmental Management System program

PAGE 43

36 in 2004. The program, developed with the U.S. EPA, is designed to aid contractors in establishing waste management plans that in clude C&D recycling; the 148-page manual provides guidelines and templates (Cassidy 2004). Many design and construction organizations new to green building are faced with the need to rethink almost every aspect of th eir operations. What they discover in doing so is that sustainable practices “create in centives to adopt logical and much needed improvements to the traditional sequential design and construction process. In an industry that has clung to traditions of dysf unctional business practices and adversarial team relationships, many are beginning to r ealize that sustainable building projects might be more appropriately referred to as sensible building projects.” Sustainability incorporates lean principles proven by manufact urers to reduce waste and inefficiencies. Green and lean are closely aligned in maxi mizing total process efficiency and waste reduction (Riley et al. 2003). When attention is paid to wastes and inefficiency, future profitability is enhanced. Integrating sustainability can lead to better management processes and increased producti vity. It’s smart growth: “S mart growth is a key phrase frequently used to signify the types of de velopment to be purs ued in the future; it indicates an approach which permits economic advancement, but in a more sustainable way” (Pitts 2004). In essence, synergies exist between sustai nability and constructability. During the renovation of the Pentagon, for example, the design-build project team not only contributed to the sustainabl e design efforts, it observed significant savings in labor productivity through waste minimization and s implified construction methods (Riley et al. 2003). Overall, the process of rating bu ildings has revealed the inefficiency of

PAGE 44

37 traditional buildings and construction methods Traditional buildings can sometimes waste up to 30 cents on the dollar, thanks to energy and materials use, water waste, and inefficient subsystem choices ( Economist 2004). Sustainable pract ices can equate to resource and labor efficiency. And reduced in efficiencies can equate to increased profit for a builder. Builders can capitalize on a structure’s operating savings. Su stainable buildings offer lower future utility bills and other opera ting costs. Owners, therefore, can apply the lifetime savings of the build ing to construction costs (ECONorthwest 2001). The reduction in operating costs will pay for modest green upgrad es in a relatively short period of time (Pitts 2004). Owners that rec ognize these savings are willing to pay for green upgrades, and larger cont racts equate to greater prof it potential. Market surveys have found that if the expect ed utility savings are well documented, buyers will pay a premium the benefits and amenities associated with high-performance buildings (ECONorthwest 2001). (According to one su rvey of homebuyers, 55 percent were willing to pay an additional $5,000 to $10,000 for green features.) (Macaluso 2002) Green buildings are often more marketable in general. Th e market is demanding better quality buildings, and future owners and tenants are prepared to pay a premium (Pitts 2004). “Many potential buyers or tenants will pay more for the cachet of being in a building that can readily be identified as complying with the principles of green construction” (ECONorthwest 2001). Contractors who build green in crease their market share. Instead of waiting until forced to do so—by the market or government regulations—contractors that a dopt sustainable construction methods today can create a competitive advantage. Already, owners seek ing construction services on green projects

PAGE 45

38 are differentiating between prospective build ers based on their en vironmental policies (Riley et al. 2003) and experien ce in green building. “Good business is a lot more than building a good product at a reas onable price. You have to be different and better than the competition in order to get buyers’ attent ion…. Green builders are the change leaders in the building industry. By keeping one eye to the future and the other on the bottom line, you can learn how to do better business while creating a new market niche for your company” (Johnston 2000). Green building is not simply a fad; as ow ners continue to re alize its benefits, demand continues to increase. According to the USGBC, about 5 percent of all new construction project starts in the United Stat es have registered fo r LEED certification. Considering the rating system was introduced only five years ago, the green building industry has experienced tremendous growth. It is predicted that cumulative LEED registration totals will appr oach 5,000 by the end of 2007. If more than 1,200 project register for LEED certification in 2007, as per forecasted demand, that would represent about 20 percent of the commercial and in stitutional building market (Yudelson 2004). “The delivery of better performing buildi ngs is an economic and environmental necessity and an ever-increasi ng expectation. Within the deca de any new building that is not delivered green will likely be viewed as ‘under-perform ing’” (University of Buffalo 2004). Numerous economic incentives, such as rebates and tax credits, already are available to developers and owners. Highperformance buildings maximize future value while minimizing future risk, and this tran slates into demand. The improved design quality of high-performance buildings is appreci ated in a competitive market (Pitts 2004).

