Citation
Sustainability for Interior Design: Rating the Flooring Materials in a Leed Registered Hotel Using the BEES Evaluative Software for Sustainable Products

Material Information

Title:
Sustainability for Interior Design: Rating the Flooring Materials in a Leed Registered Hotel Using the BEES Evaluative Software for Sustainable Products
Creator:
CAIN, SARAH CROSS ( Author, Primary )
Copyright Date:
2008

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Bees ( jstor )
Carpet tile ( jstor )
Carpets ( jstor )
Ceramic tile ( jstor )
Economics ( jstor )
Hotels ( jstor )
Interior design ( jstor )
Linoleum ( jstor )
Maintenance costs ( jstor )
Term weighting ( jstor )

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
Copyright Sarah Cross Cain. Permission granted to the University of Florida to digitize, archive and distribute this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.
Embargo Date:
5/31/2008
Resource Identifier:
659898571 ( OCLC )

Downloads

This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

SUSTAINABILITY FOR INTERIOR DESIGN: RATING THE FLOORING MATERIALS IN A LEED REGISTERED HOTEL USING THE BEES EVALUATIVE SOFTWARE FOR SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTS By SARAH CROSS CAIN 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 INTERIOR DESIGN UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2007

PAGE 2

2 2007 Sarah Cross Cain

PAGE 3

3 I would like to dedicate this thesis to my family, for their continuing support & encouragement. My children, Clay & Nicholas, were age four and one when I embarked on this journey. They have been my cheerleaders and quite patient to give up time spent with Mommy while I pursued my dream of this master’s degr ee. To my husband, Rick, who has been the one to take on the extra work at home while I worked on my variou s school projects, I thank you for always encouraging me to stay with it. To my Mom for always bringing me up to beli eve that I could do anyt hing that I set my mind to do. You taught me to follow my dreams, pursue my interests & develop my talents. And a special thanks to my brothe r Tom, who always knew just what to say to talk me back “in from the edge.” Thank you for always being there for me.

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I’d like to acknowledge all th e people who helped to support my pursuit of this master’s degree. They say it takes a villag e to raise a childI believe that I was fortunate enough to have a village of support during the past 4 years. Special thanks go to my committee chair, Debr a Harrisit was her spirit and enthusiasm that initially sparked my interest in sustainabil ity. She has been a valuab le leader through this difficult thesis process. My gratitude also goes to my committee member Svetlana Olbina. I appreciate the time and energy that she dedicated to this work. I would also like to thank Candy Carmel for always being willing to participate and contribute to this cause. I enjoyed working with all of them. MikeShea (of the architectural firm, Fletcher Farr Auotte) supplied data for the Vancouver Hilton. His contribution was invaluable to my study. In addition, I would like to e xpress my gratitude to my professor and good friend, Phil Abbott; he is a kindred spirit who gave me great advice about how to juggle the important duties of parenthood and schoolwork. This work could not have been comple ted without the help and support from my extended family of close friends here in Gainesville. I consider my self very lucky to have such a faithful group of friends. Lastly, I would like to extend special thanks to my fellow graduate students Caroline, Juli, Kati, and Lori. This experi ence brought us together. Each of them has shaped me in ways I will never forget. They will always have a special place in my heart!

PAGE 5

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...............................................................................................................4 LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................................. ..........8 LIST OF FIGURES................................................................................................................ .........9 ABSTRACT....................................................................................................................... ............10 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................12 Purpose of the Study........................................................................................................... ....12 Hypothesis..................................................................................................................... .........13 Research Question.............................................................................................................. ....14 Significance of Study.......................................................................................................... ....14 2 LITERATURE REVIEW.......................................................................................................16 Introduction................................................................................................................... ..........16 Sustainable Building Movement.............................................................................................17 Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design..................................................................19 Interior Design’s Role in Su stainable Design & Planning.....................................................22 Life Cycle Analysis............................................................................................................ ....25 Life Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA)..........................................................................................27 Sustainability in the Hospitality Industry...............................................................................28 Flooring Materials............................................................................................................. .....31 Carpet......................................................................................................................... .....32 Face Weight.................................................................................................................... .33 Construction Methods.....................................................................................................33 Broadloom carpet.....................................................................................................33 Carpet tile.................................................................................................................34 Tuft type...................................................................................................................35 Face fibers................................................................................................................35 Dye methods.............................................................................................................36 Installation................................................................................................................37 Resilient Floor Coverings................................................................................................37 Vinyl composition tile..............................................................................................37 Linoleum..................................................................................................................38 Wood: Bamboo................................................................................................................39 Hard Floor Coverings......................................................................................................39

PAGE 6

6 Ceramic tile..............................................................................................................39 Ceramic tile with recycled content...........................................................................40 Stone.......................................................................................................................... ......40 Granite......................................................................................................................40 Marble......................................................................................................................41 Software Based Material Evaluation Products.......................................................................41 Building for Environmental and Economic Sustainability (BEES).......................................44 Environmental Performance............................................................................................45 Global warming potential (GWP)............................................................................46 Acidification potential..............................................................................................47 Eutrophication potential...........................................................................................48 Fossil fuel depletion.................................................................................................48 Indoor air quality......................................................................................................49 Water intake.............................................................................................................50 Criteria air pollutants................................................................................................51 Human health...........................................................................................................51 Smog formation potential.........................................................................................52 Ozone depletion potential.........................................................................................53 Ecological toxicity....................................................................................................54 Normalizing impacts in BEES.................................................................................54 EPA Science Advisory Board study.........................................................................55 Economic Performance...................................................................................................55 First costs..................................................................................................................56 Future costs..............................................................................................................56 Maintenance.............................................................................................................56 Summary........................................................................................................................ .........61 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY...........................................................................................66 Introduction................................................................................................................... ..........66 Comparative Case Study.........................................................................................................66 Phase One: Review of Official Documents....................................................................66 Phase Two: Compilation of Manuf acturers Specification Sheets..................................67 Phase Three: Evaluation of Flooring Materials: BEES Software Tool.........................67 Environmental performance (Life Cycle Assessment)............................................67 Economic performance (Life Cycle Cost Analysis).................................................68 Weighting of performance criterion.........................................................................68 Overall performance score.......................................................................................69 Assimilation of Results........................................................................................................ ...69 4 RESULTS........................................................................................................................ .......72 5 DISCUSSION..................................................................................................................... ....86 Product Comparisons............................................................................................................ ..87 Typical Guest Room, Health Cl ub, Restaurant and Corridors........................................87 Typical Computer Room.................................................................................................89

PAGE 7

7 Typical Restaurant...........................................................................................................91 Typical Lobby Stair Treads and Lobby Floor Accents...................................................91 Typical Guest Bath Rooms & Health Club/Pool Entry...................................................92 Research Question.............................................................................................................. ....92 BEES Software Program........................................................................................................93 6 CONCLUSIONS, LIMITATIONS & FUTURE RESEARCH..............................................96 Conclusions.................................................................................................................... .........96 Limitations.................................................................................................................... ..........97 Suggestions for Future Research..........................................................................................100 APPENDIX A HILTON HOTEL ENVIRONMENTA L MISSION STATEMENT...................................102 B BEES NORMALIZATION VALUES.................................................................................104 C EPA IMPACT CATEGORY RELATI VE IMPORTANCE WEIGHTS.............................105 D BEES FLOOR COVERINGS...............................................................................................106 E BEES COPYRIGHT INFORMATION................................................................................107 F BEES GRAPHS....................................................................................................................108 LIST OF REFERENCES.............................................................................................................117 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.......................................................................................................120

PAGE 8

8 LIST OF TABLES Table page 2-1 A comparison of available software ba sed evaluation tools fo r sustainable design assessment..................................................................................................................... .....63 3-1 Flooring materials used in the LEED registered Hilton Vancouver Hotel........................70 3-2 Researchers suggested flooring materials..........................................................................71 4-1 Summary of results for fl ooring material comparisons.....................................................76 4-2 Summary of flooring material s environmental performance.............................................77 4-3 Summary of flooring material environmental performance..............................................81 5-1 Summary of results for fl ooring material comparisons.....................................................95

PAGE 9

9 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 2-1 BEES 2.0 users............................................................................................................ ...........64 2-2 BEES environmental & economic scoring inputs .................................................................65 4-1 Global warming impact for Inte rface carpet tile and nylon broadloom.................................78 4-2 Criteria air pollutants for Inte rface carpet tile and nylon broadloom.....................................79 4-3 Indoor air quality for Interf ace carpet tile and nylon broadloom...........................................80 4-4 Human health impact for VCT and Forbo linoleum...............................................................82 4-5 Euthrophication impact for VCT and Forbo linoleum...........................................................83 4-6 Global warming impact for ceramic tile w/ recycled glass....................................................84 4-7 Human health impact for cer amic tile w/ recycled glass........................................................85

PAGE 10

10 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 Interior Design SUSTAINABILITY FOR INTERIOR DESIGN: RATING THE FLOORING MATERIALS IN A LEED REGISTERED HOTEL USING THE BEES EVALUATIVE SOFTWARE FOR SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTS By Sarah Cross Cain May 2007 Chair: Debra Harris Major: Interior Design Sustainable development is a ra pidly growing area of focus for many interior designers. The tourism sector of the worl d’s economy is growing. Envi ronmental design of hotels can reduce many of the environmental impacts of rapid tourism development. Interior designers can help to impact this sustainable movement thr ough the appropriate selectio n of interior finish materials, which both meet the needs of our clie nts and support this sustainable commitment of change. Knowledge is the key to this process. Evaluation of materials for their sustainability and cost efficiency can be challenging. Education in the field or a credible (non biased) reference resource is needed. Software evaluative systems like Buil ding for Environmental and Economic Sustainability (BEES) can be an effective tool for designers, providing the information needed to make the best choices for clie nt’s specific needs and goals. The focus of this study was to evaluate and compare interior flooring materials used in the first LEED certified hotel and th e researcher’s suggested list of flooring materials, against a matrix of environmental and economic performan ce criteria. This study aimed to highlight for designers the important elements to consider when evaluating flooring materials for use in a

PAGE 11

11 sustainable designed hotel. In addition, it is m eant to provide a framework for using the BEES evaluation tool and evaluate pract ical application of its use. Results of the study show that the BEES softwa re tool has room for improvement, such as expanding its product database, adding a more pers onalized maintenance input system, and fully addressing a few difficult to quantify assessment ar eas. However, it remains one of the strongest evaluation tools for use by designers today. As design professionals we must educate ou rselves to the limitations within the BEES software system. It is important to remember that the BEES answers are not absolutes; however, they can help to identify the complex issues needed to evaluate more fully the materials we intend to specify in our design applications.

PAGE 12

12 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION The concept of sustainable development is a rapidly growing area of focus for many interior designers, offering a wide array of curre nt opportunities and exciting possibilities for the future. The first definition of the term “susta inable development” was coined at the World Commission on Environment and Development in 1987 as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (Kibert, 1999, p.1). Interior desi gners are positioned to have a ma jor impact on sustainability. “Interior designers who focus on environmentally responsible design plan, specify, and execute solutions for interior environments that refl ect concern for both the world’s ecology and the inhabitant’s quality of life” (Guerin, 2003). Interior material specification is one of the areas where interior designers can contribute to this sustainable design effort. However, the evaluation of interior materials for sustainability and cost efficiency is a challenging task. Education in the field and credible, non-biased re ferenced resources are needed to guide designers in this ta sk (Malin & Wilson, 1997). This study will evaluate appropriate choices of flooring materials specified in hotel environments based on criteria for sustainable design. It will also provide interior designers with a framework for the evaluation of flooring materials (in the hospitality environment) for sust ainability and cost effi ciency. Credible third party information about the eval uation of such materials is needed, especially in the hotel division of the hospitality indus try, where there is limited resear ch in the area of flooring materials. Purpose of the Study This study focused on sustainable design in rela tion to the selection of flooring materials used in the Vancouver Hilton Hotel and the researchers suggested flooring alternatives. It will

PAGE 13

13 evaluate and compare the finish materials, using a matrix of environmental and economic performance criterion specified in the Building for Environmental and Ec onomic Sustainability (BEES) software evaluation tool. The Vancouve r Hilton Hotel (Vancouver, Washington) was built utilizing the Leadership in Energy & Envi ronmental Design (LEED) standard sustainable design practices. The researchers suggested fl ooring materials list would propose a “best case scenario” flooring schedule for us e in the hotel environment. The following conceptual diagram (Figure 1) shows the key steps in the process of evaluating the flooring selections in this study. The weighting of environmental performance and economic performance is an important elem ent in determining the BEES sustainability score. Many product sustainability claims ar e based on a single environmental impact. These single attribute claims may be misleading because they ignore the possibility that other life-cycle stages, or other environmental impacts, may yield offsetting impacts (LIPPIATT, 2002). The inclusion of both environmental and economic pe rformance will provide a comprehensive view of the sustainability of th e flooring products selected. Hypothesis Flooring materials suggested by the researcher will have a lower (bette r) score, according to the BEES evaluation tool, than the flooring materials used in the LEED Hilton Hotel within the first two data sets: 1. Priorities for weighting (Environmen tal Performance/Economic Performance): 1. a. Comparison of the materials base d on the BEES analysis tool weighted criteria (50%-50% or equal weighting) 1. b. Comparisons of the materials with the weighting of priorities shifted to different sustainability criteria: More heavily weighted toward Environmental Performance (80%-20%) More heavily weighted toward Economic Performance (80%20%)

PAGE 14

14 The weighting of the environmental and economic performance is meant to show dominant points of view, shifted towards each of the evaluation categories. Eighty percent and twenty percent were chosen because they showed significant leaning in one-direction verses the other. Research Question In conducting and analyzing this research, the study will seek to answ er this question: is the sustainability score for interior flooring materials using the BEES evaluation tool lower (better) when the performance criterion shifts from economic focus to environmental focus? Within the three weighting scenarios, will th e LEED hotel have a higher score (not as good) when the criteria are balanced 50%-50%? Will its score be better (lower) when the weighting shifts to environmental or when it shifts to economical outcomes? Significance of Study “Smart hoteliers know that a hotel floor is not just a surface or a c overed concrete slab— it is a powerful tool that can enha nce and even dictate the overall dcor and personality of a hotel space” (Oakley, 2005). This study will address im portant concerns when evaluating flooring materials for use in a sustainable designed hotel. In addition, it will provide designers with the knowledge and tools to use in assessing future proj ects in regard to floor ing materials in hotel design as well as other building types in this field with a reference tool for future projects. This study will provide a framework for using the B EES evaluation tool and show the practical application of it. Because th e hospitality industry has just begun the move toward sustainable building design, this study, combined with the lit erature review, will contribute to the knowledge base of the interior design profession. The scope of this research is a small piece of a larger puzzle. The hotel industry is in need of more research on sustainability. More studies in this area will provide interior designers with

PAGE 15

15 an informed process of sustainability specific to the design challenges they face in the hospitality field. This information will better enable interior designers to facilitate the hotel industry’s progress toward joining the sustai nable arena. The fact that th e only materials being studied are the interior flooring used in the Vancouver Hi lton Hotel and research er’s best practices suggestions is consistent with an exploratory study. Results ma y provide useful insight and a basis for a larger, more comprehensive study incl uding other types of typical materials specified in hotel design. Conceptual Diagram Flooring Product Sustainability Score BEES Software Program Environmental Performance (LCA) Economic Performance (LCCA) Researchers Suggestions Vancouver Hilton LEED W E I G H T I N G Figure 1-1 . Conceptual framework (Source: Sarah Cain)

PAGE 16

16 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW This chapter reviews the literature relevant to the sustainable building movement and how choices of flooring materials impact the indoor environmental quality, LEED rating system and the cost implications for the hotel industry. Introduction “The modern buildings we live and work in rival such well-known polluters as cars and manufacturing as sources of harm to the environment, adding greatly to deforestation, the risk of global warming, overuse of water, and acid ra in” (Roodman & Lenssen, 1995). As much as forty percent of the world’s materials and ener gy production is consumed by buildings. This figure does not include the ener gy required to harvest, manufac ture, and transport all the materials used to construct and maintain buildings. One forth of all the virgin wood harvested ends up in buildings, and this figure does not even take into account a building’s interior wood furnishings. Statistics show that we are “overshooting” or depl eting our natural resources at a rate 1.2 times the ability for our pl anet to replenish what our society uses ever y year. To prevent a catastrophic collapse of our biosphere we must act decisively to reduce our rate of consumption (e.g., http://www.ecovoice.com.au/issues/issue%201/EV01p6build.pdf , Retrieved July 2006). Sick building syndrome (SBS) is th e term used to describe health complaints such as nasal congestion, headache, irritated eyes, lethargy an d tiredness, which are difficult to medically diagnose but are symptoms present in individuals when they are within a building but disappear or diminish once they leave the building. A study in 1995 showed that SBS affects 30% of newly built or renovated buildi ngs (Roodman & Lenssen). The cau se of SBS was shown to be poor air quality, resulting in hazardou s conditions within the building.

