Hlad K

SUSTAINABILE PRACTICES IN RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS
By
KRISTEN HLAD
A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL

OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF SCIENCE IN BUILDING CONSTRUCTION
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
2009
2009 Kristen Hlad
To my husband and my parents
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to thank my husband and parents for supporting me throughout my academic
career, and, amazingly, still acting interested when I start telling them about architecture and
construction. I owe much of the development of this thesis to my chair, Dr. Svetlana Olbina,
who was always there to answer questions, meet, and help guide me. I would also like to thank
my co-chair, Dr. Raymond Issa, and my committee member, Dr. Robert Stroh, who both were
always there to help me whenever I had any questions. I truly appreciate all your dedication to
your students. I would also like to thank Gina Hill, the executive vice-president of BANCF, and
all those who took the time to participate in the study because, without your contribution, the
thesis would not have been possible.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
page
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...............................................................................................................4
LIST OF TABLES...........................................................................................................................8
LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................................10
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS........................................................................................................11
ABSTRACT...................................................................................................................................12
CHAPTER
1
INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................14
Introduction.............................................................................................................................14
Problem Statement..................................................................................................................14
Purpose of Study.....................................................................................................................15
LITERATURE REVIEW .......................................................................................................16

Defining and Designing Sustainability...................................................................................16
Active Systems for Sustainable Residential Design and Construction ...........................17
Passive Design for Sustainable Residential Design and Construction............................19
Rating Systems for Sustainable Residential Design and Construction ...........................20
Refining Sustainability ...........................................................................................................24
Pricing Sustainability..............................................................................................................25
Owning and Branding Sustainability......................................................................................27
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ...........................................................................................30

Survey Objective ....................................................................................................................30
Development...........................................................................................................................30
Explanation of Survey ............................................................................................................31
Demographics..................................................................................................................31
Likert Scale Questions for Experience, Importance, Opinion, Familiarity, and
Frequency Responses toward Sustainable Design.......................................................31
Close-ended Questions for Familiarity Responses toward Sustainable Design ..............32
Ordinal Questions for Importance Responses toward Sustainable Design .....................32
Open-ended Questions for Free Responses toward Sustainable Design .........................32
Summary..........................................................................................................................33
Selection of Participants .........................................................................................................33
RESULTS ...............................................................................................................................34
Survey Response.....................................................................................................................34
Demographic Profile of Respondents.....................................................................................34
Survey Results ........................................................................................................................35
Experience with Sustainable Practices ............................................................................36
Typical respondent ...................................................................................................36
Developer and builder ..............................................................................................36
Importance of Sustainable Practices................................................................................37
Opinion about Sustainable Practices ...............................................................................42
Familiarity with Sustainable Practices ............................................................................46
Frequency of Use of Sustainable Practices .....................................................................48
Analysis of Results .................................................................................................................50
Experience with Sustainable Practices ............................................................................50
Importance of Sustainable Practices................................................................................50
Opinion on Sustainable Practices ....................................................................................51
Familiarity with Sustainable Practices ............................................................................51
Frequency Use of Sustainable Practices..........................................................................52
Summary.................................................................................................................................52
5
CONCLUSION.......................................................................................................................72
RECOMMENDATIONS........................................................................................................74
Recommendations...................................................................................................................74
Limitations and Further Research...........................................................................................74
APPENDIX
A
SUSTAINABLE AND RESIDENTIAL PRACTICES SURVEY.........................................75

Informed Consent Disclosure Agreement for Participants.....................................................75
Demographic Information ......................................................................................................76
Perception of the Respondents................................................................................................77
Familiarity of Respondents.....................................................................................................81
Ordinal Questions ...................................................................................................................82
OVERVIEW OF LEED-H .....................................................................................................84

LEED for Homes Version 2008 .............................................................................................84
OVERVIEW OF NAHB MODEL GREEN HOME BUILDING STANDARD ...................88

6
NAHB Model Green Home Building Guidelines Version 2006 ............................................88

D
FLORIDA GREEN HOME BUILDING CERTIFICATION STANDARD..........................89

Florida Green Home Designation Standard of the FGBC, Version 6.0 .................................89
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS ..................................................................................................91

Analyzed Data ........................................................................................................................91
Experience .......................................................................................................................91
Importance.......................................................................................................................91
Opinion ............................................................................................................................95
Familiarity .......................................................................................................................96
Frequency ........................................................................................................................99
LIST OF REFERENCES.............................................................................................................100
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .......................................................................................................103
LIST OF TABLES
Table
page
4-1
Responses to Likert scale questions related to experience in sustainable practices for

typical respondents.............................................................................................................53
4-2
Responses to Likert scale questions related to experience in sustainable practices for

developers and builders......................................................................................................54
4-3
Responses to Likert scale questions related to importance of sustainable practices for