PAGE 46

39 Conversely, contractors who assume that green buildings cost more may avoid pursuing such work. And, if they do bid on a sustainable project, faced with unfamiliar materials or construction methods, they tend to add a premium to th eir bid to cover the learning curve and anticipated extra costs a ssociated with additional time and planning (Woolley 2000). But on a hard bid, this ‘gr een premium’ resulting from fear of the unknown can mean the difference between being aw ard the job or not. This potential loss in market share creates a strong argument for builders to at least research current sustainable construction practices so that if they are approa ched to bid or pursue green work, they need not add a green premium. Some of the largest contractors in the nation are leading the way. These organizations believe that to continue to lead their industry, they must incorporate principles of sustainable construction because it is in the best interest of their clients and the environment. In the last decade, Tu rner Construction Co., the country’s largest commercial builder, has completed more than 85 green projects valued at $7.6 billion. In 2004, Turner implemented jobsite recycling on all its projects, not just those seeking LEED certification. Initially, Turner will im plement C&D recycling at a 50 percent level; the end goal is to r ecycle 100 percent of C&D waste on all new projects (Cassidy 2004). Turner “played an unexpectedly valuable role” as the contractor for Toyota Motor Corporation’s new U.S. Financial and Cust omer Service Headquarters in Torrance, California. The 624,000-square-foot fac ility was awarded LEED Gold; Turner contributed by recycling 98 percent of c onstruction waste and provided detailed management of indoor air quality issues duri ng construction. Turner’s efforts to manage

PAGE 47

40 indoor air quality during construction sa ved significant time and money in the commissioning process (Riley et al. 2003). Skanska, one of the world’s largest c onstruction companies, has incorporated sustainability in its business practices for three primary reasons: to strengthen the Skanska brand, for risk management, and to benefit its current a nd future employees. “Many of our most important clients are ac tively engaged in addr essing sustainability issues, and they expect nothing less from thei r contractor.” Skanska is listed on the Dow Jones Sustainability Index for responsible investing, and in 2004 ranked third in the world on Fortune ’s list of Most Admired Companie s for engineering and construction (Wenblad 2003). Skanska was the first contract or in the United States to receive ISO 14001 certification—an internationa l standard that recognizes organizations who have a comprehensive environmental management system in place (Nelson 2003). The Environment section of Skanska’s Code of Conduct reads as follows: “Caring about the environment permeates all of our work. Compliance with relevant legal and other environmental requirem ents, especially from our clients, provides the foundation for our environmental ambition. We are committed to preventing and continually minimizing adverse environmenta l impact and to conserving resources. We think ahead to determine how our work will affect the environment and base our decisions on available relevant facts. We avoid materials and methods with envi ronmental risks when there are suitable alternatives available. We strive to recommend that clients use environmentally better alternatives whenever the circumstances permit. We do not engage in activities that have unacceptable environmental and social risks. We aim to identify such risks as early as possible to facilitate timely and adequate actions and decisions.” (Skanska 2005)

PAGE 48

41 Skanska advocates that with current t echnology, energy efficiency can be improved by at least 30 percent. To reduce use of the most hazardous substances used in construction, some groups within Skanska ha ve developed ‘black’ and ‘grey’ lists of substances to avoid and/or phase out (Wenblad 2003). DPR Construction, based in Redwood City, California, is another major U.S. contractor who embraces green constructi on. DPR’s office building in Sacramento, California, is a LEED Silver building. DPR boasts more LEED Accredited Professionals than any other general contractor in the na tion to help customers determine the best strategies for effectively de signing and constructing sustaina ble facilities. The company offers the following green services: Owner/A rchitect Training, Project Visioning and Goal Establishment, Charrette Facilitation, Preconstruction Analysis and Peer Reviews, Environmental Value Analysis, Life Cy cle Cost Analysis, MEP Analysis and Commissioning, and LEED Proj ect Management. To a ssist owners in LEED management, design, and construction, the co mpany developed its LEED Preconstruction Analysis Tool. DPR uses this tool to chart costs and pe rform cash flow analyses of potential savings and returns on investment over a building’s lifetime. The company used the program to determine that the payback of the additional firs t costs of 1.4 percent for its Sacramento office would be achieved in two and a half years with water and energy savings (DPR 2005). In a 2004 speech, Thomas Leppert, chairman and CEO of Turner, aptly described the competitive advantage that he forecasts his company will benefit from when green building becomes the norm. “When that day co mes, when it's not a choice, we can tell