PAGE 17

17 William McDonough, in his book titled The Next Industrial Revolution , describes the current challenges facing our modern society and his vision of the future: Today even the most advanced building or fact ory in the world is still a kind of steamship, polluting, contaminating, and depleting th e surrounding environment, and relying on scarce amounts of natural light and fresh air. People are essentially working in the dark, and they are often breathing unhealthy air. Imagin e, instead, a building as a kind of tree. It would purify air, accrue solar income, produce more energy than it consumes, create shade and habitat, enrich soil, and cha nge with the seasons (McDonough, 2001). To achieve this type of transformation with in the building industry, we must radically rethink our current building philosophies. The world faces daunting environmental challenges, and many present day trends are discouraging as they continue to harm our environment. However, it is important to remember that trends are not nece ssarily destiny. The future will be shaped by human choices–choi ces that will be influenced by a heightened awareness of their far-reaching implica tions in many areas of our lives (e.g., www.earthday.net/pdf/howto/schools/whatsup.pdf , Retrieved June 2006.). “If we are capable of knowing and uncovering the problems and challenges, then we are capable of solving them. Since humans will always build buildings, this is a criti cal arena in which to face this challenge and enact a new sensitivity to the world's resources. This arena spans the globe, yet it allows the single homeowner or apartment dweller to make the first step” (Bierman-Lytle, 1995). Sustainable Building Movement The trends in building and construction of r ecent years suggest that we need a new moral compass to guide us into the twenty-first centur y—a compass that is grounded in the principles of meeting human needs sustaina bly (Worldwatch Institute, 1999 ). A variety of factors have infl uenced the environmental build ing movement over the past 50 years. During the 1970s, it was the increase in oi l-prices that sparked interest in energyconserving building materials. During the 1980s, a ttention to building mate rials that reduced or

PAGE 18

18 omitted pollutants became important as a result of the Sick Building Syndrome or indoor air pollution. By the 1990s, we were engaged in a more comprehensive definition of environmental materials and technologie s (Bierman-Lytle, 1995). According to Bierman-Lytle (1995), this definition encompasses both energy-conserving pr oducts (nontoxic or healthy products), and most importantly, resource management. He belie ves that the building industry plays a primary role and has a responsibility concerning this area of resource management. This role begins in the selection of materials and t echnologies used in the construc tion of buildings (Bierman-Lytle, 1995). There are many organizations that exist whose primary focus is to develop guidelines and procedures that will help guide our society to the next step. Th e Natural Step (TNS) is one of these groups. A non-profit organization, their pu rpose is to educate and provide guidance for communities and individuals on how to live more in t une with the earth and with nature in such a way that supports our livelihood, leading to an ecologically and economically sustainable society. Forum for the Future, which is the United Ki ngdom’s branch of The Natural Step, defines sustainable development in such a manner that highlights the biophysical limits within which we all must live. “Sustainable de velopment is a dynamic process whic h enables all people to realize their potential & improve their quality of life in ways which simultaneously protect & enhance the Earth’s life support systems” (Vetter, Weston, & Martin, n.d.). One of the objectives of Forum fo r the Future is to eliminate our contribution to systematic physical degradation of nature through over-har vesting, depletion, foreign introductions and other forms of modification. They suggest dr awing resources only from well-managed ecosystems, systematically pursuing the most pr oductive and efficient use of both our natural

PAGE 19

19 resources and land, and exercising ca ution in all kinds of modifica tion of nature. In order to achieve these objectives, we must use our natural resources efficiently, fairly and responsibly so that the needs of all people on whom we have an impact, and the future needs of people who are not yet born, stand the best chance of being met (e.g., http://www.naturalstep.org , Retrieved January, 2006). Designers who are interested in and consci ous of sustainability are faced with some important, and often difficult, questions: What finish materials should be specified? Is it recycled? Is it renewable? Is it low in VOCs? Is it available lo cally? If the choice is between products that contain these attrib utes, then what other factors s hould be considered? The choices can be daunting (Montgomery, 2003). Addressing these important questions and discerning potential solutions to these challenges will be addressed in this research. Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design As the leading organization representing th e building industry on environmental matters, the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) is widely regarded as the nation’s foremost authority on sustainable design and the issu es related to it. USGBC's mi ssion is to shift the building industry’s focus to sustainability by promoting buildings that are environmentally responsible, profitable and healthy. LEED is the tool that makes this transformation possible. The Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design (LEED) Program was deve loped in 1998 to provide “a leading-edge system for designing, constructing, operating and certifying the world’s greenest buildings” (e.g., http://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CategoryID=19 , Retrieved November 2005). High performance LEED buildings are projected to save energy, conserve resources, protect occupant health, and improve their owner’s bottom lines . The LEED system takes a whole-building

PAGE 20

20 approach, addressing the building' s entire lifecycle and evaluating five key areas of impact. These five key areas include sustainable sites, water efficiency, energy & atmosphere, materials & resources, and indoor environmental quality. Indoor flooring material choices fa ll directly within the materi al and resources category but are also indirectly linked to indoor en vironmental quality (IEQ) (USGBC, 2004). According to the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC), more than 3000 projects in 50 states have registered for LEED cer tification as of November 2005 (e.g., http://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CategoryID=19 , Retrieved November 2005). As of that date, the council had certified 359 projec ts. The list of LEED cer tified and LEED candidate buildings include governmental bu ildings (the White House is th e most prestigious of these), schoolhouses, hospitals, commercial buildings, mixe d-use retail spaces, and residential homes. In June of 2005, Hilton’s Vancouver Hotel b ecame the first hotel to apply for LEED certification. This internati onal hotelier is known for its excep tional quality and high standards in the industry. The fact that the Hilton organization recognizes the importance of sustainable development establishes a precedent for other hoteliers to follow ( Libby, 2005). While an immense amount of effort went into the development of LEED, it was by no means a scientific process. Voluntary industr y stakeholder committees made up of experts and interested parties developed progr am features (Scheuer & Keolei an, 2002). This approach has been criticized for potentially leading to indus try favoritism and a dilution of environmental standards. While much has been written a bout the LEED program’s growing popularity, there has been very little comprehe nsive study of the program. A report conducted in 2002 by a master's thesis candidate at the Univer sity of Michigan's Center for Sustainable Systems under contract from the National Institute of Standards and

PAGE 21

21 Technology (NIST) reflected this criticism. The wo rk was part of an overall thrust at the NIST to improve metrics and tools for assessing the e nvironmental impacts of buildings. In the study, a limited analysis was done of two LEED envi ronmental issues for one building on the Ann Arbor campus. The findings revealed discre pancies in outcome of LEED credits. The researchers concluded that when considered in a life cycle perspective, LEED does not provide consistent, organized structure fo r achievement of environmental goals. This was primarily due to a lack of comparability between LEED ratings and Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) results. The suggestion was made to integrate the use of lif e cycle oriented measures and standards into future versions of LEED (S cheuer & Keoleian, 2002). The LEED framework is a helpful and a highly regarded evaluation tool for sustainable buildings. However, the guidelines used in LEED to evaluate the materials used in a project, such as rapidly renewable resource or wood from a Forest Stewardship Council managed forest, are limited in the extent to which it can guide design professionals in making educated decisions for their clients specific needs. The level of decision-making in LEED encourages consideration of environmental impacts at th e level of individual credit options. In contrast to LEED’s outcome oriented approach, documenting the specif ic procedures, data so urces, boundaries, and assumptions utilized in a LCA promotes clar ity of information and allows for greater comparability of products (Scheuer & Keoleian, 2002). The green building movement has ignited a de mand for more detailed information with which to evaluate products for their sustaina bility says Margaret Montgomery (2003), an architect and LEED accredited professional. She poi nts out that it is not always easy to do the right thing. “Life cycle analys is can identify areas where th e simple LEED-approved response may not actually be the most sust ainable.” An evaluation tool that provides a database of

PAGE 22

22 information pre-assembled to compare products w ithin this complex issue is greatly needed (Montgomery, 2003). This research will focus on using such an evaluation tool. Interior Design’s Role in Sus tainable Design & Planning It is a common misconception th at interior designers do not have a significant impact on the sustainability of a building. To refute that idea one only has to refer to the very document that most people rely on so heavily when considering sustainable choices: LEED-NC (Leadership in Energy & Environmenta l Design for New Co nstruction). According to LEED-NC, in the category cal led Materials and Resources, designers may have direct control of 7 of the possible 14 points. For the categor y Indoor Environmental Quality, interior designers may ha ve control of 6 points out of 17. That equates to a total of 13 out of 57 points, or 23%, in the entire LEED scor ecard. This does not take into account the four points available for innovation in design or th e one point awarded for having a LEED accredited professional on the design team. Considering that it requires 21 points to receive certification, it appears evident that interior designers can indeed play a significant role in the sustainability of a building (LEED, 1998). According to the World Watch Institute (US Department of Energy, 2003) about 10 percent of the global economy involves building construction, ope ration and equipment, thereby using between 17 to 50 percent of the world’s na tural resources and potentially causing extensive damage to the environment. Buildings also im pact the health and welfare of its occupants through indoor air quality (Fisk & Rosenfeld, 1997) . Indoor environments have been shown to significantly influence rates of re spiratory disease, allergy and asthma symptoms, sick building symptoms and worker performance. In the Un ited States alone, estimates of potential annual savings from these ailments range in the billions of dollars (Fisk & Rosenfeld, 1997). This is an

PAGE 23

23 area where interior designers can have a great impact, since they are generally the ones who are specifying the types of interior materials that affect these issues (Malin & Wilson, 1997). Through the practice of sharing information on lif e cycle cost analysis and other pertinent information regarding not only the surface requirem ents of materials but their performance in many specific and relevant sustainable areas, de signers can prepare themselves to make more informed decisions (Malin & Wilson, 1997). Interi or designers must educate their customers on the importance of choosing materials that will support the intended func tion of the space in addition to performing well over time. Understanding how our design decisions can affect our physical environment will help better prepare us for our role as resource managers as we near the 21st century (Bierman-Lytle, 1995). Designers often use the LEED scorecard as th e only way to identify if a material is sustainable. While LEED does provide a guide in some instances between material choices, designers need a more detailed profiling system to enable us to be the experts in the area of choosing appropriate sustainable choices (Bierman-Lytle, 1995). Design professionals have a unique opportunity to reduce en vironmental impact through the specification of a ppropriate materials. “The body of knowledge that is part of wholebuilding life cycle assessment can help to inform better design decisions in service to a healthier planet” (Montgomery, 2003). Barbara Lippiatt, the director of the BEES program, believes that environmental claims based on single impacts (for example, recycled c ontent) should be viewed with skepticism. She warns that consumers and design professionals must consider the trade-offs made in order to proclaim a product’s strength in any one particular sustainable area. “LCA provides key science

PAGE 24

24 based information often lacking in the product selection decision. If a designer specifies a material based on a single impact, it can obscure other impacts that can cause even greater damage” (Hittinger, 2001, p. 50). Designer professionals need to have access to this data in order to make educated choices about material selection that will best serve our customers sustainabi lity objectives. With interior material specification being the most si gnificant way in which we can be involved in the sustainable movement, we must arm ourselves with the most dynamic tools to aid us in evaluating these products. Only then can we truly consider ourselves leader s in this sustainable revolution. Understanding the environmental issues surroun ding the extraction of raw materials, the manufacture of construction materials, and th eir effects in use is important to ensure sustainability. Choosing the right material demands a careful balancing act. The choice of one material or another should be governed by a t horough analysis of all th e possible environmental and social implications. Understanding a mate rials embodied energy, the amount of energy used in the sourcing, manufacturing, tran sportation and constr uction with a building material, as well as the eventual demolition of the building and disposal of the material, may all be important considerations These variables differ significantly from project to project. For that reason, a number of techniques have been developed to measure different elements of this process. These techniques include: gross energy requirement (GER), process energy requirement (PER), building material ecological sustainability (BES) i ndex, and life-cycle analysis (LCA), sometimes called the cradle to grave approach (Thareja, Vyas & Banerjee, 2003). For this research, life cycle analysis or the cradle-to-grave approach will be used.

PAGE 25

25 Life Cycle Analysis Assessing the full environmental impact of a product or construction may be completed only if consideration is given to its effect through out all the stages of its life. Focusing simply on its impact during use or on one of its characterist ics, such as recyclability or energy efficiency, gives only a partial and possibly misleading pict ure of its overall performance. The cradle-tograve concept (life-cycle analysis) underl ies the assessment systems developed for most official eco-labeling systems, and its use as a framewor k for product development and design can thus be expected to spread rapidly. “LCA can identi fy areas where the simple LEED-approved response may not actually be the most sustainable” (Montgomery, 2003). The LCA process acknowledges that sustainability issues may emerge at any stage, including raw material extr action, ingredients processing, manufacture or construction, distribution, use and disposal. LCA assessment provides a useful framework and checklist for ensuring that every aspect of the product is considered (Montgomery, 2003). The LCA allows impacts, both positive and negative, from discrete systems and materials to be weighed against each other (Scheuer & Keoleian, 2002). By contrast, eco labeling, which is when a pr oduct receives a sustainable label for a single attribute, may be misleading. These products may in fact have an overall negative environmental impact due to their other attributes (Lippiat t & Boyles, 2001; Scheuer & Keoleian, 2002). Let’s look at an example. Suppose we're cons idering two floor coverings: (1) a broadloom nylon carpet installed using a conventional glue, a mainstream alternative, and (2) a broadloom carpet made from PET (recycled soft drink bottles) and installed using a low-VOC glue (a glue emitting relatively low levels of volatile or ganic compounds), a product promoted as an environmentally friendly alternative.

PAGE 26

26 The BEES software evaluation tool was used to compare these products. In the BEES program a 100-point scale is used wi th lower values being better. In this example, the nylon br oadloom carpet receives a tota l environmental score of 96 points and the PET broadloom car pet, “the environmentally friendly alternative”, a total environmental score of 49 points. PET carpet performs better on all environmental impact categories except solid waste. The BEES Economic Performance Results gives first co sts, discounted future costs, and their sum, the life-cycle cost. Interestingly enough, PET broadl oom carpet has a higher life-cy cle cost ($10.21 in present value dollars per 0.09 m2 of installed carpet, or $10.21 per square foot, compared with $4.57 for nylon), with both a higher first cost and higher future costs (due to a higher and more frequentlyoccurring replacement cost). Therefore, PET broadloom carpet scores better environmentally, while nylon broadloom carpet sc ores better economically. The overall performance score gives us a wa y to combine and balance the environmental and economic performance into one score. Looki ng at this total score, nylon broadloom carpet receives an overall total score of 70 points and PET broadloom carpe t an overall total score of 75 points. Therefore, based on our analysis paramete rs, nylon broadloom carpet installed with conventional glue is slightly pr eferable overall to PET broadloom carpet installed with low-VOC glue. It is important to note that BEES offe rs detailed graphs for each environmental impact (e.g., reporting grams of carbon dioxide each product contributes to the global warming impact), which help pinpoint the 'weak li nks' in a product's environmenta l life cycle (Lippiatt& Boyles, 2001)

PAGE 27

27 For practical purposes though, it may prove n ecessary to focus attention on a limited number of areas that cause the greatest poten tial environment impact, while ensuring that performance in all other areas meet s certain standards. (Thareja et al, 2003). For this reason, it is important to have flexibility of weighting vari ous factors within the evaluation process. This will ensure that the individual project’s goals are met. The BEES software evaluation t ool was developed with those c onstraints in mind. That is one of the reasons the BEES tool has been sel ected for use in this case study (See Section: Software Based Material Eval uation Products on page 30). Life Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA) In evaluating the costs of a building or its syst ems, it is important to make the distinction between Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) and Life Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA). Although similar concepts, LCA quantifies all the raw materials and energy consumed in the production, use, and ultimate disposal of the product, including the pollutants and by products generated through this pr ocess (LIPPIATT, 2002). LCCA co nsiders initial capital cost, installation cost, operation and maintenance co st and replacement co sts over the building’s defined useful life span (LIPPIATT, 2002). LCCA allows a designer to compare similar products being considered for the facility in terms of a real li fe scenario (Moussatche, 2003). The product use phase is the most important when it comes to interior flooring materials because of the long lifetime during which the materials are used (Moussatche, 2003). Considering more than first costs and whet her a product simply f its into the correct sustainability category for a partic ular point provides the designer with detailed information to make an informed decision on the appropria te choice for the materials application. Research has shown that materials with low first capital costs of ten have high operation and maintenance costs or “service life” costs (Lozada-Figueroa, 2004; Moussatche, 2003).