PAGE 49

42 clients, “No problem. We've been doing this for years. We'll show you how.” (Leppert 2004) Green buildings often cost the same or less than conventional buildings. Concerns about green buildings costing more should not discourage construction organizations from considering adoption of sust ainable practices. It is shortsighted and simply not true that first costs associated with building high-performance structures must increase. “Capital costs of sustainable de sign can be similar or even lower than conventional figures through good design to m eet specification; additional design and specialist construction costs can be offset by reduced needs for building services systems and reduced wastage” (Pitts 2004). Three recen t studies in particular have compared costs of conventional versus high-performance buildings: A study of 33 green buildings conducted for th e state of California by Greg Kats of Capital E found a range of zero to 2 percen t incremental first cost, significant ROI attributed to lower operating costs, and no real correlati on between cost and level of sustainability (Kats 2003). A LEED cost study for the General Serv ices Administration that used GSA courthouse and office building design st andards identified the following: no correlation exists between poi nt value of LEED credits a nd their costs; a range of strategies often can be a pplied to achieve a specific individual LEED credit; the cost of several credits varies significan tly according to build ing type and program; and finally, some credit costs vary based on regional or project-specific issues (Amatruda 2004). Conclusions drawn from the Davis Langdon st udy (see Chapter 3) are similar to the GSA study findings. The Davis Langdon st udy compared construction costs of green buildings to comparable, non-LEED-seek ing projects and found that projects can achieve LEED certification within the same cost ra nge as non-LEED projects. The data indicates that many factors— such as building program type—affect building cost, and of those, LEED tends to have a lesser impact on total costs (Matthiessen and Morris 2004). Builders can help develop the economies of scale for green building materials. As sustainable building continues to beco me mainstream, the pr emium for buying green materials and products is lessening or has di minished. “Whether because of supplier

PAGE 50

43 competition for this new and growing market or because of contractor competition to get the job (and probably a combin ation of both), many products such as low-VOC paint, non-ureaformaldehyde particleboard, recycl ed carpet, and 100 percent recycled sheetrock, have all become virtually cost-n eutral and widely av ailable” (Deane 2004). Home Depot, for example, sells sustainably harvested lumber. As the demand and use of sustainable materials increases, prices will d ecrease (Woolley 2000). It is in the best interest of builders to help hasten this process by using environmentally responsible materials and developing relationships with distributors of such materials. Building sustainably goes hand-in-hand with design-build. As more construction firms begin to fa vor the design-build approach, they may want to heed that the integrative collaborat ion that marks successf ul sustainable project delivery lends itself to this approach. “T he very concept of designing, building, and operating a green building pushe s the designer, constructor, and owner to work in a collaborative way, often encour aging all three to ‘think outside the box.’” The process exposes all three actors to new technology and alternate methods, allowing them to acquire valuable knowledge and experience in su stainable building they can apply in later projects (Macaluso 2002). With design-build, contractors are involve d in project design. As such, they can position themselves as va lue-added contributors by bringing their green building experience to the table. “As more construction organizati ons gain design-build experience on green building projects, they wi ll be better equipped to align themselves and develop preconstruction serv ices that will enhance the gr een design process” (Riley et al. 2003). Government agencies and state and local governments represent the leading owners seeking high-performance buildings. Concu rrently, many of these owners are also

PAGE 51

44 moving toward the use of design-build (Riley et al. 2003). A design-build contract was used for the LEED Silver EPA National Comput er Center in North Carolina, and its use fostered cooperation, communication, and cr eativity among the project team. “This approach encouraged the team to consta ntly strive for and implement additional environmental enhancements to the facility in a cost-effective manner.” That is a primary benefit of design-build—architects and contract ors help, not work against, each other and work together to develop crea tive, less costly solutions (Nel son 2003). It is design-build teams that offer the broadest point of view in terms of defining the role of contractors in sustainable building (R iley et al. 2003). Green building government incentives ca n aid successful project delivery. Building sustainably can shorten the deve lopment time line, saving contractors as well as developers and owners money (ECONorthwest 2001). In Portland, Oregon, a streamlined permit review progress applies to su stainable projects. The city of Chicago is considering expedited reviews as well (Ca ssidy 2004). In general, builders are more likely to gain community and government suppor t for a green project, in turn helping them avoid legal delays and permitting pr oblems (ECONorthwest 2001). Builders may enjoy “green tape” as opposed to the trad itional “red tape” of permitting bureaucracy (Elefante 2005). Incentives are more established in the local green home programs. Builders participating in residential green building programs may enjoy improved relations with local government officials, who control zoning, construction permitting, and building codes. Builders in nearly 100 jurisdictions benefit from the following incentives: lower permit fees, faster plan checks, priority fiel d inspections, and compli mentary advertising. And some programs offer training in cost-eff ective green construction methods and green

PAGE 52

45 home marketing strategies (Ca ssidy 2004). It is likely that th e success of these residential incentives will soon cross over to the commercial building sector. Constructing green buildings can improve a company’s image. Contractors who practice sustainable met hods of construction are viewed more positively by the public. In a 2004 Associated General Contractors survey, 72 percent of contractors felt that C&D r ecycling improved their company’s public image (Cassidy 2004). Sustainability, therefore, is a marketab le asset companies can promote, especially at a time when more organizations are basi ng financial decisions upon ethical principles. “Companies, organizations, and individuals that are prepared to invest to create a strong perception of design quality and interest in sustainability and the future are likely to be more positively viewed by the public and ot her organizations when choices are made about spending, investment and other activities” (Pitts 2004). Sustainable practices improve a builder’s image in the community because builders are often seen as the major culprits behind unwanted growth and development, such as urban sprawl. People are attracted to a comp any with integrity and a higher purpose, and green builders can capitalize upon this prefer ence. The community will recognize the organization “as the builde r who cares” (Johnston 2000). Forward-looking companies attract quality employees. A company’s culture and values usually under line its recruitment goals and efforts. Companies that embrace the future trends of the construction indus try—namely the green building movement—are likely to attract employees that do so as well. Such employees may be more open-minded and receptive to ch ange, making them an asset to a forwardlooking organization and perpetuating green bu ilding growth. Turner Construction helps sponsor the USGBC’s Emerging Builders Prog ram to “help improve the sustainable

PAGE 53

46 building curriculum at colleges and recogni ze students who will promote future green building growth” (Cassidy 2004). As more universities incorporate sustainable construction into their curriculum and campus structures, more future builders become convinced of its positive qualities—and that becomes a factor in determining at which company they want to work. Skanska stri ves to be an environmentally responsible company, and keep and recruit the best employ ees. It recognizes that a company’s values must appeal to its employees. “Employees want to work for a company they are proud of, and with whose values they can id entify” (Wenblad 2003). When a company commits to building sustainably, employees feel their jobs and thei r company contribute to a greater purpose—not solely the bottom line—resulting in a more loyal, productive workforce. In turn, prospective employees ar e attracted to the comp any’s reputation as a great place to work (Johnston 2000). The future success of companies within the construction industry may reveal itself to be partially dependent upon a company’s will ingness to incorporate sustainability into its practices. Regardless, the success of a ny company depends upon its ability to attract the industry’s youth. And it is the young people within the building i ndustry that “are fervent about the adoption of thes e new principles” (Gillette 2004). Green practices reduce contractor liability. Green building addresses indoor air qu ality (IAQ) during construction. Though contractors may view keeping gypsum board dry on the jobsite as a hindrance, for example, they actually are reduc ing their liability. A number of lawsuits have been filed against contractors claiming that toxic mold in buildings they constructed causes health problems for occupants. In January 2003, plaintiffs suing de velopers, contractors, and the city of Carson City, Nevada, settled fo r $14 million in a case regarding mold present