PAGE 28

28 Simply having a low service life cost should not be the ultimate consid eration but it should be evaluated along with other criteri a, such as acoustical propertie s, aesthetics, and respiratory comfort (indoor air quality) in order to make the best and most educated decision (Moussatche, 2003). LCCA will be an integral part of the eval uation process in the Hilton comparative case study. Combined with the LCA, it will help give a full perspective of the flooring materials sustainability profile. Sustainability in the Hospitality Industry Many hospitality facilities are distinctive in that they rely on their buildings and their surrounding environments to attract a nd generate income (Joseph, 2003). Although most hotel owners still utilize c onventional building design methods common to North America, which produces environmentally in efficient buildings and negatively contributes to the environment, many hoteliers are beginn ing to respond to environmental trends in the industry (e.g., http://ecological.you rhomeplanet.com/index_statistics.php , Retrieved July 2006). In a study undertaken by the American Auto motive Association (Sheehan, 2005), travelers ranked eco-friendly or green programs as one of th e top ten hotel features that they consider when choosing a hotel. Though the trends in many commercial and public sectors have begun to embrace the green building principles in new construction, the hotel industry has been slow to follow (Sheehan, 2005). Most hotels th at have reacted to environmen tal trends have done so through operational procedure modificat ion, not building design strate gies (Enz & Siguaw, 2003). For example, they may ask the guests to choose to el iminate towel service as a way to reduce the use of detergents and water (Enz & Siguaw, 2003). According to the August 2005 issue of Lodging Hospitality , this may soon change.

PAGE 29

29 Successful green focused hospitality devel opments are beginning to demonstrate how green building principles can produce solid benef its, both from an economic and guest relations standpoint (Sheehan, 2005). More research hi ghlighting these economic and environmental advantages will help this cause. While there is research in th e area of evaluating flooring prod ucts for use in sustainable design of hospitals (Harris, 2000) and schools (Lozada-Figueroa, 2004; Moussatche & Languel, 2002), there is very little in th e hotel industry (Enz & Siguaw, 2003). A hotel is similar to a hospital in that it endures “twe nty four hour” use and the challenges of cleaning and maintenance this produces. This research aims to evaluate the sustainabi lity of hotel flooring ma terials and to provide designers with a useful reference to aid them in future projects. It will also provide more information for the hotel owners and operators regarding the positive environmental and economic benefits of integrating sustainable interior flooring c hoices into their design solution. The majority of information available to the hospitality industry with regards to sustainability issues originates fr om four sources and all of whom have thus far mainly focused on ecotourism: The World Tourism Organizatio n (WTO), the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP), the Quarterly Green Hotelier Magazine, published by the International Hotel Environmental Initiative (IHEI), and the International Ecotou rism Society (TIES) (Joseph, 2003). Although these organizations addr ess hotels and their sustainabi lity, none have done so in terms of focusing on the materials used in the design of the buildings interior. An Internet website that would provide a comprehensive source for information on environmental building design in the hospitality industry has been suggested (Joseph, 2003).

PAGE 30

30 While this may be a step in th e right direction, resear ch specific to the industry may be most helpful in demonstrating the impact that bett er sustainable design c hoices may cause on the hotels environment and bottom line. This is an area where designers can impact the hospitality industry by sharing their knowledge of sustainable products and the positiv e affects that using t hose products may have not only on the environment but al so on their economic well-being. In recent years, many hotels have included in their evaluation of financial performance their environmental achievements. Bohdanowicz, in her 200 5 study, points out th at hoteliers are increasingly aware that the environment and its protection are cruc ial to hotel industry development and performance. She focuse d her study on evaluating existing benchmarking tools used in hotel industr y. The paper concluded that the hotel industry is in need of a reliable and universally applicable tool for reporting and benchmarking e nvironmental performance. One of the tools evaluated by Bohdanowi cz was the Hilton Environmental Reporting (HER) tool. Developed by Hilton International and la unched globally in 2004, this tool tracks resource usage. While HER is considered to be a sophisticated tool for data collection, it has been criticized for not offering recommendations for improvement. “Developing and making available reliable tools for benchmarking enviro nmental performance are important steps in the quest for sustainability in hot el facilities” (Bohdanowicz, 2005). Again the focus is mainly on operational procedure or big picture items like saving wate r, electricity and energy. Hilton International has been a pioneer in this area. In addition to the HER program, Hilton International has developed an envir onmental mission statement (See Appendix A) and employee handbook. While these are all positive steps toward meeting their environmental mission, further research highlighting the advantages of evaluating and usi ng sustainable interior

PAGE 31

31 material choices may further solidify Hilton Intern ational and the hotel industry leaders in taking proactive and progressive steps towards incor porating sustainable building design elements. The International Hotels Envi ronment Initiative (IHEI) is an industry wide organization whose mission is to promote the be nefits of environmental manageme nt as an integral part of running a successful, efficient hotel business. IHEI conducts many programs and has many partners with numerous organizations. They have developed hotel-specific environmental training materials for management, "Going Green Ma kes Cent$," as well as a directory of global environmental resources for hospitality comp anies. In addition, IH EI publishes the Green Hotelier magazine the environmental magazine for the hotel industry. It is an excellent source of international news, case studies, cost sa ving techniques, and pract ical advice for hotel executives who want to stay up to date on environmental issues. Unfortunately, Green Hotelier magazine has little in formation that deals with flooring material choices. Searching back issues reve aled little with regard to flooring material sustainable choices. Even the ca se studies list omits the study of flooring material selection. Flooring Materials Specification of flooring materials for any e nvironment requires cons ideration of many factors. Although product cost is often a driving consideration within th e process, it should be evaluated along with other criteri a, such as acoustical propertie s, aesthetics, and respiratory comfort (indoor air quality) in order to make the best and most educated decision (Moussatche, 2003). There are three main categories of flooring prod ucts: hard floor coverings, resilient floor coverings and carpet (Riggs, 2003). The following is a review of the literature describing the properties that define and differentiate flooring materials.

PAGE 32

32 Carpet Carpet, as a flooring surface, is a dominant elemen t in any hotel environment. It is used in many areas including: lobbies, meeting rooms, offi ces, guest rooms, fitness facilities, hallways, and banquet spaces. For this reason, as well as th e complexities involved in the manufacture of carpet products, there is considerable background information to consider. The elements of consideration in carpet select ion include type of fiber, density of pile, depth of pile, method of construc tion, pattern and clean ability. According to the Carpet and Rug Institute (CRI) carpet serves many important func tions in any design app lication. The primary ones include acoustics, beauty, atmosphere, thermal insulation, safety, and comfort. As found in the Materials & Components of Interior Architecture, Sixth Ed ition (2003), they are described below. Acoustical: Carpet absorbs ten times more airb orne noise than any ot her flooring material and as much as most other types of standard acoustical materials. It virtually eliminates floor impact noises at the source. Beauty: Carpet provides a tremendous choice of colors, textures, and designs to suit every taste. Custom designed carpet for commercial installation is also av ailable at reasonable prices. Carpet has a way of framing the furn ishings in a room or office that makes them look more important and distinctive. Atmosphere: Carpet dramatically enhances th e feeling of quality in interior design—a major consideration in hotels and motels . Carpet also has the ability to “deinstitutionalize” a building—a significant factor in improved patient morale in hospitals, and in student attitudes in school. Thermal Insulation: Physically, the pile construction of carpet is a highly efficient thermal insulator. Mechanical demonstrations have shown that over a cold cement slab, carpet’s surface temperature is substantially higher than that of hard surface tile. Thus, carpet relieves coldness at foot a nd ankle levels and lends psyc hological warmth as well. Safety: The National Safety Council reports that falls cause most indoor injuries. Carpets ability to cushion falls and prevent serious in juries means savings in medical costs, and man-hours to businessmen.

PAGE 33

33 Comfort: Carpet reduces “floor fatigue”This ch aracteristic is important to salespeople, teachers, nurses, waiters—all those who spend many hours on th eir feet during the course of their work. Face weight The face weight of a carpet is th e density of the fibers in the pile. The amount of fiber, or face weight, is a crucial factor in a carpet’s durability. In terms of durability, carpets are typically divided into four grad es: (1) Grade One, which is intended for residential or domestic use, (2) Grade Two, for normal contract (commercia l) use, (3) Grade Three, for public areas such as lobbies where face weight is particularly important, and (4 ) Grade Four, intended for use on stairs, offices containing chairs with casters, and institutions; many Grade Four carpets have uncut loop pile for greater resilience (Riggs, 2003). Construction methods Finished carpet size is a factor to consider in any design application. Broadloom carpet Currently available in 12, 15 and 6-foot widt hs, broadloom carpet ha s been the standard method of construction since wall -to-wall carpet was introduced. In high-rise buildings where transportation to the job site is a factor, na rrower widths of the broadloom style are more commonly used; however, careful attention must be made to avoid to many seams. In areas such as hallways, the narrow widths have meant c onsiderable savings in reduced waste of product (Riggs, 2003). The hospitality industry’s twen ty-four hour use creates anothe r challenge in regard to replacement of broadloom carpet. That challeng e lies in the removal of furniture from guest rooms, which is necessary to allow installation of the new carpet.

PAGE 34

34 Carpet tile Another method of production that has become increasingly popular is the carpet module or carpet tiles. Available in 12” X 12”, 18” X 18” and the less commonly used 24” X 24” size, carpet tiles allow for easier removal and replacem ent than 12 foot and 15 foot widths (Riggs, 2003). This is particularly important when the cr anes and construction elev ators used to install the original carpets are no l onger available (Riggs, 2003). Th is modular carpet is not only quicker and easier to install than traditional broadloom car pet, many manufacturers have incorporated sustainable charac teristics into their products. Another benefit is that it produces less waste during the init ial installation, as well as, during replacement stages. If an area of carpet becomes damaged, the damaged tile can simply be replaced. Broadloom carpet styles, because of the nature of th e product would require removal and replacement of the entire room. Mo st modular styles have patterns incorporating multiple colors so that the repl acement tiles will more naturally blend with the old tiles (Oakley, 2005). When replacement of the entire room is necessary, the carpet tiles can be replaced without moving the furniture out of the room. This strategy is advantageous in the hospitality environment. There are a variety of techniques used to attach yarn to the carpet b acking. Tufting is the most prevalent, with weaving knitting, fusi on bonding , and custom tufting additionally available. (Lippiatt, 2002). Tufting the yarn is stitched through a fa bric backing, creating a loop called a tuft; Weaving carpet looms weave colored pile ya rns and backing yarns into a carpet. Which then gets a back coating, us ually of latex, for stability; Knitting – carpet knitting machines produce f acing and backing simultaneously, with three sets of needles to loop pile yarn, back ing yarn, and stitching yarn together;

PAGE 35

35 Fusion bonding – the yarn is embedded between two parallel sheets of adhesive-coated backing, and the sheets are slit, formi ng two pieces of cut pile carpet; and Custom tufting – special designs are cr eated using motorized hand tools called singlehanded tufters and pass machines (Lippiatt, 2002). Tuft type Many types of pile are available on the market today. They include: loop pile, cut pile, frieze, semishag, shag, tip sheared, and Berber. As found in the Materials & Components of Interior Architecture, Sixth Editi on (2003), they are described below. Loop pile has a surface consisting of uncut loops . Variations include high and low loops (multilevel loops), colors and twisted yarns. Cut pile (plush) may be made from unset yarns (frizzy ends) for an uneven velvety texture or from set yarns (firm ended) to give a velour texture with tuft definition. These carpets look more luxurious than loop, but they also tend to show foot steps or flaws more readily. Patterned wovens or printed tufteds w ill offset such characteristics. Frieze (hard twist) is cut pile from a highly twisted yarn set in a snarled configuration. It will hide footsteps, shedding, and shading, which occurs when pile lays in opposite directions. Semishag (plush) is soft, cut pile with shorter piles than shags. Ends of yarn stand up so the carpet has a pebbled look. Shag is soft carpet with long pile. An ex ample is the Scandinavian rya rug, in which different yarns can be used, but always with th e side of the yarn exposed to give a shaggy look. Tip sheared is loop pile carpet with some loops sheared on the surface to create areas of cut pile and a luxurious sculpted look. Berber was named after the original hand-w oven wool squares made by the North African tribes. It is now made by machine but f eatures a country, homespun effect and natural colors. Usually coarse loop pile but also made in cut pile, shags, and a variety of designs, Berber is most often used in contemporary rooms. The Berber weaving system is the oldest in the history of rug making—it ma y be as old as second millennium B. C. Face fibers There are a wide variety of choices available when selecting the type of carpet fiber. Wool is the most prevalent natural fiber used in carpet. Synthetic fibers are more colorfast than natural

PAGE 36

36 fibers because of the way they are manufactured. Synthetic options include Nylon, Acrylic and Polyester. Wool: When cost is no object, wool is the carpet of choice. It’s resilience and aesthetically pleasing appearance are its most important a ssets. Wool’s high natu ral moisture content makes it quite resistant to soil penetration. In addition to these qualities, wool has natural flame resistance. Wool blends, typically 80% wool and 20% nylon, have also gained popularity in the last decade (Riggs, 2003). Nylon: Nylon is the top selling carpet fiber, accounting for nearly 90% of total carpet sales today. Nylon is known for its stain resist ance and abrasion resist ing qualities. The synthetic nature of nylon allows stains to rema in on the surface of th e product rather than penetrate the surface. In a similar fashion, di rt and soil are trapped between the filaments and can be easily removed with proper cleaning (Riggs, 2003). Antron Legacy nylon from Dupont has unique square f our hole hollow filament shape that diffuses light to create an appealing glow. Available exclusiv ely from Dupont, Antr on’s flourochemical treatment, DuraTech, is applied during the ma nufacturing process. Its high level of stain resistance is believed to si gnificantly reduce maintenance costs. One New York school tested showed over a 30 per cent reduction in hot water ex traction cleaning after changing to this Antron carpet product (Riggs, 2003). Acrylic: Acrylic is a synthetic fiber with high soil resistant and abrasion resistant qualities. It is easy to clean and holds its color well. Of all the synthetic fibers, Acrylic feels the most like wool. It is not, however, as resilient or abrasion resistant as nylon (Riggs, 2003). Polyester: Polyester is a soft fiber with excelle nt color clarity that is known for its luxurious feel. However, its’ tendency to cr ush under heavy traffic make it unsuitable for most commercial applications (Riggs, 2003). Dye methods Solution Dye Method : The solution dye method introduces pigments to the molten polymer before it is extruded into fiber. This method produces fibe r with outstanding fade resistance and bleed resistance. This method can be used wi th any synthetic fiber (Riggs, 2003). Stock Dyeing: The stock dyeing method introduces pigments to bulk fibers before they are converted into spun yarn. This is done by forcing the dye through th e fibers in a large drum-like kettle. Once the dye has been comple tely absorbed into the fiber, the fiber is dried and ready to be spun. While this met hod is used most often when dyeing Wool, it can also be utilized when dyeing acrylic, polyester and some nylon (Riggs, 2003). Skein Dyeing: Skein dyeing applies color directly to yarn fibers. It is useful for spun yarn, bulked continuous filament yarns, heat-set ya rns, and nonheat-set yarns of various fiber types. Skein dyeing is a good choice for sma ll volume custom colora tions (Riggs, 2003).

PAGE 37

37 Piece Dyeing : The piece dyeing method applies color to unfinished carpet through the use of a liquid dyebath. This method is mostly used for residential applic ations (Riggs, 2003). Installation There are three primary methods used to instal l carpet. They are stretch-in, direct gluedown (including attached cushion), and double glue-down. The two methods used in the Vancouver Hilton Hotel are the stretch-in applic ation in all guest rooms and double glue-down method in all other carpet applications. Stretch-in installation utilizes tackless strips around the perimeter of the space to hold the carpet in place. This applica tion is used in areas that requ ire maximum underfoot comfort and luxury (Riggs, 2003). Sufficient stretching of the carpet, as well as, proper selection of cushion and the appropriate environmental conditions befo re, during and after inst allation are important elements to successful installation. In the double glue down method, the cushion is glued to the subfloor and then the carpet is glued to the cushion. In most hot el settings the subfloor is conc rete. Proper pr eparation of the subfloor (removal of bumps and ridg es, and cleaning the substrate) to ensure adequate adhesion of the pad is vita l to the success of th e installation. The glue down method can be used with carpet modules, but because of their heavy backing, they can also be laid loose. Resilient Floor Coverings Vinyl composition tile Vinyl Composition Tile (VCT) is an inexpe nsive commonly used general utility floor tile. It consists of binder (organic), filler (i norganic) and pigments. The organic binder portion of the product contains vinyl resins, plasticizer, additives, and in the case of Mannington, 5% or greater recycled content (Riggs, 2003). Dioxins, the most poten t carcinogens known to science,

PAGE 38

38 are an unavoidable byproduct of the manufacture of polyvinyl chloride (PVC) feedstock for VCT. There has been concern expressed by indus try leaders that the health impact concerns associated with this byproduct ar e not currently accounted for in the BEES evaluation system (Lent, 2003). In addition to the low initial cost of VCT, other advantages include easy installation and maintenance, resistance to acids and alkalis, and its ability to withstand strong cleaning products. Disadvantages may include its low impact resist ance, poor noise absorption quality, and semi porous qualities compared to other so lid vinyl products (Riggs, 2003). Installation of VCT uses th e thin set method. Successful installation depends on the sub floor being smooth and level. VCT is known fo r showing surface defects in the substrate. Materials and installation site should be a mi nimum temperature of 65 degrees Fahrenheit for 48 hours before, during and after installation. The su b floor is troweled with the manufacturers recommended adhesive. As with the installation of parquet floors, the walls should not be used as a starting point (Riggs, 2003). Linoleum Invented in England during the 1800’s, Linoleum is a natural orga nic product. Made from linseed oil, wood powder, and rosins with jute backing, not only is linoleu m biodegradable, is an extremely durable product, resistant to acid grease, oil, solvents, and ciga rette burns. Natural antibacterial properties make it even safe enough to use in a healthcare environment. Linoleum gives off no harmful VOCs and has natural antist atic properties that repel dirt, dust and pollen making it easy to keep clean. Forbo, one of th e leading manufacturers of linoleum, recycles 100% of its postproduction waste. Linoleum is available in a variety of colors and patterns making it appropriate for use in many design applications (Riggs, 2003).