PAGE 54

47 at a housing development (Salkever 2003). In 2001, a $12 million settlement was reached to conclude a two-year lawsuit re sulting from extensive mold growth at a courthouse in San Martin, California. The lawsuit was between Santa Clara County and the project team, including the general contract or, architect, the contractor's surety, and more than a dozen subcontractors and supplie rs. Of note, 12 cour thouse employees filed personal injury actions against the cont ractors, architects, and suppliers ( ENR 8/13/2001). Excessive moisture is usually to blame for mold growth in buildings. Although it remains unclear to what extent mold causes health problems, it does pose a risk to public health. Research has linked indoor mold to coughing, wheezing, and upper respiratory problems in otherwise healthy people and to asthma symptoms in susceptible people (Solomon 2004). Research also has shown an in creased risk of infec tion associated with hospital and laboratory constr uction (Riley et al. 2003). Mold has been called the asbestos of this generation. U.S. insurers awarded more than $3 billion in mold-related claims in 2002. As a result of the growing nu mber of claims, numerous companies that provide comprehensive general liability insu rance to contractors have begun excluding mold coverage from new policies (Solomon 2004). Builders who apply sustainable construc tion methods can decr ease potential risks associated with mold. For example, one LEED IAQ credit calls for installing materials in a sequence that will prevent contamination of absorptive material s such as insulation, carpeting, ceiling tile, and gypsum wallboard. Another green pract ice is to correctly size a building’s HVAC system—air-conditioning systems are typically oversized. Not only does this lead to unnecessary energy usage, it increases the probability of mold growth. If a unit is oversized, the cooling mode doe s not come on often enough or stay on long

PAGE 55

48 enough to allow for proper dehumidification—a leading factor in mold formation (Solomon, 2004). These examples of focu sing on IAQ management during design and construction reduce the risk of contamination a nd, therefore, contractor risk (Riley et al. 2003). Green building can lower the health risks construction workers face. Construction workers frequently are e xposed to many hazardous materials and practices: “Drillers, sandbl asters, drywall sanders, and brick masons risk inhaling particles of dust, sand, and crys talline silica, which can lead to lung cancers, tuberculosis, and silicosis. Asphalt used in paving and r oofing has been linked to throat irritation, nausea, and chronic lower respiratory inf ections. Workers doing finishing work can breathe in toxic fumes from paints, adhesives, floor finishes, and other materials. And renovation and demolition…can expose workers to lead paint, asbestos, and toxic molds” (Tibbetts 2002). As these risks have been researched and publicized, buildin g industry awareness has grown. Consumers have begun to demand the use of greener, safer materials, and government agencies specify their purchase. Interest in LEED has increased demand for green building materials, assi sting project teams in selec ting environmentally friendly materials and processes. Up to four LEED credits can be earned by the use of lowemitting materials. For one credit, adhesives and paints must not exceed designated VOC limits; for another, composite wood must not contain added urea-formaldehyde resins (Tibbetts 2002). Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are used frequently in such building materials as solvents, binding agents, and cleaning agents. High-VOC paint has traditionally been the industry standard; VOCs e nhance paint color and spreadability. But these organic

PAGE 56

49 chemicals become breathable vapors at room temperature, resulting in emissions during paint application and curing as well as after the paint dries. To construction workers and building occupants, these emissions can lead to headaches, respiratory problems, and allergic reactions. Formaldehyde is a VOC that has for decades been used to help bind wood chips and sawdust together to make particleboard and plywood. But exposure to formaldehyde can lead to brain impairment, with symptoms such as delayed reaction time, clumsiness, short-term memory loss, and elevated anger and conf usion. It also has been linked to a rise in lung a nd other cancers (Tibbetts 2002). Fortunately, most manufacturers have signi ficantly reduced the quantity of VOCs in their paints and other products during the last decade. The use of acrylicand waterbased paints lower in VOCs continues to b ecome more widespread, and their quality has greatly improved. Meanwhile, government re gulations and nonprofit trade groups have driven a reduction in formaldehyde levels in building products (Tibbetts 2002). In general, construction workers are handli ng fewer toxic materials. Construction organizations can help drive this trend. By using green building ma terials, contractors have the opportunity to both protect thei r workersÂ’ health and help protect the environment. It is a matter of logic and ethics.