PAGE 39

39 Solvent free adhesives are used to install linoleum and the seams are heat welded to form a barrier that prevents the pene tration of dirt and moisture. Wood-Bamboo Considered a rapidly renewable resource, Ba mboo is manufactured from timber bamboo that grows to a height of 40 feet and mature s in less than five years. The process of manufacturing bamboo into floori ng consists of splitting the bam boo into strips; kiln drying it; and laminating it together into a plywood product. Boric acid, which is a benign pest repellant, is applied during the proce ss for protection (Riggs, 2003). Plyboo flooring is considered twice as stable as red oak fl ooring and almost as hard. The formaldehyde free finish is either UV-a pplied polyurethane or aluminum oxide, which resists 20,000 revolutions on th e taber test (Riggs, 2003). Bamboo floors can be floated, nailed or glued for installation. It is im portant to note that the acclimation period for bamboo is three days, a nd it is recommended that each plank be laid out separately during this time (Riggs, 2003). Hard Floor Coverings Ceramic tile Ceramic tile has been dated back to 4700 B.C. Known for its durab ility and decorative nature, ceramic tile can be used in many diffe rent design applications . Production tiles are manufactured by two methods: dust press and extrusion. The dust press method forces the clay mixture into steel dies under hea vy pressure, and then they are fire d at very high temperatures to form a bisque. Next the tiles are glazed and fi red at a lower temperature, which fuses the glaze to the tile. This dust press method, which is us ed to produce distinct shapes and sizes, is the primary method used for interior floor and wall tiles (Riggs, 2003).

PAGE 40

40 The secondary method of production is an ex truded or ram process where the clay is mixed to form a thick mud and then is then forced through a die. This process produces a slightly rougher looking and larger tile. The glazing process is the same as the dust press method (Riggs, 2003). Temperature and proportions of the ingredients used dictate the tile’s use: walls, floors, interior or exterior, and resident ial or commercial. Water absorp tion rates are used to rate the stain resistance quality of the ungl azed tiles. The lowe r the absorption rate the greater the stain resistance (Riggs, 2003). Porcelain tiles, which are fi red at temperatures that exce ed 2200 degrees Fahrenheit, are inherently impervious. Used fr equently in heavy-use commercia l and retail areas, they are available in a variety of colors, finishes (f rom shiny to matte) and patterns (Riggs, 2003). Highly glazed tiles are not recommended fo r use on floor applications for a couple of reasons. They tend to become slippery in wet conditions and have a tendency to scratch and show wear over time (Riggs, 2003). Installation of ceramic tile can be dome using the thickor thin-set method. Ceramic tile with recycled content Thought to improve environmental performance, some ceramic tile manufacturers have added recycled windshield glass to the clay mixture. Installati on and maintenance would be the same as for regular ceramic tile (Lippiatt, 2002). Stone Granite Granite is an igneous rock having crystal or grains of visible size . These grains are classified as fine, medium, or coarse (Riggs, 2003). Available in a variety of colors with variegations from light to dark. The finish is an important compone nt to consider when

PAGE 41

41 specifying this stone. The choices are polishe d (high mirrored gloss), honed (dull sheen) and flamed (rough textured). Honed is the preferred fi nish for floors and other locations where heavy traffic can wear off the polished finish. When th e feel of permanence and stability is needed granite is a good choice (Riggs, 2003). Marble Marble is metamorphic rock derived from lim estone. Today all rocks that can take a polish come under the heading of marble. Marble, th e most ancient of all finished materials used today, is available in a variety of colors. When using marble or any ot her natural stone, the weight of the materials must be calculated to en sure the subfloor is st rong enough to support the extra weight. Subfloors must meet a maximum deflection of 1/180 of span. The stiffer the subfloor, the longer the finished floor will last. A honed finish is preferable for use on floors in commercial applications where heavy traffic can remove the polished finish (Riggs, 2003). Software Based Material Evaluation Products There are several software-based databases de signed to help in the evaluation of products for their degree of sustainability. These tools va ry in the type of user they target and the information they can provide (see Table 2-1: So ftware Based Evaluation T ools). Some of them include: BEES, Envest II, Simapro, Athena, TEAM, GaBi, and TRACI. Most of these software products are written for individuals who are quite profic ient at performing lif e cycle analysis on buildings and their systems. While this may de scribe a small percenta ge of interior design professionals, it is probably more important to provi de a process to bring this information to the larger interior design audience. By doing th is perhaps we can unlock the mysteries often surrounding the sustainability questions of material specifications. In addition, many of these tools are expensiv e to buy and require annual renewals. The BEES program is one of the few that are free to the design professional and written to be user

PAGE 42

42 friendly and transparent, meaning that you can see the factor scores that go into the overall scoring. This can be helpful in understanding the differences between products and enabling the user make a more informed decision. The BEES system quantifies products on a func tional unit basis so they can be compared based on the same criteria. It also allows us ers to apply weighting factors on the various environmental and economic factors. In a selected paper within the Interna tional Journal of Life Cycle Assessment (Lippiatt & Boyles, 2001), the BEES program is said to support purchasing decisions by providing key science-based info rmation often found to be lacking in the sustainable product selection. The intended result is a cost effectiv e reduction in building related contributions to environmental problems (Lippiatt & Boyles, 2001). The downside to the BEES software program is that not all products are included in the database. However the system is being update d (every 18-24 months) with expanding product coverage and potential for improvement over time . In addition, some environmental concerns that are hard to quantify are not fully addre ssed, such as habitat alteration (Malin & Wilson, 1997). The current version of BEES includes co st assumptions for maintenance based on data published by Whitestone Research in The Whitestone Building Maintenance and Repair Cost Reference 1999 and supplemental information provided by indus try interviews (Boehland, 2003). Barbara Lippiatt, the project director for BEES , says maintenance is so building specific that it is difficult to assume a fixed maintenanc e schedule. A future version will have a feature where the user can input indivi dual maintenance schedule details specific to their building (Boehland, 2003). Envest II, a Web based visual reporting system created by BRE Sustainable Consulting for use in the United Kingdom, has been described as crisp and professional. This program was

PAGE 43

43 designed for non-residential building assessment. An ecopoints scoring system uses a single point scale for rating the performance of the build ing or system being evaluated. This approach has been criticized for oversimplifying the issu es involved. The regional developed data, cost basis, construction methods, and regulatory inform ation make this system appropriate for United Kingdom projects. The internal ecopoints rating system was gene rated thru the results of a UK national survey in which BRE established a “typ ical” British opinion about the importance of a variety of environmental problems. This program is one of a few that promise continual updates (Montgomery, 2003). Simapro (System for Integrated Environmental Assessment of Products), first released in 1990, claims to have 1000 users in 50 countries. This commercial life cycle assessment database with a European focus is not restricted to build ing products. This system uses EcoIndictactors based on European levels of acceptability. Its in tended users are informed life cycle practitioners from major industries, consulting firms and universi ties. This is perhaps because of its very high cost and renewal fees of 9600 Euros, for the de veloper and 3600 for the individual user, which converts to $12,441 USD and $4,665 USD respectivel y, as of February 2007 exchange rates (e.g., http:// www.pre.nl/default.htm , Retrieved October, 2006). Developed in the Netherlands, Eco Quantum is ex clusively a residential analysis tool. This program measures the whole buildings environm ental performance by comb ining the effects of the buildings location, use of construction mate rials, energy consumption, water consumption, and indoor climate. This life cycle assessment tool may be he lpful in early design phases for evaluating structural system choices. It w ould not be as useful for product-to-product comparisons (Montgomery, 2003).

PAGE 44

44 Athena Environmental Impact Estimator, deve loped by the Athena Sustainable Materials Institute in Canada, was compiled through the work of independent and university researchers. This life cycle assessment program gives the us er the option to duplicate an entire building profile and then modify it. Weighting is subj ective; Athena measures six categories with absolute values and leaves the we ighting up to the user. The 3.0 vers ion is considered to be more user friendly than the 2.0 version (Montgomery, 2003). TEAM and GaBi are both commercial life cycle assessment databases that are not restricted to building products. These softwa re products, which must be purchased, along with annual updates, are designed for the informed life cycle practitioner. The TEAM product provides users with modeling tools to build anal ysis. Its upcoming version promises to support user defined weighting factors. In GaBi a variety of anal ysis options are available. BEES (Building for Environmental and Economic Sustainability) The BEES evaluative software program s upports two Executive Orders incorporating environmental considerations into the practices of the world's largest consumer, the U.S. Federal Government. Under sponsorship of the U.S. EPA Environmentally Preferable Purchasing Program and the National Institute for Standa rds and Technology (NIST), BEES directly supports Executive Order 13101 (9/98), "Greeni ng the Government Through Waste Prevention, Recycling, and Federal Acquisiti on," and Executive Order 13123 (6 /99), "Greening the Federal Government through Efficient Energy Manageme nt". Together thes e executive directives encourage Federal agencies to purchase and de sign environmentally preferable, cost-effective products and facilitie s (Lippiatt, 2002). Since BEES 3.0 was published in October 2000, individuals from more than 80 countries have requested over 18,000 copies. The BEES user group is primarily comp rised of individuals in the fields of design and construction (See Fi gure 2-1). The BEES software tool was

PAGE 45

45 developed in an effort to help design professionals to evaluate products across a full matrix of sustainability criterion, from cradle to grave, in a products life cycle (L ippiatt & Boyles, 2001). This tool measures the performance of bu ilding products within two main categories: environmental performance (Life Cycle Analysis ) and economic performance (Life Cycle Cost Analysis). Assessing a products performance thr ough each of its life cycle stages and various environmental impacts, the BEES model give s the building professi onal a comprehensive, balanced analysis. BEES allow the user to weig ht various factors of environmental significance, such as water intake and ecological toxicity to meet the needs of the specific project objectives. BEES will display the data in either a chart or graph format. This offers a great improvement over the more primitive approach to selecting item s based on single impact attributes, which can obscure other areas of equal or greater importance (Lippiatt & Boyles, 2001). Environmental Performance Environmental performance, sometimes referred to as Life Cycle Cost Analysis (LCA), is a measure that considers all asp ects of a product’s life including raw materials acquisition, product manufacture, transportation to and installation in the field, operation and maintenance , and ultimately recycling and waste management . This cradle to grave approach is based on the belief that all of these stages of a products life generate environmental impacts and therefore must be part of the analysis. One important step in the LCA methodology is to identify and quantify the inputs and outputs associated with a product over its entire life cycle. The environmental inputs include water, energy, land, and other resour ces; outputs include releases to ai r, land and water. It is the consequences, or the impacts of these inputs and outputs, on the e nvironment that is of primary concern. This environmental impact assessment is a very important part of the overall evaluation process. For example, the impact a ssessment might relate car bon dioxide emissions, a

PAGE 46

46 “flow” from the transportation phase of the pr oduct’s development, to global warming, and an environmental “impact” of that flow. The twelve environmental impacts include d in the BEES evaluation process are: global warming, acidification, eutrophication, fossil fu el depletion (resource depletion), indoor air quality, habitat alteration, water intake, cri teria air pollutants, human health, smog formation potential, ozone depletion potential, and ecological toxicity (Figure 2-2: BEES Environmental & Economic Scoring Inputs). As found in the 3.0 version of BEES (2002), these environmental impacts are described below. Global warming potential (GWP) The Earth absorbs radiation from the Sun, ma inly at the surface. This energy is then redistributed by the atmosphere and ocean and re -radiated to space at longer wavelengths. Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, principally wet vapor, but also carbon dioxide, methane, the chlorofluorocarbons, and ozone absorb some of the thermal radiation. The absorbed energy is re-radiated in all directions, downwards as we ll as upwards, such that the radiation that is eventually lost to space is from higher, colder levels in the atmo sphere. The result is that the surface loses less heat to space than it w ould in the absence of greenhouse gases and consequently stays warmer than it would be otherwise. This phenom enon, which acts like a “blanket” around the Earth, is known as the greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect is a natural phenomenon. The environmental issue is the increase in the greenhouse effect due to emissions genera ted by humankind. The resulting general increase in temperature can alter atmospheric and oceanic temperatures, which potentially can lead to alteration of circulation and weathe r patterns. A rise in sea leve l is also predicted due to the thermal expansion of the oceans and melting of polar ice caps . GWPs have been developed to characterize the increase in th e greenhouse effect due to emissions generated by humankind.

PAGE 47

47 LCAs commonly use those GWPs representi ng a 100-year time horizon. GWPs permit computation of a single index, expressed in grams of carbon dioxide per functional unit of product that measures the quantit y of carbon dioxide with the same potential for global warming over a 100-year period: Global warming index = i mi x GWPi, where mi = mass (in grams) of inventory flow i, and GWPi = grams of carbon dioxide with the same heat trapping potential over 100 years as one gram of inventory flow i (Lippiatt, 2002). Acidification potential Acidifying compounds may in a gaseous state either dissolve in water or fix on solid particles. Sometimes referred to as acid rain, it reaches ecosystems through dissolution in rain or wet deposition. Acidification affects trees, so il, buildings, animals, and humans. The two compounds principally involved in acidificati on are sulfur and nitr ogen compounds. Their principal human source is fossil fuel and bi omass combustion, although hydrogen chloride and ammonia compounds also contribute to acidification. Characteriza tion factors for the potential acid deposition onto the soil and in water use hydrogen ions as th e reference substance. These factors permit computation of a single index for potential acidif ication (in grams of hydrogen ions per functional unit of produc t), representing the quantity of hydrogen ion emissions with the same potential acidifying effect: Acidification index = i mi * APi, where mi = mass (in grams) of inventory flow i, and APi = millimoles of hydrogen ions with the same potential acidifying effect as one gram of inventory flow i (Lippiatt, 2002).

PAGE 48

48 Eutrophication potential Eutrophication is the addition of mineral nutrient s to the soil or water. In both media, the addition of large quantities of mineral nutrients , such as nitrogen and phosphorous, results in generally undesirable shifts in the number of species in ecosystems and a reduction in the ecological diversity. In water, it tends to increase algae growth, which can lead to lack of oxygen and therefore death of species like fish. Characterization fact ors for eutrophication potential use nitrogen as the reference substanc e. These factors permit computation of a single index for potential eutrophication (in grams of nitrogen per functional unit of product), representing the quantity of nitrogen with the same potential nutrifying effect: Eutrophication index = i mi x EPi, where mi = mass (in grams) of inventory flow i, and EPi = grams of nitrogen with the same poten tial nutrifying effect as one gram of inventory flow i (Lippiatt, 2002). Fossil fuel depletion Fossil fuel depletion is incl uded in the TRACI set of impact assessment methods adopted by BEES 3.0. The fossil fuels addressed are coal, na tural gas and oil. At present, uranium is not included in this TRACI assessment of nonrenewable fuel resources. That may change in time. In addition, the impact addresses only the depletion aspect of fossil fu el extraction, not the fact that the extraction itself might generate impacts. Ex traction impacts, such as methane emissions from coal mining, are addressed in othe r impacts, such as global warming. In the assessment of this depletion, TR ACI uses the approach developed for the EcoIndicator 99 method, which measures the amount of energy required to extract a unit of

PAGE 49

49 energy for consumption changes over time. Char acterization factors have been developed to permit the computation of a single index for fossil fuel depletion--in surplus mega joules (MJ) per functional unit of product—and assess th e surplus energy requirements from the consumption of fossil fuels: Fossil fuel depletion index = i ci x Fpi, where ci = consumption (in kg) of fossil fuel i, and FPi = MJ input requirement increase per kilogram of consumption of fo ssil fuel i (Lippiatt, 2002). Indoor air quality Indoor air quality impacts are not included in traditional life cycle impact assessments. However, the developers of BEES believe the ind oor air performance of building products is of particular importance to the building community and should be explicitly considered in any building product LCA. Due to the absence of a scientific consensus about the relative contributions of pollutants to i ndoor air performance, BEES has chosen to use a product’s total VOC (TVOC) emissions as a measure of its indoor air performance. Recognizing the inherent limitations in using TVOCs to assess indoor ai r quality performance, estimates of TVOC emissions are used as a proxy measure. The TVOC emissions over an initial number of hours (e.g., for floor coverings, combined product and adhe sive emissions over th e first 72 hours) is multiplied by the number of times over the 50 year use period those “initial hours” will occur (to account for product replacements), to yield an es timate of TVOC emissions per functional unit product. The rationale for this is that the VOC emissions are at issue for a limited period of time after installation. The more installations required then, the greater the indoor air quality impact.

PAGE 50

50 Habitat alteration The habitat alteration impact measures the potential for land use by humans to lead to damage of Threatened and Enda ngered (T & E) Species. In TRACI, the set of US impact assessment methods adopted in BEES, the density of T&E Species is used as a proxy for the degree to which the use of land may lead to und esirable changes in habitats. The original condition of the land, the extent to which human ac tivity changes th e land, or the length of time required to restore the land to its original condition, are not pres ently considered in the BEES assessment. Future versions plan to inco rporate these factors as improved methods of assessment become available. The use and end of life stages are believed to be the most important life cycle stages for habitat alteration due to their impact on the land filled waste (adjusted for current recycling practices) from product installation, replacement, and end of life. These stages are currently the only ones addressed in this assessmen t. Future versions of BEES plan to incorporate other stages as consistent data become available. Charact erization factors provide computation of a single index for potential habitat al teration in T&E Species count per functional unit of product: Habitat alteration index = i ai x TED, where ai = surface area (in m2 disrupt ed) of land use flow i, and TED = U.S. T&E Species density (in T&E Species count per m2) (Lippiatt, 2002). Water intake Although water resource depletion is not routin ely assessed in LCAs to date, researchers are starting to address this issue in regards to areas where water is a scarce commodity, such as in the Western US. This impact assesses only the depletion aspect of wate r intact, not the factors

PAGE 51

51 associated with water pollution created from agricultural prod uction or product manufacture. These pollution impacts are addressed in other assessment categories. The TRACI assessment method adopted in BEES uses the Direct Use of Inventories approach to assess water resource depletion. In this approach, water intake from cradle to grave for each product is documented (in liters per functional unit) and is used directly to assess this impact. Criteria air pollutants Criteria air pollutants are solid and liquid pa rticles commonly found in the air. Some of the activities that produce thes e pollutants are com bustion, vehicle operation, power generation, materials handling, and crushing and grinding oper ations. They include coarse particles known to aggravate respiratory conditions such as asthma, and fine particles that can lead to more serious respiratory symp toms and disease. Disability-adjusted life years (DALY) have been develope d to measure health losses from air pollution. They account for years of life lost and years lived with disability, adjusted for the severity of the associated unfavorable health conditions. TRACI characterization factors permit computation of a single index for criteria air po llutants, with disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) as the common metric: Criteria air pollutants index = i mi x CPi, where mi = mass (in grams) of inventory flow i, and CPi = microDALYs per gram of i nventory flow i (Lippiatt, 2002). Human health There are many potential human health eff ects from exposure to industrial and natural substances, ranging from transien t irritation to permanent disab ility and even death. Some

PAGE 52

52 substances have a wide range of different effect s, and different individua ls have widely varying tolerances to different substa nces. TRACI has developed Toxicity Equivalency Potentials (TEPs), which are characterization factors measuri ng the relative health concern associated with various chemicals from the perspective of a ge neric individual in th e US. TRACI evaluates cancer effects and noncancer effect s in terms of different substa nce equivalents (benzene and toluene, respectively). Synthesizing these effect s into one measure for proper interpretation of results was necessary. Therefor e the BEES Peer Review Team developed a ratio to convert benzene equivalents to toluene equivalents. As a result, TRACI characterization factors permit calculation of a single index for the potential human health eff ects (in grams of toluene per functional unit of product), representing the quantity of toluene with the same potential human health effects: human health index = i mi x HPi, where mi = mass (in grams) of inventory flow i, and HPi = grams of toluene with the same potenti al human health effects as one gram of inventory flow i (Lippiatt, 2002). Smog formation potential Under certain climatic conditions, air emissi ons from industry and transportation can be trapped at ground level, where th e reaction with sunlight produ ces photochemical smog. One of the components of smog is ozone, which is no t emitted directly, but rather produced through the interactions of VOCs and oxide s of nitrogen. Smog leads to harmful impacts on human health and vegetation. Characterization factors for potential smog formation have been developed

PAGE 53

53 using the TRACI impact assessment method, whic h permits computation of a single index for potential smog formation (in grams of nitr ogen oxides per functional unit of product): Smog index = i mi x SPi, where mi = mass (in grams) of inventory flow i, and SPi = grams of nitrogen oxides with the same potential for smog formation as one gram of inventory flow i (Lippiatt, 2002). Ozone depletion potential The ozone layer is present in the stratosphere and acts as a filter absorbing harmful short wave ultraviolet light while allowing longer wavelengths to pass through. A thinning of the ozone layer allows more harmful short wave ra diation to reach the Earth’s surface, potentially causing changes to ecosystems as flora and fauna ha ve varying abilities to cope with it. There may also be adverse effects on agricultural produ ctivity. Effects on man can include increased skin cancer rates (particularly fatal melanomas) and eye cataracts, as we ll as suppression of the immune system. Another problem is th e uncertain effect on the climate. Characterization factors for potential ozone depletion, whic h are included in the TRACI set of U.S. impact assessment methods, us e CFC-11 per functional unit of product as the reference substance to compute a single index for potential ozone depletion (in grams of CFC-11 per functional unit of product), representing the qu antity of CFC-11 with the same potential for ozone depletion: ozone depletion index = i mi x OPi, where mi = mass (in g) of inventory flow i, and OPi = grams of CFC-11 with the same ozone de pletion potential as one gram of inventory flow i (Lippiatt , 2002).

PAGE 54

54 Ecological toxicity The ecological toxicity impact measures the po tential of a chemical released into the environment to harm terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. An assessment method for this impact was developed for the TRACI set of US impact assessment methods and adopted in BEEs. The method involves measuring pollutant concentratio ns from industrial sources as well as the potential of these pollutants to harm ecosystems. TRACI charact erization factors for potential ecological toxicity use 2, 4-di chlorophenoxy-acetic acid (2,4-D), as the reference substance. These factors permit computation of a single inde x for potential ecological toxicity (in grams of 2, 4-D per functional unit of produc t), representing the quantity of 2, 4-D with the same potential for ecological toxicity: Ecological toxicity index = i mi x EPi, where mi = mass (in grams) of inventory flow i, and EPi = grams of 2,4-D with the same ecological toxicity potential as one gram of inventory flow i (Lippiatt, 2002). Normalizing impacts in BEES Once the impacts have been assessed, the resulting impact category performance measures are expressed in noncommensurate uni ts. Global warming is expressed in carbon dioxide equivalents, acidification in hydrogen ion equivalents, eutr ophication in nitrogen equivalents, and so on. In orde r to assist in the next LCA step, interpretation, performance measures are often placed on the same scale through normalization. The US EPA Office of Research and Development has recently deve loped normalization data corresponding to its TRACI set of impact assessment methods. These data are used in BEES to place its impact

PAGE 55

55 assessment results on the same scale. The BEES normalization values table can be found in Appendix B. EPA Science Advisory Board study At the LCA interpretation step, the normali zed impact assessment results are evaluated. Weighting each category by its relative importan ce to overall environmental performance, then computing the weighted average impact score synt hesize impact scores. In the BEES software, the user selects the set of importance weights. In this study, the EPA Science Advisory Board developed list of relative importance was us ed (See Appendix C). In 1990 and again in 2000, EPA’s Science Advisory Board (SAB) developed lists of the relative importance of various environmental impacts to help EPA best allocate its resources. The following criteria were used to develop the lists: The spatial scale of the impact The severity of the hazard The degree of exposure The penalty for being wrong Ten of the twelve BEES impact categories we re included in the SAB lists of relative importance: Highest-Risk Problems: globa l warming, habitat alteration High-Risk Problems: indoor air qualit y, ecological toxicity, human health Medium-Risk Problems: ozone depletion, smog, acidification, eutrophic ation, criteria air pollutants Economic Performance Economic performance is often referred to as Life Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA). It is the second category of evaluation under the BEES um brella. The costs covered within Economic Performance are: initial invest ment, replacement, operation, maintenance & repair, and disposal.

PAGE 56

56 They fall under the larger headings of first cost and future cost (Figure 2-1: BEES environmental & economic scoring inputs). First costs The first costs encompass initial investment costs of the project with regards to the individually specified products. This incl udes product purchase a nd construction costs associated with installation and project start up. First cost data are co llected from the R.S. Means Publication, 2000 Building Construction Cost Data . Future costs The future costs category includes cost s associated with replacement, operation, maintenance & repair, and disposal of the products specified. Future cost data are based on data published by Whitestone Research in the Whitestone Building Main tenance and Repair Cost Reference 19 99, supplemented by industry interviews. Cost data have been adjusted to year 2002 dollars. The costs are evaluated based on the pre-determined study period of the project. The BEES model evaluates the economic pe rformance over a 50-year study period. Replacement cost of a product depends on the exp ected life cycle of th e individual product. This expected life cycle is then calculated over the 50-year study period. Therefore, a product whose life expectancy is 10 y ears would be replaced 5 tim es during the study period. Maintenance One of the economic considerations associat ed with flooring products is in the area of maintenance (Lozada-Figueroa, 200 4; Moussatche & Languel, 2002). Maintenance of flooring systems is an often overlooked or undervalued pa rt of the building equa tion (Lozada-Figueroa, 2004; Moussatche & Languel, 2002). However, the fact that floors typically account for 30% of an institution’s maintenance budget makes them a significant topi c of consideration (Boehland, 2003). The link between indoor material sel ection and IAQ is well documented (Boehland,

PAGE 57

57 2003; Fisk & Rosenfeld, 1997; Frank, 2002; Harris, 2000). Careful selection of interior materials, particularly flooring, can make a consid erable contribution to th e indoor air quality in addition to the total overall environment (Frank, 2002). Traditionally, maintenance focu sed on aesthetics: k eeping the floor looki ng nice. But with today’s increased emphasis on health and concer ns surrounding sick building syndrome, mold, and rising rates of respiratory ailments, the link between materials and IAQ has taken on a greater significance. The impact of IAQ is one of the most important health factors to consider when choosing flooring. Among the main indoor ai r components associated with flooring are: Allergens (substances and organisms that can cause allergy and asthma); Irritants (substances that can trigger asthma and cause other respiratory problems); Toxic chemicals , emitting from materials, adhesives and maintenance chemicals (Boehland, 2003). IAQ may be affected by VOC emissions from the flooring material itself, as well as by the adhesives, surface coatings and maintenance materi als, such as waxes and strippers. In an unpublished paper, Indoor Exposure I Life Cycl e Assessment: Flooring Case Study, lifecycle assessment expert Dr. Greg Norris and two collea gues at the Harvard Sch ool of Public Health estimated the cumulative emissions during the life span of linoleum and vi nyl flooring materials, including typical cleaning procedures. They found that the amount of VOC’s emitted from a single waxing are equal to the total VOC’s give n off during the product’s entire life (Boehland, 2003). For these reasons, it is important to consider the type of maintena nce a flooring product will require and the effect that maintenance wi ll have on the building’s environment and the health of people who live and work in it (B oehland, 2003; Fisk & Rosenfeld, 1997; Frank, 2002; Norris, 2003).

PAGE 58

58 Another consideration for using appropriate cleaning procedures is the effect it has on the flooring product’s use life. W ithout proper cleaning and maintena nce, flooring materials will deteriorate and need to be replaced more ofte n (Boehland, 2003; Moussatche & Languel, 2002). This will negatively impact a building’s life cy cle cost (Boehland, 2003; Moussatche & Languel, 2002). This will also have negative effects on our e nvironments as we deal with the disposal of more products. USGBC has recognized the important role of main tenance of interior materials, as well as the value of life cycle assessments of these materials. Currently being test piloted, LEED-EB (for existing buildings) has te ntatively reserved seven points for “green housekeeping” and suggests performing life cycle assessments on specific products as a means of achieving additional Innovation and Design Process credits (Boehland, 2003 ). Maintenance-carpet: Proper maintenance of a facilities carp et is as important as the initial specification of the carpet itself. Without it, the carpet will not perf orm up to its potential. Dirt has an abrasive quality that when left unattende d will cut into the face fibers. As a result carpet will lose density and resilience. For this reas on, regular vacuum cleaning is essential (Riggs, 2003). Daily procedures, such as vacuuming and spot cleaning, along with periodic overall cleaning to refresh the pile and remove overall grime will be necessary. Carpet has the advantage of localizing dirt by catching dirt and spills where they come in contact with the carpet. For this reason, heavy traffic areas should have a maintena nce program to address these conditions. In these areas it may be necessary to vacuum every day. Walk off mats should be insta lled at entrances to capture th e dirt before it can make its way to the carpet.

PAGE 59

59 As specified by the Carpet and Rug Institute, a normal vacuum schedule should be as follows: High Traffic--Vacuum daily Medium Traffic—Vacuum twice weekly Light Traffic—Vacuum weekly (Riggs, 2003). In the course of vacuuming, prompt atten tion should be given to spot removal. The longer spots are left unattended the more pe rmanent they become. Detergent solutions used for spot removal should follow manuf acturers specified recommendations (Riggs, 2003). Deep cleaning of carpets use a variety of methods includi ng: absorbent compound, absorbent pad or bonnet (dry), dry foam cleaning, shampoo cleaning, and steam cleaning (hot water extraction). These methods may be used in conjunction with each other or separately. Again, considerat ion to manufacturers recomme nded method of cleaning is important to ensure carpets opt imal performance (Riggs, 2003). Maintenance-VCT: Mannington commercial recommends the following maintenance procedures, which would apply to any new VC T floor: using a good quality nonalkaline floor cleaner and a floor machine should maintain floors. Thoroughly ri nse the floor being careful not to flood it, and allow it to dry completely. A pply 3-5 coats of high quali ty cross linked acrylic floor polish, waiting at least 30 minutes between coats to allow for co mplete drying (Riggs, 2003). Frequently clean the floor with a treated, non oily dust mop or clean, soft push broom for regular maintenance. Damp mop the floor, as ne eded, using a dilute, neut ral-detergent solution. Light scrubbing with an automatic floor machine may be necessary for heavy soiled conditions. After damp mopping or light scrubbing, spra y buffing or high speed burnishing may be necessary to restore gl oss (Riggs, 2003). Maintenance-linoleum: Forbo Industries recommends the following maintenance procedures: For initial clean up and daily maintenance, remove a ll surface soil, debris, sand and

PAGE 60

60 grit by sweeping and dust mopping. Da mp mop with a neutral PH de tergent. For a matte-satin shine, apply one or two coats of floor finish su ch as TASKI Ombra or equivalent, or for a high gloss shine apply two or three co ats of floor finish such as Bu tcher Mainstay, TASKI Brilliant, Johnson Vectra, or an equivalent. These finishes should be applied with a clean finish mop or finish applicator, with 30 minutes dr y time between each coat (Riggs, 2003). Maintenance-wood: Dealing with grit is the main culpr it in maintaining any floor. Grits abrasive quality can wear the su rface if not properly maintain ed. Dust mopping, sweeping or vacuuming can effectively clean daily grit form the wood surface. It is estimated that it takes eight steps on a wood floor surface to remove sand and dirt from the bottom of shoes. For this reason, placement of walk off mats at entrances is very important to maintain the life of wood floors (Riggs, 2003). Water and wood should not be mixed. Therefor e, it is imperative to never intentionally pour water directly on wood floors. However, a damp mop is acceptable for cleaning nonwaxed polyurethane. Manufacturers reco mmended cleaning products should be used whenever possible to ensure the optimum life of the floor (Riggs, 2003). Maintenance-ceramic tile: A damp mop will clean tiles if the soil is light. Heavy clean up should be done with a mixture of water and de tergent. Grout, because of its porosity, can stain so quick clean up is recommended (Riggs, 2003). Maintenance-marble & granite: The following recommended cleaning and maintenance procedures for both marble and granite are th e recommendations of the Marble Institute of America (Riggs, 2003). Blot the spill with a paper towel immediately. Do not wipe the area, it will spread the spill. Flush the area with plain water and mild soap and rinse several times. Dry the area with a soft cloth. Repeat as necessa ry. Identifying the type of st ain on the stone surface is the key to removing it. Surface stains can often be removed by cleaning with an appropriate

PAGE 61

61 cleaning product or household chemical. Deep-s eated or stubborn stai ns may require using a poultice or calling a professional. Summary “The body of knowledge that is part of whol e-building life cycle as sessment can help to inform better design decisions in service to a healthier planet” (Montgomery, 2003). This research aims to evaluate the sustainabi lity of hotel flooring ma terials and to provide designers with a useful reference to aid them in future projects. Assessing the full environmental impact of a product or construction may be completed only if consid eration is given to its effect through out all the stages of its life. Design professionals are greatly in need of a tool that will help them to gather the necessary information to make these important material choices. This is an area where interior designers can have a great impact in the sustai nability movement, since they are generally the ones who are specifying the types of interior materials that affect the issues of i ndoor air quality, resource depletion, and the damage that the wron g choices can inflict on our environment (Malin & Wilson, 1997). Through the practice of sharing information on lif e cycle cost analysis and other pertinent information regarding not only the surface requirem ents of materials but their performance in many specific and relevant sustainable areas, de signers can prepare themselves to make more informed decisions (Malin & Wilson, 1997). The BEES software tool measures the perfor mance of building produc ts within two main categories: environmental performance (LCA) and economic performance (LCCA). Assessing a products performance through each of its life cycle stages and various environmental impacts, the BEES model gives th e building professional a comprehens ive, balanced analysis. Though