PAGE 57

50 CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The following arguments can be made as to the advantages of contractors adopting sustainable construction methods. It’s the right thing to do. Green building guidelines are becoming legal mandates. Sustainability enha nces profitability. Contractors who build green increase their market share. Green buildings often cost the same or less than conventional buildings. Builders can help develop th e economies of scale for green building materials. Building sustainably goes hand-in-hand with design-build. Green building government incentives can aid successful project delivery. Constructing green buildings can improve a company’s image. Forward-looking companies attract quality employees. Green practices reduce contractor liability. Green building can lower the health risks construction workers face. Research focused on green building from th e contractor’s perspective is limited. As such, the arguments presented in this study offer opportunities for much further research. For example, contractors could be surveyed as to why many remain hesitant to embrace green building—is cost indeed the pr imary factor? There is a need for much more in-depth financial analys is of the costs associated with sustainable construction

PAGE 58

51 strictly from a contractor’s perspective. Furthermore, contractors experienced in green building are as yet an underut ilized resource source. Namely, what is the learning curve associated with such practices, do costs decr ease as experience levels increase, and are they recognizing the benefits as proposed in this study’s arguments? Surveying contractors whom are currently practicing sustainability has numerous practical implications. A sustainable construction re source guide specifical ly for commercial contractors could be developed, for example. Also, in terms of worker health, the need exists for further studies on the health e ffects of the use of conventional building materials. Research focused on green building from th e contractor’s perspective is limited. As such, the arguments presented in this study offer opportunities for much further research. For example, contractors could be surveyed as to why many remain hesitant to embrace green building—is cost indeed the pr imary factor? There is a need for much more in-depth financial analys is of the costs associated with sustainable construction strictly from a contractor’s perspective. Furthermore, contractors experienced in green building are as yet an underut ilized resource source. Namely, what is the learning curve associated with such practices, do costs decr ease as experience levels increase, and are they recognizing the benefits as proposed in this study’s arguments? Surveying contractors whom are currently practicing sustainability has numerous practical implications. A sustainable construction re source guide specifical ly for commercial contractors could be developed, for example. Also, in terms of worker health, the need exists for further studies on the health e ffects of the use of conventional building materials.

PAGE 59

52 APPENDIX LIST OF ARGUMENTS Why should a contractor build green? ItÂ’s the right thing to do. Green building guidelines are becoming legal mandates. Sustainability enha nces profitability. Contractors who build green increase their market share. Green buildings often cost the same or less than conventional buildings. Builders can help develop th e economies of scale for green building materials. Building sustainably goes hand-in-hand with design-build. Green building government incentives can aid successful project delivery. Constructing green buildings can improve a companyÂ’s image. Forward-looking companies attract quality employees. Green practices reduce contractor liability. Green building can lower the health risks construction workers face.

PAGE 60

53 LIST OF REFERENCES Amatruda, John. 2004. “Defining LEED costs for the U.S. General Services Administration.” The cost and benefits of high performance buildings ed. Pamela Lippe. Earth Day New York: 2004. Pages 27-32. C&D Recycling 2004. “The price is right.” Construction & Demolition Recycling September/October 2004. Vol. 6: No. 5. Cassidy, Robert, ed. 2004. “Progr ess report on sustainability.” Building Design and Construction November 2004. http://www.bdcmag.com/newstrends/bdc04White_paper.pdf Last accessed: March 1, 2005. Clift, Michael. 2003. “Life-cycle co sting in the construction sector.” Industry and environment: sustainable building and construction United Nations Environment Programme. April – September 2003. Vol. 26: No. 2-3, p. 37-40. Day, Christopher. 2000. “Ethical build ing in the everyday environment.” Ethics and the built environment ed. Warwick Fox. Routledge, London: 2000. Pages 127-138. Deane, Michael. 2004. “The CM’s ro le in achieving LEED certification.” The cost and benefits of high performance buildings ed. Pamela Lippe. Earth Day New York: 2004. Pages 114-116. DPR Construction. 2005. http://www.dprinc.com/proj ects/greenbuild_techexp.cfm Last accessed: February 15, 2005. Economist 2004. “The rise of the green building.” December 4, 2004. Vol. 373: No. 8404. ECONorthwest. 2001. “Green building: saving money and the environment; Opportunities for Louisiana.” ECONor thwest, Eugene, Oregon: October 2001. http://www.leanweb.org/qoflife/Green.pdf Last accessed: March 19, 2005. Edwards, Suzy, and Philip Bennett. 2 003. “Construction products and life-cycle thinking.” Industry and environment: sustai nable building and construction United Nations Environment Programme. April – September 2003. Vol. 26: No. 2-3, p. 57-61. Elefante, Carl. 2005. “Greening historic pr eservation.” Lecture at the University of Florida. March 15, 2005.