PAGE 62

62 this software tool has room for improvement, su ch as expanding its product database, adding a more personalized maintenance input system, a nd fully addressing a few difficult to quantify

PAGE 63

63 Table 2-1: A comparison of av ailable software based evaluati on tools for sustainable design assessment Software Product Cost to User Intended User Data Base Weighting system Scoring system BEES Download free Building professionals Building products User specifies weighting of environmental & economic categories Scores products in environmental & economic categories Envest II Must be purchased annually Designers of United Kingdom projects Designed for non-residential building assessment Single weighting system Eco points system uses single point scale Simapro Must be purchased, along with annual updates Informed life cycle practitioner Commercial life cycle assessment data bases; not restricted to building products A variety of analysis options availabledesigned for informed practitioner Uses Eco-Indicator Evaluation Provides a Single score Athena Must be purchased, along with annual updates Architects, Engineers & Researchers @ conceptual design stage Assess structural systems of buildings (does not include interior finish materials) Subjective, up to user Measures six categories with absolute values TEAM Must be purchased, along with annual updates Informed life cycle practitioner Commercial life cycle assessment data bases; not restricted to building products Upcoming version will support user defined weighting factors Provides users with modeling tools to build analysisdesigned for informed practitioner GaBi Must be purchased, along with annual updates Informed life cycle practitioner Commercial life cycle assessment data bases; not restricted to building products A variety of analysis options availabledesigned for informed practitioner A variety of analysis options availabledesigned for informed practitioner Eco Quantum Must be purchased, along with annual updates Architects, Engineers & Researchers @ conceptual design stage Residential whole buildings environmental performance CML valuation method from the Netherlands

PAGE 64

64 Figure 2-1: BEES 2.0 users (Lippiatt, 2002)

PAGE 65

65 Figure 2-2: BEES environmental & econom ic scoring inputs (Lippiatt, 2002)

PAGE 66

66 CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY Introduction This study will use comparative case study de sign to evaluate the interior flooring materials used in the Hilton Vancouver hotel an d the researcher’s sugg ested materials. The Vancouver Hilton hotel was built following LEED standard sustainable design practices. Comparative Case Study This study intends to compare the interior flooring materials used in a LEED certified Hilton Hotel with the flooring materials suggest ed by the researcher. Case study methodology is defined by Groat and Wang (2002) as an empirica l inquiry that investig ates a phenomenon or setting, which includes historic phenomena and both historic and contemporary setting as potential foci of case studies. The advantage of th is style of research is the real life context in which the study is performed. In the case of this research it shows materi al selection decisions (in the Hilton Vancouver Hotel), which were made within the context of doing business . This study was conducted in three phases. The first phase consisted of reviewing official documents such as flooring specifications, drawin gs and finish schedules for the hotel being studied. The second phase required the compilation of manufacturers specification sheets for the specific products used in the hotel. The thir d and final phase was to evaluate the flooring products using the BEES software tool. Phase One: Review of Official Documents The Hilton Hotel Corporation and the Architectural firm of Fletcher Farr Ayotte provided official documents for the selected hotel, such as Auto CAD drawings, in terior flooring finish schedules, and the programming criterion used by the Hilton Corporation (Hilton’s Design and

PAGE 67

67 Construction Standards Handbook). The data collected in this stage is summa rized in Table 3-1: Flooring Materials Used in the LEED Registered Hilton Vancouver Hotel. Phase Two: Compilation of Manufacturers Specification Sheets During the second phase, the specific flooring product manufacturer’s specification sheets were compiled from the manufacturers websites. These data sheets gave technical information about the recommended usage, product performance, installation, and care & maintenance of the products being used. This data provided specifi c brand information for products, which may not be included in the current BEES fl ooring product lineup (S ee Appendix D). These products were checked for inclusion in the Greenguard Environmental Institute’s list of certified products. The GREENGUARD Certification Program is a third-party testing program for low-emitting products and materials which is called out in LEED as meeting standards for indoor air quality (e.g., http://www.greenguard.org/ retrieved February 2007). Phase Three: Evaluation of Flooring Materials: BEES Software Tool The interior flooring materials from both th e Vancouver Hilton hotel and the researcher’s suggestions were evaluated using the Building for Environmental and Economic Sustainability (BEES) software evaluation tool. As previously mentioned, the BEES software tool measures the performance of building products within tw o main categories, environmental performance (Life Cycle Assessment) and economic perfor mance (Life Cycle Cost Analysis). Environmental performance (Life Cycle Assessment) The environmental performances of these produc ts are measured usi ng the internationally standardized and science base d Life Cycle Assessment (LCA ) method specified in ISO 14040 standards. In this method, all stages of a product’s life are analyzed from raw material acquisition to manufacture, transportation, instal lation, use, recycling, and waste management. The impact these products have on environmenta l conditions such as global warming, indoor air

PAGE 68

68 quality, human toxicity, etc. is then evaluated. Resulting impact category performance measures are expressed in noncommensurate units. Globa l warming is expressed in carbon dioxide equivalents, acidification in hydrogen ion equivalents, eutrop hication in nitrogen equivalents, and so on. At the interpretati on stage, the performance measur es are placed on the same scale through normalization, which allows for eas ier comparison across impact areas. These normalized environmental impact scor es are then weighted according to the EPA Science Advisory Boards list of relative importance (Appendix C). Economic performance (Life Cycle Cost Analysis) The second area of evaluation, focused on economi c considerations utilizes a similar life cycle rationale. For this evaluation score, an American Standards for Testing Materials (ASTM) standard Life Cycle Cost Method (LCC) is used. An LCC approach factors the initial cost of a product, its installation cost, mainte nance and repair cost, replacement cost, and disposal cost. In the BEES model economic perfor mance is measured over a 50-year study period. The same study period is used to evaluate all products wi thin the BEES portfolio even if they have different useful lives. This is one of the st rengths of the LCC method, because it levels the playing field for all pr oducts being compared. Weighting of performance criterion In order to evaluate these flooring materials using the BEES software tool, the weighting of the Environmental Performance (LCA) and Economic Performance (LCC) scores must be defined. Although the BEES tool allows the us er to choose any distribution of percentages between the two categories, for the purpose of this study the following data sets were used: Equal weighting between the perf ormance scores (50/50 percent) More heavily weighted toward Enviro nmental Performance (80/20 percent) More heavily weighted toward Econo mic Performance (80/20 percent)

PAGE 69

69 Overall performance score After the appropriate weighting factors we re applied, the environmental and economic performance scores were combined into an overall performance measure using the ASTM standard for Multiattribute Deci sion Analysis. For the entire BEES analysis, building products are defined and classified base d on the ASTM standard classi fication for building elements known as UNIFORMAT II (BEES 3.0, 2002). Assimilation of Results The results of the comparisons are shown in gr aph format within each specified area of the hotel, such as “typical guestroom”. The materials from the hotel and the researcher’s suggestions are shown in a side-by-side comparis on. In any instance where the material specified is not presently represented in the BEES ma terials line up, the researcher will offer any supplemental information with regards to the products sustainability.

PAGE 70

70 Table 3-1. Flooring Materials Used in the LEED Registered Hilton Vancouver Hotel Material Manufacturer Produ ct Location Surface Finish Carpet, Broadloom Brinton USA 80/20, Wool/nylon blend Lobby, Conference Center, Ballrooms Woven Carpet, Broadloom Atlas Antron Nylon 6.6 Health club, Restaurant Patterned loop Carpet, Broadloom Masland 100% Solution Dyed Nylon Administrative/Luggag e Room Carpet, Broadloom Couristan 100% Printed Nylon Corridors to guest rooms Tufted cut Pile Carpet, Broadloom Durkan Merit 100% Solution Dyed Nylon Guest Rooms Enhanced Loop VCT Mannington Designer Essentials 12x12x1/8 Computer Room Wood Buell Flooring Group 5” Hand Scrape Pecan Restaurant Stone: Granite OTM (Oregon Tile & Marble) 1 ” Slab 16x16x3/8 Lobby stair treads & lobby floor accents Heavy Sandblast Both polished & Honed Stone: Marble OTM (Oregon Tile & Marble) 16x16x3/8 Lobby floor accents Both polished & Honed Ceramic Tile Crossville Americana 12x12x5/16 Weatherstone 6x6x3/8 Public & Employee Toilet Rooms Health club/Pool Entry & Toilet Floors Unpolished Ceramic Tile Imcola 12x12x3/8 Guest Bath Rooms Matt

PAGE 71

71 Table 3-2. Researchers Sugge sted Flooring Materials Material Manufacturer Produ ct Location Surface Finish Carpet Tile Interface 100% solution dyed 6,6 nylon Lobby, Conference Center, Ballrooms 19.69” x 19.69” tufted level loop Carpet Tile Interface 100% solution dyed 6,6 nylon Health club, Restaurant 19.69” x 19.69” tufted level loop Carpet Tile Interface 100% solution dyed 6,6 nylon Administrative/Luggag e Room 19.69” x 19.69” tufted level loop Carpet Tile Interface 100% solution dyed 6,6 nylon Corridors to guest rooms 19.69” x 19.69” tufted level loop Carpet Tile Interface 100% solution dyed 6,6 nylon Guest Rooms 19.69” x 19.69” tufted level loop Linoleum Forbo Marmoleum Computer Room Wood: Bamboo Plyboo 3 ” width Restaurant Stone: Granite OTM (Oregon Tile & Marble) 1 ” Slab 16x16x3/8 Lobby stair treads & lobby floor accents Heavy Sandblast Both polished & Honed Stone: Marble OTM (Oregon Tile & Marble) 16x16x3/8 Lobby floor accents Both polished & Honed Ceramic Tile w/Recycled Content Crossville Eco-tile 8x8 Public & Employee Toilet Rooms Health club/Pool Entry & Toilet Floors Unpolished Ceramic Tile w/Recycled Content Crossville Eco-tile 8x8 Guest Bath Rooms Matt

PAGE 72

72 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS The results of the flooring material compar isons using the BEES evaluation software (Table 4-1) are broken down into comparison ar eas within the hotel e nvironment. The data included in the summary columns are: Expected Se rvice Life; First Cost and Future Cost (which together make up the Economic Performance) ; Environmental Performance; and Overall Performance within the economic & environmental data sets laid out in chapter one (50%-50%; 20%-80%; and 80%-20%). The mate rials that were not included in the BEES software database are noted as such. The Expected Service Life data is used by the BEES software system to compute future cost within the economic performance category. The products are all eval uated within a 50-year useful life time frame. For th e flooring materials not found in BEES, Service Life Expectancy was obtained from manufactur ers’ specification sheets. It is interesting to note th at the products with the low score within their comparison category are consistently the low score across a ll the evaluated performance areas. Interface carpet tile is the best performer within the firs t category, “Typical guest room, etc.” With a 15 year expected life, Interface carpet ou tperforms nylon broadloom carpet on economic performance as well as environmental performance. When the environment is given preferable weighting (20%-80%) over the economic scores, the overall pe rformance show carpet tile scoring three times better than th e nylon choice. Even within th e other two weighting categories, 50%-50% (equal weighting between environmenta l and economical performance) and 80%-20%, the carpet tile scored better. In the 50%-50% category, the carpet tile scored 29.2 and the nylon carpet scored 70.8. In the 80%-20% category, the scores were 33.4 to 66.6 respectively.

PAGE 73

73 Table 4-2 shows the Comparable Environmental Impact areas for these carpet products. Global warming and indoor air im pacts are the most significan t areas identified in this evaluation. The Figures 4-1, 4-2, & 4-3 show bar graphs of the life cycle stages that make up the total global warming and indoor air impacts. The total VOCs given in grams(g) TVOCs/unit are .70 for Interface and 9.32 for the nylon product (Figure 4-3). The criteria air pollutant s by life cycle stage show the majority of microDALYs/unit accruing during raw materials acquisition (Figur e 4-2). This is one area where the nylon product scores slightly lower than the Interface carpet ti le, with scores of 2.4608 and 2.6084, respectively. In the Global Warming Category, again the Life Cycle Stage with the most significant scores is the Raw Materials Acqui sition Stage. The nylon carpet scores more negatively in this impact area, with 6336g CO2/unit compared to 2158g CO2/unit for the carpet tile. Within the typical Computer Room Cate gory, VCT dominates Forbo linoleum on all performance categories. They both show the sa me life expectancy of 18 years, but VCT costs 44% less in both first costs and fu ture costs. The Overall Performance Data Set scores seemed to be consistently divided, 35% VCT to 64% linoleum, regardless of the weighting changes. The Comparable Environmental Impact areas for VCT & linoleum (lower values are better) are shown in Table 4-3. Human health and eutrophication impacts are the most significant areas (largest scores) identified in th is comparison. The Figures 4-4 and 4-5 show bar graphs of the Life Cycle Stages that make up the total human health and eu trophication impacts. The Manufacturing Stage for VCT proves to be th e most significant negative contributor to human health, with 92,402g C7H7/unit for VCT compared to 7,563 for linoleum. It is in the

PAGE 74

74 Eutrophication Category that linol eum scored poorly. During the Raw Materials Acquisition Stage, linoleum contributes 94.28g N/unit compared to 0.1487g N/unit for VCT. Although ceramic tile is not included in the BEES data files at the present time, ceramic tile with recycled glass is represented. The Summ ary Data for this product can be found in Table 4-1. Ceramic tile has a 50 year expected life, whether it has recycled til e content or not. The Future Cost of ceramic tile with recycled conten t (w/rcc) is shown to be zero, with an overall economic rating of 8.48, the least favorable score of all products evaluated. However, with an Overall Environmental score of .0044 this tile ranks number one environmentally in all the flooring products tested. The largest negative im pact scores for this tile were in the Global Warming and Human Health categories (see Table 4-3). Scoring .0011 and .0013 respectively, these scores hardly seem worth mentioning. The contributing life cycle stage for the global warming impact was manufacturing and for the hu man health category, it is transportation (see Figures 4-6 & 4-7). If all the products st udied were to be ranke d within the category of Economic Performance the best product would be VCT, followed by Interface carpet tile, Forbo linoleum, nylon broadloom carpet, and lastly, ceramic tile w/rcc. However, if we looked at Environmental Ranking the best performer would be ceramic ti le w/rcc, Interface carpet tile, VCT, nylon broadloom carpet, and Forbo linoleum. All of the flooring products analyzed in th is study were checked for inclusion in the Greenguard Environmental Institu te’s list of certified products. The GREENGUARD Certification Program is a third-party testing program for low-emitting products and materials which is called out in LEED as meet ing standards for indoor air quality (e.g., http://www.greenguard.org/ retrieved February 2007) . None of the materials specified, either in

PAGE 75

75 the LEED certified Hilton or in th e researchers suggested flooring li st, was included in this list. The only flooring material included in the Greengua rd certified list at th e present time is rubber flooring.