PAGE 61

54 Engineering News-Record 8/13/2001. “County and project team reach settlement in toxic mold case.” Engineering News-Record. 11/15/2004. “Construction we ek: waste not want not.” EPA. 2002. “Building for the future.” WasteWise Update U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: February 2002. http://www.resourcesaver.org/file /toolmanager/CustomO16C45F53196.pdf Last accessed: February 15, 2005. Fortune 2004. “Green building.” Special adver tising section in part nership with U.S. Green Building Council. Fortune October 18, 2004. Fournier, Paul. 2004. “On-site waste se paration: Consigli Construction adopts C&D source separation policy for all of its jobs.” New England Construction October 25, 2004. Frangos, Alex. 2005. “Greener and higher.” Wall Street Journal January 31, 2005. Gillette, Jim. 2004. “Perspective: th e transformation of an industry.” Environmental Design + Construction December 2004/January 2005. Girardet, Herbert. 2000. “Greening urban society.” Ethics and the built environment ed. Warwick Fox. Routledge, London: 2000. Pages 15-30. Gonchar, Joann. 2004. “‘Green’ builders tackling sensitive te chnical issues.” Engineering News-Record November 22, 2004. Gonchar, Joann. 2005. Rapidly evolving rating system draws applause and criticism. Engineering News-Record February 28, 2005. Gottfried, David. 2003. “A blueprin t for green building economics.” Industry and environment: sustainable building and construction United Nations Environment Programme. April – September 2003. Vol. 26: No. 2-3, p. 20-21. Johnston, David. 2000. Building green in a black and white world Home Builder Press, NAHB, Washington, D.C.: 2000. Karolides, Alexis. 2002. “Green building approaches.” Green building: project planning and cost estimating ed. Andrea Keenan and Danielle Georges RSMeans, Kingston, Massachusetts: 2002. Pages 3-21. Kats, Gregory H. 2003. “Green building cost s and financial benef its.” Massachusetts Technology Collaborative: 2003. http://www.cap-e.com/ewebeditpro/items/O59F3481.pdf Last accessed: February 20, 2005.

PAGE 62

55 Kibert, Charles, and M. Moretti. 2004. “Towar d an ethics of sustainability.” University of Florida. Unpublished manuscript. Kibert, Charles, Jan Sendzimir, and G. Bradley Guy. 2000. “Defining an ecology of construction.” Construction ecology: Nature as the basis for green buildings, ed. Kibert, Sendzimer, and Guy. Spon Press, New York: 2000. Pages 7-28. Leppert, Thomas C. 2004. “Why is Turner ta lking green?” Vital Speeches of the Day. November 15, 2004. Vol. 71: No. 3. Macaluso, Joseph. 2002. “Economic incentives and funding sources.” Green building: project planning and cost estimating, ed. Andrea Keenan and Danielle Georges. RSMeans, Kingston, Massachusetts: 2002. Pages 197-207. Matthiessen, Lisa Fay, and Peter Morris. 2004. “Costing green: a comprehensive cost database and budgeting methodology.” Davis Langdon: July 2004. http://www.dladamson.com/Attachment %20Files/Research /costinggreen.pdf Last accessed: March 5, 2005. Muto, Sheila. 2004. “From recycled rubble come roads, parking lots, savings.” Wall Street Journal May 26, 2004. Pitts, Adrian. 2004. Planning and design strategies fo r sustainability and profit: Pragmatic sustainable design on building and urban scales Architectural Press, Boston: 2004. Post, Nadine M. 2004. “Rating system makes headway.” Engineering News-Record November 8, 2004. Pultar, Mustafa. 2000. “The concep tual basis of building ethics.” Ethics and the built environment ed. Warwick Fox. Routledge London: 2000. Pages 155-169. Riley, David, Kim Pexton, and Jennifer Drill ing. 2003. “Procurement of sustainable construction services in the United States: th e contractor's role in green buildings.” Industry and environment: sustai nable building and construction United Nations Environment Programme. April – Sept ember 2003. Vol. 26: No. 2-3, p. 66-69. Salkever, Alex. 2003. “Ganging up on mold.” Business Week June 30, 2003. Skanska. 2005. Skanska code of conduct. http://www.skanska.com/files/documents/pdf/code_of_conduct.pdf Last accessed: February 19, 2005. Solomon, Nancy B. 2004. “Mold may not be a severe health menace, but it is still a complex problem.” Architectural Record September 2004. Vol. 192: No. 9.

PAGE 63

56 Strand, Sigrid Melby, and Sverre Fossdal. 2003. “Do standards and regulations supply the necessary incentive for sustainable building?” Industry and environment: sustainable buildi ng and construction United Nations Environment Programme. April – September 2003. Vol. 26: No. 2-3, p. 33-36. Sustainable Development Task Force. 2003. “Drivers for sustainable construction.” Industry and environment: sustai nable building and construction United Nations Environment Programme. April – Sept ember 2003. Vol. 26: No. 2-3, p. 22-25. Tibbetts, John. 2002. “Building a safer industry.” Environmental Health Perspectives March 2002. Vol. 110: No. 3. UNEP. 2003. “Sustainable building a nd construction facts and figures.” Industry and environment: sustainable building and construction United Nations Environment Programme. April – September 2003. Vol. 26: No. 2-3; p. 5-8. University of Buffalo. 2004. UB High Perfor mance Building Guidelines. University of Buffalo, State University of New Yor k. 2004. Last accessed: March 5, 2005. http://wings.buffalo.edu/ubgreen/leos/ubhpguidelines.pdf Wallbaum, Holger, and Claudia Buerkin. 2003. “Concepts and instruments for a sustainable construction sector.” Industry and environment: sustainable building and construction United Nations Environment Programme. April – September 2003. Vol. 26: No. 2-3, p. 53-57. Walls & Ceilings 2003. “Lead by example: can waste gypsum really be recycled? One Canadian company proves it every da y.” March 2003. Vol. 66: No. 3. Wenblad, Axel. 2003. “Sustainable construc tion: a Swedish company's approach.” Industry and environment: sustai nable building and construction United Nations Environment Programme. April – Sept ember 2003. Vol. 26: No. 2-3, p. 70-71. Woolley, Tom. 2000. “Green buildi ng: establishing principles.” Ethics and the built environment ed. Warwick Fox. Routledge, London: 2000. Pages 44-56. Yudelson, Jerry. 2004. “Perspective: forecas ting market demand for green buildings 2004-2007.” Environmental Design + Construction December 2004/January 2005.

PAGE 64

57 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Leah Elida Griffin was born in Fort La uderdale on February 26, 1979, to Fred and Cindy Griffin. She and her younger sister, Amy, were raised in Davie, Florida. Their father passed away in 1990 after suffering a brain aneurysm. Leah graduated from Hollywood Hills High School before coming to the University of Florida in 1997. She earned her bachelorÂ’s degree in journalism with highest honors in 2001. Later that year, she moved to Birmingham, Alabama, and worked as a copy editor at Cooking Light magazine. Leah is grateful to have chosen to retu rn to UF in January 2003 as a graduate student in the Rinker School of Building C onstruction. In the summer of 2004, Leah worked as a project engineer intern at Jame s B. Pirtle Construction in Davie, and also became a LEED Accredited Professional. U pon her graduation in April 2005, Leah plans to return to Pirtle to be gin her construction career.