PAGE 76

76 Table 4-1. Summary of results for flooring material comparisons Material Selection Economic Performance Total Performance Overall Performance EconomicEnvironmental Comparison Areas H I L T O N R E S E A C H E R Expected Service Life (Years) First Cost $ Per Square Foot Future Cost $ Per Square Foot Econ. Perfor $ Per Square Foot Envir. Perfor Per Square Foot 50% 50% 20% 80% 80% 20% Nylon Carpet, Broadloom low VOC X 11 3.05 4.54 7.59 .0164 70.8 75.0 66.6 Typical Guest Room, Health club, Restaurant & Corridors Interface, Carpet Tile X 15 2.19 2.10 4.29 .0047 29.2 25.0 33.4 VCT X 18 1.67 1.21 2.88 .0153 35.4 35.7 35.1 Typical Compute r Room Forbo Linoleum, No VOC X 18 2.99 2.16 5.15 .0287 64.6 64.3 64.9 Wood, Hand Scrape Pecan X Product Data Not Currently Available In BEES Typical Restaurant (see also carpet category above) Wood, Bamboo X Product Data Not Currently Available In BEES Stone: Granite X X 50+ Product Data Not Currently Available In BEES Typical Lobby stair treads & Lobby floor accents Stone: Marble X X 50+ Product Data Not Currently Available In BEES Ceramic Tile X 50 Product Data Not Currently Available In BEES Typical Guest Bath Rooms & Health Club/Pool Entry Ceramic Tile w/recycled glass X 50 8.48 0.00 8.48 .0044 N/A N/A N/A

PAGE 77

77 Table 4-2. Summary of floor ing materials environmental performance (8 Impacts) Typical Guest Room, Health club, Restaurant & Corridors Environmental Impact Areas Nylon Carpet, Broadloom low VOC Interface, Carpet Tile Acidification--8% 0.0000 0.0000 Criteria Air Pollutants--8% 0.0010 0.0011 Eutrophication-8% 0.0024 0.0002 Fossil Fuel Depletion--8% 0.0024 0.0010 Global Warming-24% 0.0059 0.0020 Habitat Alteration--24% 0.0000 0.0000 Indoor Air--16% 0.0042 0.0003 Water Intake--4% 0.0005 0.0001 Sum 0.0164 0.0047

PAGE 78

78 Figure 4-1. Global warming impact for In terface carpet tile and nylon broadloom

PAGE 79

79 Figure 4-2. Criteria air pollutants for In terface carpet tile and nylon broadloom

PAGE 80

80 Figure 4-3. Indoor air quality for Inte rface carpet tile and nylon broadloom

PAGE 81

81 Table 4-3. Summary of floor ing material environmental performance (12 impacts) Typical Computer Room Typical Guest Bath Rooms & Health club/Pool Entry Environmental Impact Areas VCT Forbo Linoleum, No VOC Ceramic Tile Ceramic Tile W / recycled glass Acidification--5% 0.0000 0.0000 No Data 0.000 Criteria Air Pollutants--6% 0.0016 0.0003 No Data 0.0009 Ecological Toxicity--11% 0.0023 0.0003 No Data 0.0000 Eutrophication-5% 0.0001 0.0246 No Data 0.0001 Fossil Fuel Depletion--5% 0.0005 0.0004 No Data 0.0005 Global Warming-16% 0.0011 0.0009 No Data 0.0011 Habitat Alteration--16% 0.0000 0.0000 No Data 0.0000 Human Health-11% 0.0091 0.0014 No Data 0.0013 Indoor Air--11% 0.0000 0.0000 No Data 0.0000 Ozone Depletion-5% 0.0000 0.0000 No Data 0.0000 Smog--6% 0.0006 0.0006 No Data 0.0005 Water Intake--3% 0.0000 0.0001 No Data 0.0000 Sum 0.0153 0.0285 No Data 0.0044

PAGE 82

82 Figure 4-4. Human health imp act for VCT and Forbo linoleum

PAGE 83

83 Figure 4-5. Euthrophication imp act for VCT and Forbo linoleum

PAGE 84

84 Figure 4-6. Global warming impact fo r ceramic tile w/ recycled glass

PAGE 85

85 Figure 4-7. Human health impact fo r ceramic tile w/ recycled glass

PAGE 86

86 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION Sustainable design is an emer ging field offering many opportuniti es for designers. Already quite popular within the health care and school environments, building sustainably is now becoming a topic of consideration within the hospitality industry. For interior designers interested in pursuing projects of this type, it is important to acquire knowledge about the key issues that affect evaluation of th e appropriate finish materials. One opportunity to streamline this process is through the use of a software evaluation product such as the BEES system. This research ai med to test the effectiveness of this tool for the evaluating flooring materials used in the hospitality industry. A discussion of the product comparisons for th e various flooring materials installed in the typical guest room, corridor, health club, and other hotel areas included in the study will follow. Where the data was not available in the BEES program, supplemental information from the researchers literature review will be included. The hypothesis that “flooring materials suggest ed by the researcher would have a lower (better) score, according to the BEES evaluation tool, than the flooring materials used in the LEED Hilton Hotel within the specified data sets (50%-50% & 80%-20% environmental/economic) did not hold true across all of the products evaluated. The hypothesis was meant to highlight the evaluation data sets that were more environmentally focused, those whose environm ental/economic compositions were either equal (50%-50% weighting) or showed environmenta l preference (80%-20% weighting). The thought would be that if the products c onsidered to be environmentally friendly, for instance linoleum, were compared side by side with other floor ing choices, the more environmentally friendly product would outperform its counterparts.

PAGE 87

87 The weighting of the environmental and economic performance was meant to show dominant points of view, shifted towards each of the evaluation categories. Eighty percent and twenty percent were chosen because they show ed significant emphasis in one-direction verses the other. Recall the example of the two flooring materi al options analyzed by BEES described in Chapter two. In this example, the PET broadloo m carpet (a product with r ecycled content, often thought to be a good environmental choice) sc ored better environmentally, while nylon broadloom carpet scored better economically. Base d on the analysis parameters, in the overall performance score, nylon broadloom carpet instal led with conventional glue is shown to be slightly preferable overall to PET broadloom car pet installed with low-VOC glue. In a similar fashion, one of the product comparisons (VCT & lin oleum) analyzed within this study showed surprising results that cont radicted the hypothesis. This study also examined the more economic influence by utilizing a 20%-80% weighting between products. This would provide further support if the same produc ts that performed well in the environmental focus, performed well in the economic focus. The ideal choice would be the product that outperforms the comp etition in all three data sets. The researcher did not expect to find many, if any, products that w ould show this idyllic performance. Product Comparisons It is interesting to note th at the products with the low score within their comparison category are consistently the low scorer across al l the evaluated performance areas (see Table 51: Summary of results for fl ooring material comparisons). Typical Guest Room, Health Club, Restaurant and Corridors Interface carpet tile was the hi ghest rating in the typical gu est room category. There are many contributing factors. First, there is a sign ificant variation in life expectancy between the

PAGE 88

88 carpet tile and broadloom products . The four-year difference is enough to have a large impact on cost, since the broadloom will have to be replaced 1.2 times more often than the carpet tile. In addition, this longer lifespan will impact the envi ronmental score within the indoor air quality category. The TVOCs that are used to calcula te indoor air quality are influenced most significantly by the off gassing that occurs at the beginning of the in stallation process. The total VOCs given in grams (g) TVOCs/unit are .70 fo r Interface and 9.32 for the nylon product. Increased installations equal more off gassing. The first cost data illustrate s Interface prices below that of the vinyl broadloom product. The waste that occurs during inst allation could have an impact on this amount. Interface carpet acknowledges a 3.9 percent waste factor verses 8 to14 percent with a broadloom product. That’s a 65 percent difference just fo r using the carpet tile product. The global warming impact was the most si gnificant area affected by these products. Shown in grams of CO2/ unit the carpet tile showed 2158g CO2 verses the nylon products sum of 6336g CO2. As identified in figure 4-1, the life stage of these products, which contributes most significantly to this global warmi ng impact, is raw materials acquisition. When the environment is given preferab le weighting (80%-20%) over the economic scores, the overall performance s how carpet tile scoring three times better than the nylon choice. The carpet tile overall performance score is bett er when the environment is given priority because it’s environmental score is substantially be tter, by twenty five percent. Even within the other two weighting categories, fift y-fifty and eighty-twenty, the carpet tile scored better. In the fifty-fifty category, the carpet tile scored 29.2 and the nylon carp et scored 70.8. In the eightytwenty category, the scores were 33.4 to 66.6 respectively.

PAGE 89

89 Another benefit of using carpet ti le in the hospitality industry is that when replacement of the entire room is necessary, the carpet tiles can be replaced without moving the furniture out of the room. In addition, random marks, like the on es made by dropping a hot iron onto the carpet, can be fixed by simply replacing the tile(s) affected. In hotels using the conventional broadloom carpet, either the entire room w ould be replaced, a costly option es pecially if the carpet is not that old, or the mark would stay, blemishing th e appearance of the room until such time as the hotel had the budget to replace it. Typical Computer Room The most surprising result from this study was that VCT showed a lower or better environmental score than the linoleum, with a score of .0153 verses the linoleum’s score of .0287. Upon closer examination of the imp act assessment results that make up the environmental score, the linoleum was found to score 1.4 to 8 times better in each category except one, eutrophication or the em ission of phosphates and nitrates into the soil and water. Linoleum emits far more phosphates and nitrates due to the use of ferti lizer for the linseed cultivation needed for producti on. The eutrophication result was enough to shift the overall score to VCT’s favor. Even though linoleum is cu rrently imported from Europe, it continues to outperform VCT in the fossil fuel depletion cate gory. As noted in the literature review, the dioxins produced through the production of VC T are thought to be one of the most potent carcinogens presently known in science (Lent, 20 03). The fact that they are not currently evaluated in the BEES system is a significant omission. This is an i ssue that should be of concern for any LCA performed since the issu e of how to quantify dioxin flows in the environment is still being debate d. Once this issue is resolved, many believe that a dramatic change will occur in the resulti ng environmental scores for VCT.

PAGE 90

90 Another surprising result was that the VCT, wh ich is known to have a low initial cost, also showed a lower future cost than the linoleum. Based on the studies (Lozada-Figueroa, 2004; Moussatche, 2003) identified in th e literature review, it would be expected that products with very low first capital cost are often associated with a high service life cost (future cost). This is often because either the maintenance and service pr ogram associated with the material is costly or does not have a long serv ice life expectancy. VCT showed a life expectancy of 18 years, which is equal to the linoleum product. Therefore, the fact that VCT scored well in th e future cost category is suspect, since the maintenance criteria used in the BEES program, which has already been de scribed by its author (Barbara Lippiatt) as insufficient, may not incl ude thorough information fo r assessment. It is possible that the maintenance pr ocedures calculated for linol eum and VCT are the same, or perhaps, more likely, there were no maintenan ce costs figured into the equation. Additionally, the figures given for future cost seem too low to include maintenance costs generally associated with VCT. Linoleum’s natural antibacterial properties also make it safe enough to use in a healthcare environment. In addition, as a product it rel eases no harmful VOCs and has natural antistatic properties that repel dirt, dust and pollen making it easy to keep clean. All of these accolades mean little if a waxing maintenance program is prescribed. The wax product covers up the linoleum’s attributes and causes it to off gas si milar to VCT. Although waxing is not necessary for maintenance of linoleum, many establishments f eel that shiny floors equal clean floors. This is an unfortunate choice from an environmen tal point of view. Re call the study by Harvard School of Public Health, which estimated the cu mulative emissions during the life span of linoleum and vinyl flooring materials, includi ng typical cleaning proced ures. The study found

PAGE 91

91 that the amount of VOC’s emitted from a single waxing are equal to the total VOC’s given off during the product’s entire life (Boehland, 2003). For these reasons, it is important to consider the type of maintena nce a flooring product will require and the effect that maintenance wi ll have on the building’s environment and the health of people who live and work in it (B oehland, 2003; Fisk & Rosenfeld, 1997; Frank, 2002; Norris, 2003). Simply having a low service life cost should not be the ultimate cons ideration but it should be evaluated along with other crit eria, such as acoustical properti es, aesthetics, and respiratory comfort (indoor air quality) in order to make the best and most educated decision (Moussatche, 2003). Typical Restaurant Bamboo flooring is not yet a choice for floori ng products to be evaluated in the BEES software program. However, LEED considers ra pidly renewable products (those maturing in ten years or less) to be worthy of inclusion in th eir scoring within Materi als & Resource category. Bamboo has the exotic look of many more e xpensive wood-flooring options but because of the rapidly renewable quality (m aturing every five years) it is thought to outperform the competition in the area of sustainability. Plyboo compares the durability of its bamboo to the very durable red oak. In fact, it is considered twice as stab le and almost as hard. The formaldehyde free finish, either UV-applied poly urethane or aluminum oxide, which resists 20,000 revolutions on the taber test (Riggs, 2003), is another asset in the sustainability category. Typical Lobby Stair Treads and Lobby Floor Accents Both granite and marble have stood the test of time for durability and lasting beauty. To prove this, one only has to look at the many architectural treasures from our past, such as the Parthenon (completed in 432 BC), that still stan ds today. The downside often given for these

PAGE 92

92 material choices is the distance, which must be tr aveled to bring these exotic stones to America. Interestingly enough, there has been some marble a nd granite mined here in the U.S. Still, the majority of this product is found overseas. Curren tly marble and granite are not available on the BEES software, but it would be in teresting to see how the use of fossil fuels to carry the products impacts the overall environmental profile. Typical Guest Bath Rooms and Health club/Pool Entry Ceramic tile has been dated back to 4700 B.C. Known for its durabil ity, ceramic tile has many advantages. Some of the advantages are: 1) a long service life of 50+ years; 2) low maintenance cost; 3) and versatility in co lor and style which allows for many design applications. The addition of recycled windshi eld glass into its content mix has recently brought more attention to ceramic tile for use as a sust ainable product. LEED cons iders ceramic tile with recycled content to be sustainable and a llows points on LEED scorecard for its inclusion. Research Question In conducting and analyzing this research, this study sought to answer the question: Is the sustainability score for interior flooring materials using th e BEES evaluation tool, lower (better), when the performan ce criterion shifts from econ omic focus to environmental focus? The answer to this question is no. Although the factored scor es did vary according to the percentages used, the outcome of which product had th e lowest or best score was still consistent. The secondary parts of th e research question were: Within the three weighting scenarios, will the LEED hotel have a higher score when the criteria are balanced 50%-50%? Will its score be better (lower) when the weighting shi fts to environmental or when it shifts to economical outcomes? It is interesting to note that the pr oducts with the high score within their comparison category are consistently the high scorer across all the evaluated performance areas. In the two main comparison areas where the BEES sc ores were calculated, th e results were split.

PAGE 93

93 The researcher’s selected floori ng material was the low scorer or overall winner, in the Typical Guest Room, Health Club, Restaurant & Corr idors category; and the Hilton’s VCT choice garnered the lowest marks, however controvers ial, in the typical computer room category. BEES Software Program The BEES software program was found to be both user-friendly to inst all and run. It was also quick and easy to manipulate the weighting cr iterion within the products being studied. The graphs were informative, however, there was not an option identified that would save the graph information to a file. Instead, the graphs had to be printed out and scanne d into the computer for later use. The addition of a save feature woul d make the results easier to incorporate into presentations for clients, as scanned data ofte n does not show image clarity as well as the original. While the data used to calculate the scor ing results is viewable by the user, the maintenance cost break down was not available. Th is would be informative to review in order to gain an understanding of the re asons a product might be receiving a high score in future cost beyond the replacement cost issue. Also, the up graded maintenance segment of the software, which has been promised, will greatly improve this significant part of the sustainable evaluation equation. The present 2002 version disappoints by representing that there are maintenance figures from the Whitestone Building Maintenan ce and Repair Cost Reference 19 99, included in future costs, when it is suspected that the info rmation is limited and the costs represented is outdated. Another great disadvantage in the BEES program at the present time is the lack of certain product categories. Stone and wood products are very popular flooring products; perhaps due to the natural look and feel they bring to the environment. The current BEES floor materials listing fails to include any products from these categories. It is promised that the BEES program will be

PAGE 94

94 updated every 18-24 months, although the last u pdate is from 2002. It would be ideal if a preview list of the products that are being added to the next u pdate were provided on the BEES website.

PAGE 95

95 Table 5-1. Summary of results for flooring material comparisons Material Selection Economic Performance Total Performance Overall Performance EconomicEnvironmental Comparison Areas H I L T O N R E S E A C H E R Expected Service Life (Years) First Cost $ Per Square Foot Future Cost $ Per Square Foot Econ. Perfor $ Per Square Foot Envir. Perfor Per Square Foot 50% 50% 20% 80% 80% 20% Nylon Carpet, Broadloom low VOC X 11 3.05 4.54 7.59 .0164 70.8 75.0 66.6 Typical Guest Room, Health club, Restaurant & Corridors Interface, Carpet Tile X 15 2.19 2.10 4.29 .0047 29.2 25.0 33.4 VCT X 18 1.67 1.21 2.88 .0153 35.4 35.7 35.1 Typical Compute r Room Forbo Linoleum, No VOC X 18 2.99 2.16 5.15 .0287 64.6 64.3 64.9 Wood, Hand Scrape Pecan X Product Data Not Currently Available In BEES Typical Restaurant (see also carpet category above) Wood, Bamboo X Product Data Not Currently Available In BEES Stone: Granite X X 50+ Product Data Not Currently Available In BEES Typical Lobby stair treads & Lobby floor accents Stone: Marble X X 50+ Product Data Not Currently Available In BEES Ceramic Tile X 50 Product Data Not Currently Available In BEES Typical Guest Bath Rooms & Health Club/Pool Entry Ceramic Tile w/recycled glass X 50 8.48 0.00 8.48 .0044 N/A N/A N/A

PAGE 96

96 CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSIONS, LIMITATIONS & FUTURE RESEARCH Conclusions The tourism sector of the worl d’s economy is growing. Intern ational arrivals are expected to grow 4.1 percent per year for the first two decades of the millennium. Environmental design of hotels can reduce many of the environmen tal impacts of rapid tourism development (Retrieved January 2007 from http://ecological.y ourhomeplanet.com). Interior designers can help to impact this sustainable movement thr ough the appropriate selectio n of interior finish materials, which both meet the needs of our clie nts and support this sustainable commitment of change. Knowledge is the key to this process. Soft ware evaluative systems like BEES can be an effective tool for designers, bringing the informati on needed to make the best choices for client’s specific needs and goals. This is an area where designers can impact the hospitality industry by sharing their knowledge of sustai nable products and the positive a ffects that using those products may have not only on the environment but also on their economic well-being. “Interior designers who focus on environmen tally responsible design plan, specify, and execute solutions for interior environments that reflect concern for both the world’s ecology and the inhabitant’s quality of life” (Guerin, 2003). This study aimed to provide a framework for us ing the BEES evaluation tool and evaluate practical application of its use. This information will better enable interior designers to facilitate the hotel industry’s progress toward joining the su stainable arena. Using research-based design strategies will assist interior designers to further solidify thei r professional role in the design community by utilizing their knowledge of sustainable products to the benefit of their clients.

PAGE 97

97 Though this BEES software tool has room fo r improvement, such as expanding its product database, adding a more personalized maintena nce input system, and fully addressing a few difficult to quantify assessment areas, it remains one of the strongest eval uation tools for use by designers today. As design professionals we must educate ourselves to the limitations within the BEES software system. It is important to reme mber that the BEES answers are not absolutes but that they can help to identify the complex issues needed to evaluate more fully the materials we intend to specify in our design applications. Limitations The fact that only one hotel was studied for this research is consistent with an exploratory study. Based on case study analysis, the amount of assumptions one can make with regards to other hotels both inside and out side the Hilton Hotel family is limited. In addition, the BEES software tool was the only instrument used to evaluate the flooring materials in this study. Not all flooring product categorie s are currently represented in the BEES portfolio of choices. Items such as wood flooring and stone products are not represented in any way. Furthermore, many of the products listed are generic categories, such as nylon carpet and linoleum. This may give the false impression that all products in the generic category are created equal. Some manufacturers may be reluctant to regi ster for inclusion in the BEES program because, in order to do so, they must be willing to divulge propr ietary information about their products. In addition, the cost to be represented is significant. For this reason, the specific products represented seem to be more environmen tally friendly than the average products on the market. This limits the comparisons of products across the broad range of choices. While the developers of the BEES software program have made a commitment to update their system every 18-24 months, they seem to be having trouble staying on task. The current

PAGE 98

98 version of the software, BEES 3.0, is dated 2002. At the time of this writing, March 2007, they appear to be quite behind. First cost data used in BEES are coll ected from the R.S. Means Publication, 2000 Building Construction Cost Data . Future cost data are based on data published by Whitestone Research in the Whitestone Building Maintenance and Repair Cost Reference 19 99, supplemented by industry interviews. The information from th ese publications is seven and eight years old respectively, which limits the ability for the user to rely on current data in the equations used. Maintenance is an area that can have a significant impact on the environmental performance of a product. Currently the B EES program uses data published by Whitestone Research in the Whitestone Building Maintenance and Repair Cost Reference 19 99 to factor maintenance costs into the formulas used to compute economic performance. The creators of BEES have acknowledged the disadv antages in using generic data to predict maintenance costs. Future versions of the software promise to corr ect this flaw by allowing individuals to specify maintenance tailored to meet their own projects needs and goals. This improvement will give a more accurate picture of the maintenance costs that the end user can expect to incur. Other limitations recognized by the software writers, as found in BEES (2002) manual, are: Properly interpreting the BEES scores require s placing them in perspective. There are inherent limits to applying U.S. average LC A and LCC results and in comparing building products outside the design context. The BEES LCA and LCC approaches produce U.S. average performance results for generic and manufacturer-speci fic product alternatives. The B EES results do not apply to products sold in other countries where manu facturing and agricultu ral practices, fuel mixes, environmental regulations, transportatio n distances, and labor and material markets may differ. Furthermore, all products in a generic product group, such as vinyl composition tile floor covering, are not crea ted equal. Product composition, manufacturing methods, fuel mixes, transportation practices , useful lives, and co st can all vary for

PAGE 99

99 individual products in a gene ric product group. The BEES re sults for the generic product group do not necessarily repr esent the performance of an individual product. The BEES LCAs use selected inventory flows converted to selected local, regional, and global environmental impacts to assess envir onmental performance. Those inventory flows which currently do not have scientifica lly proven or quantifiable impacts on the environment are excluded, such as mineral extraction and wood harvesting which are qualitatively thought to lead to loss of hab itat and an accompanying loss of biodiversity. If the BEES user has important knowledge about these issues, it should be brought into the interpretation of the BEES results. Life cycle impact assessment is a rapidly evolving science. Assessment methods unheard of several years ago have since been develope d and are now being used routinely in LCAs. While BEES 3.0 incorporates state-of-the-art impact assessment methods, the science will continue to evolve and methods in use today—particularly t hose for fossil fuel depletion, habitat alteration, and indoor air quality—are likely to change and improve over time. Future versions of BEES will incorporat e these improved methods as they become available. During the interpretation step of the BEES LCAs, environmental impacts are optionally combined into a single environmental pe rformance score usi ng relative importance weights. These weights necessarily incorporat e values and subjectivity. BEES users should routinely test the effects on the environmental performance scores of changes in the set of importance weights. The BEES LCAs do not incorporate uncer tainty analysis as required by ISO 14043. At present, incorporating uncertain ty analysis is problematic due to a lack of underlying uncertainty data. The BEES 2.0 Peer Review Te am discussed this issue and advised NIST not to incorporate uncertainty analysis into BEES in th e short run. In the long run, however, one aspect of uncertainty may be a ddressed: the represen tativeness of generic products. That is, once BEES is extensively populated with manufacturer-specific data, the variation in manufacturer-s pecific products around their generic representations will become available. The BEES overall performance scores do not represent absolute performance. Rather, they represent proportional differences in performance, or relative performance, among competing alternatives. Consequently, the ove rall performance score for a given product alternative can change if one or more competi ng alternatives are adde d to or removed from the set of alternatives under consideration. In rare instances , rank reversal, or a reordering of scores, is possible. Finally, since they ar e relative performance scores, no conclusions may be drawn by comparing overall scores across building elements. For example, if exterior wall finish Product A has an overall performance score of 30, and roof covering Product D has an overall performance score of 20, Product D does not necessarily perform better than Product A (keeping in mind that lo wer performance scores are better). This limitation does not apply to comparing environmental performance scores across building elements, as discu ssed in section 2.1.3.2. There are inherent limits to comparing product alternatives without reference to the whole building design co ntext. Such comparisons may

PAGE 100

100 overlook important environmental and cost in teractions among building elements. For example, the useful life of one building elem ent (e.g., floor coverings), which influences both its environmental and economic performan ce scores, may depend on the selection of related building elements (e .g., subflooring). There is no substitute for good building design. Environmental and economic performances ar e but two attributes of building product performance. The BEES model assumes that competing product alternatives all meet minimum technical performance requirements. However, there may be significant differences in technical performance, such as acoustic or fire performance, which may outweigh environmental and economic considerations (Lippiatt, 2002). Suggestions for Future Research The objective of this research was to provide interior designers with a framework for the evaluation of materials for sustainability and co st efficiency. More credible third party information about the evaluation of such materials is needed, especially in the hotel division of the hospitality industry, where there is limited re search in the area of flooring materials. The scope of this research is a small piece of a larger puzzle. The hotel industry is in need of more research on sustainable pr actice of interior design. Additiona l research in this area will provide interior designers with more knowledge and awareness th at will assist them as they address sustainable design issues speci fic to the hospitality industry. Successful green focused hospitality devel opments are beginning to demonstrate how green building principles can produce solid benef its, both from an economic and guest relations standpoint (Sheehan, 2005). Additional research, fo cusing on the materials used in the design of the buildings interior that highl ight their economic and environmen tal advantages will illustrate the impact that better sustainable design choices can have on the hotels environment and bottom line. Results from this study may provide useful insight and a basis for a larger, more comprehensive study including other types of typi cal materials specified in hotel design.

PAGE 101

101 Further research emphasizing the advantages of evaluating and using sustainable interior material choices will further influence Hilton In ternational and other ho tel industry leaders to take proactive and progressive steps towards sustainable building design.

PAGE 102

102 APPENDIX A HILTON HOTEL ENVIRONMEN TAL MISSION STATEMENT

PAGE 103

103 Figure A-1. Hilton Hotel Envi ronmental Mission Statement

PAGE 104

104 APPENDIX B BEES NORMALIZATION VALUES Figure B-1. BEES Normalization Values

PAGE 105

105 APPENDIX C EPA IMPACT CATEGORY RELATI VE IMPORTANCE WEIGHTS Figure C-1. EPA Science Advisory Board relative importance weights

PAGE 106

106 APPENDIX D BEES FLOOR COVERINGS Figure D-1. BEES Floor coverings product list

PAGE 107

107 APPENDIX E BEES COPYRIGHT INFORMATION Figure E-1. BEES copyright information

PAGE 108

108 APPENDIX F BEES GRAPHS Figure F-1. Economic performance gra ph Interface carpet vs. nylon broadloom

PAGE 109

109 Figure F-2. Environmental performance gr aph Interface carpet vs. nylon broadloom

PAGE 110

110 Figure F-3. Overall performance graph Interface carpet vs. nylon broadloom

PAGE 111

111 Figure F-4. Overall performance graph Interface carpet vs . nylon broadloom Figure F-5. Overall performance graph Interface carpet vs . nylon broadloom

PAGE 112

112 Figure F-6. Economic performan ce graph VCT vs. Forbo linoleum

PAGE 113

113 Figure F-7. Environmental performa nce graph VCT vs. Forbo Linoleum

PAGE 114

114 ri Figure F-8. Overall performance (5050) graph VCT vs. Forbo Linoleum u Figure F-9. Overall performance (2080) graph VCT vs. Forbo Linoleum

PAGE 115

115 s Figure F-10. Overall performance (8020) graph VCT vs. Forbo Linoleum Figure F-11. Economic performance gra ph ceramic tile with recycled glass

PAGE 116

116 Figure F-12. Environmental performance gr aph ceramic tile with recycled glass

PAGE 117

117 LIST OF REFERENCES Bierman-Lytle, P. (1995). Creating a healthy ho me: environmental building materials—what are they? Where are they? Environm ental Health Perspectives, 103(6). Boehland, J. (2003). Floor coverings: In cluding maintenance in the equation. Environmental Building News , 12(5), 1, 10-14. Bohdanowicz, M. (2005). Sustainable Hotels -Environmental Reporting according to Green Globe 21, Green Globes Canada / GEM UK, IHEI Benchmarkhotel and Hilton Environmental Reporting. The World Sustai nable Building Conference, Tokyo, Japan. September 2005. (SB05 Tokyo). Retrieved June 2006 http://www.energy.kth.se:80/user/paulinka /www/BohdanowiczSimanicMartinacEnvironm entalReportingSB05.pdf Enz, C.A., & Siguaw, J.A. (2003). Innovati on in hotel practice. [Best Practices]. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Association Quarterly, October-December (October-December), 115-116123. Retrieved 9.14.05, from the Cornell University database. Frank, D. (2002). From the ground up: floor coveri ng recommendations from an iaq consortium. A Council of Educational Facility Planners In ternational Brief on Educational Facility Issues. Scottsdale, Arizona, 1-4. Fisk, W. & Rosenfeld, A. (1997). Estimates of Improved Productivity and Health from Better Indoor Environments. Indoor Air , 7 (3), 158-172. Groat, L. & Wang, D. (2002). Case Studies and Combined Strategies. Architectural Research Methods (p. 341). New York: Wiley. Guerin, D. (2003). Environmentally respons ible interior design: a case study. Journal of Interior Design . Retrieved September 2005 from http://www.ejid.org/jid_issue.cfm?ID=993. Harris, D. (2000). Environmental quality and heali ng environments: a study of flooring materials in a healthcare telemetry unit. Dissertation Abstra cts International, 4202 (00), DAIA61/11. (University Digital no. AAT 9994253) Hittinger, Joseph. (2001). “Keeping Score. Life Cycle Assessment is a Critical Tool that Examines All Aspects of a Products Life From Cradle to Grave.” Environmental Design Journal, 50-51. Joseph, A. (2003). EcoLodgical: Removing barriers to environmental building design in the hospitality industry. University of Calgary , Alberta, Canada. Master’s Thesis. Kibert, C. (Eds.). (1999). Reshaping the Building Environment . Washington, DC: Island Press. Lent, T. (2003). Toxic Data Bias and the Ch allenges of Using LCA in the Design Community. Presented at GreenBuild 2003-Pittsbur gh PA. Retreived March 2007 from https://www.usgbc.org/Docs/LEED_tsac/ Toxic_Data_Bias_LCA_paper-Lent.pdf .

PAGE 118

118 Libby, B. (2005). Hilton Aims to be the First LEED-Rated Hilton. Metropolismag.com Retrieved November 2005 from e.g., http://www.usgbc.org Lippiatt, B. (2002). BEES 3.0 Building for Environmental and Economic Sustainability Technical Manual and User Guide. NISTIR 6916. National Institute of Standards and Technology. Gaithersburg, MD. Retrieved September 2005 from http://www.bfrl.nist.gov/o ae/software/bees.html Lippiatt, B. & Boyles, A. (2001) Using BEES to Select Cost Effective Green Products. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 6 (2) 76-80. Lozada-Figueroa, C. M. (2004). Flooring Materials-Life Cycle Costing for M.E. Rinker, Sr. School of Building Construction at the University of Florida . Gainesville, Fla.: University of Florida. from http://purl.fcla.edu.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/fcla/etd/UFE0009020 Malin, N. & Wilson, A. (1997). Material sel ection: Tools, resour ces, and techniques for choosing green. Environmental Building News , 6(1), 1, 10-14. McDonough, W. (2001). Then Next Industrial Revolution . New York: North Point Press. McDonough, W. & Braungart, M. (2002). Cradle to cradle. New York: North Point Press. Montgomery, M. (2003). Life cycle assessmen t tools. Retrieved September 2005 from http://www.architectureweek.c om/2003/0716/environment_1-1.html Moussatche, H., & Languel, J. (2002). Life cy cle costing of interior materials for Florida schools. Journal of Interior Design, 28(2), 37-49. Norris, G. (2003). Indoor Exposure in Life Cycle Assessment: A Flooring Case Study. Life cycle assessment. Harvard School of Pub lic Health unpublished paper. quoted in Floorcoverings: Including Maintenance in the Equation. Environmental Building News, 12 (5), 11-12. Oakley, C. (2005). Interface brings modular value, innovative design to hotel floors. Hotel & Motel Management . Retrieved February 2006 from www.hotelmotel.com/hotelmotel/content/printContentPopup?id=179595 . Riggs, J. (2003). Material Components of Interior Architecture, Sixth Edition. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Roodman, D. & Lenssen, N. (1995). Worldw atch Paper #124: A Building Revolution: How Ecology and Health Concerns are Transformi ng Construction. Retrieved July 2006 from http://www.worldwatch.org/node/866 . Scheuer, C. & Keoleian, G. (2002). Evaluati on of LEED Using Life Cycle Assessment Methods. Report for National Institute of Stan dards and Technology, GCR 02-836 (Technology Administration). Ann Arbor, MI. Retreived January 2006 from www.bfrl.nist.gov/oae/public ations/gcrs/02836.pdf.

PAGE 119

119 Sheehan, P. (2005). Going for the GreenHilton Vancouver advances eco-friendly design. Lodging Hospitality , August, 2005. Retrieved October 2005 from http://www.lhonline.com/article/9316/ . Thareja, A. Vyas, A., & Banerjee, P.(2003). Environmental Friendly Building Materials, A Literature Survey. Integrated Building De sign Project. International Institute of Information Technology. Hyderabad, India USGBC. (2004). LEED-CI (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) green building rating system for new construction. Version 2.1. Vetter, A., Weston, R., & Martin, S. (n.d.) On Being a Good Neighbor: Moving Towards Sustainable Construction . Carillion. Retrieved July 2006 from www.naturalstep.org.uk/hires.pdf World Tourism Organization (2004 ). Tourism Market Trends-2003 edition, World overview and Tourism Topics. WTO, Madrid, Spain. Worldwatch Institute (1999). State of th e World 1999: A Worldwatch Institute Report on Progress Toward a Sustainable Society. Washington, DC. Retrieved July 2006 from http://www.worldwatch.org

PAGE 120

120 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Sarah C. Cain was born Sarah Jeanne Cro ss, on October 6, 1964, in Columbus, Ohio. Her childhood was spent primarily in North Caro lina. Since her youth, she displayed a keen interest in the area of ar t and design. For many years, this inte rest would be enjoyed as a sideline to the other focuses in her life. In May of 1986, Sarah graduated with a bachelor ’s degree from Wake Forest University. After several years of developi ng her skills in the field of sa les, she pursued her dream of opening her own business. By 1995, Sarah opene d her first Fat Tuesday franchise unit in Gainesville, Florida. Several other bar and restaurant concepts followed with locations throughout North Central Florida. After the birth of her children, Sarah decided to pursue her true passion, art & design. In the Fall of 2003, Sarah joined the Master of Interior Design program at the University of Florida. It was through her study at the affiliated Vicen za Interior Design Institute in Vicenza, Italy, during the summer of 2004 that Sarah felt truly connected with the built environment. Through the study of the architecture of Pa lladio and Scarpa she developed a love of the art of learning a craft. In addition to this, she discovered a passion for intern ational travel and the joy of discovering the distinct archit ecture that defines the various communities around the globe. It is through the pursuit of these newfound pa ssions that Sarah will continue to thrive.