4-4
Responses for Likert scale questions related on importance in sustainable practices

for developers and builders................................................................................................55
4-5
Rating of importance of sustainable practices against other factors during the design
phase for typical respondents.............................................................................................56
4-6
Responses related to ranking of importance of sustainable practices during design

phase between developers and builders .............................................................................57
4-7
Rating of importance of sustainable practices against other factors during the

construction phase for typical respondents ........................................................................58
4-8
Responses related to ranking of importance of sustainable practices during

construction phase between developers and builders ........................................................59
4-9
Rating of importance sustainable practices against other factors during the marketing
4-10
Responses related to ranking of importance of sustainable practices during the

marketing phase between developers and builders............................................................61
4-11
Responses to Likert scale questions related to opinion of sustainable practices for

4-12
Responses to Likert scale questions related to opinion about sustainable practices for
4-13
Responses to Likert scale questions related to familiarity with sustainable practices

for typical respondents.......................................................................................................67
4-14
Responses to Likert scale questions related to familiarity with sustainable practices

for developers and builders................................................................................................68
4-15
Familiarity with green building concepts and practices for typical respondents...............69
4-16
Familiarity with green building concepts and practices for developers and builders........70
8
4-17
Responses to Likert scale questions related to frequency of use of sustainable

practices for typical respondents........................................................................................71
4-18
Responses to Likert scale questions related to frequency of use of sustainable

practices for developers and builders.................................................................................71
E-1
Data based on experience with sustainable practices using a chi-squared test between
E-2
Data based on importance of sustainable concepts and techniques with chi-squared

test between builders and developers.................................................................................91
E-3
Data based on ranking of importance on sustainable concepts and techniques during

the design phase with chi-squared test between builders and developers .........................92
E-4

the construction phase with chi-squared test between builders and developers ................93
E-5

the marketing phase with chi-squared test between builders and developers....................94
E-6
Raw data based on opinion of sustainable concepts and techniques with chi-squared
E-7
Data based on familiarity with sustainable practices with chi-squared test between
E-8
Data based on familiarity with sustainable concepts and techniques with chi-squared
E-9
Raw data based on frequency of sustainable concepts and techniques with chisquared test between builders and developers ...................................................................99
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
page
2-1
Three spheres of sustainability...........................................................................................17
4-1
Respondents position within their company, as a percentage of total typical

respondents ........................................................................................................................35
4-2
Ranking of importance of sustainable practices and concepts during design phase for
4-3
Ranking of importance of sustainable practices and concepts during the construction

4-4
Ranking of importance of sustainable practices and concepts during the marketing

4-5
Percentage of green building concepts and practices familiar to typical respondents.......49
10
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
ANSI
American National Standards Institute
BANCF
Builders Association of North Central Florida
BEES
Building for Environmental and Economic Sustainability
BMS
Building Management Systems
D.f.
Degrees of Freedom
FGBC
Florida Green Building Coalitions Green Home Designation Standard
HVAC
Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning Systems
IECC
International Energy Conservation Code
IRC
International Residential Code
LCA
Life-cycle Assessment
LEED
Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design Green Building Rating

System, developed by the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC),
provides standards for environmentally sustainable construction.
LEED-AP
LEED Professional Accreditation distinguishes building professionals

with the knowledge and skills to successfully steward the LEED
certification process.
LEED-H
Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design Green Building Rating

system that promotes the design and construction of high-performance
homes
NZEH
Net-Zero Energy Home
NAHB
National Association of Home Builders
PV
Photovoltaic
Rating Avg.
Rating Average is a weighted average per column and row based on rated
scale
SIPs
Structurally Insulated Panels
VOCs
Volatile Organic Compounds
USGBC
United States Green Building Council
11
Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School

of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Building Construction
SUSTAINABLE PRACTICES IN RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS
By
Kristen Hlad
December 2009
Chair: Svetlana Olbina
Cochair: Raymond Issa
Major: Building Construction
Although there is a trend to build green, most architects, builders, and owners see the
initial costs as being high to implement sustainability in smaller scopes of work. Sometimes,
when the budgets bottom line is not matching, the extra expenses toward making a building
more energy efficient are the first to be cut. The study was conducted to understand the decision
making process, from a builders point of view, on residential sustainability. The procedure
started by asking residential builders of North Central Florida belonging to the Builders
Association of North-Central Florida (BANCF) to assess various topics and concepts on
sustainability. Residential sustainability survey was categorized into different levels related to
experience with sustainability, familiarity with sustainable practices and concepts, frequency of
use of sustainable practices and concepts, opinion on sustainability, and importance of
sustainability within the company. The study was conducted to identify the apprehensions, cost
conflicts, levels of integrations, and confusion associated with residential sustainability in the
current housing market. The purpose was to compare developers and builders within the
residential sector in the area of sustainability and green building. This study built upon existing
research on the applicability of rating systems and other sustainable practices withstanding in the
residential sector. The results of the study proved there are no significant differences between
12
builders and developers on the trends of sustainability, except that developers are more familiar
with sustainable concepts and techniques. The typical respondent agreed that cost was most
important, but also agreed that sustainable design was important for the environment. The five
parameters of the study, based on the literature review, indicated that the developers and the
builders surveyed had sustainability experience, were familiar with sustainability, and actively
trained employees in sustainability. They also believed that green homes are more complicated
to build, cost more, and do not help their homes sell faster to consumers.
13
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Introduction
The worlds of construction and design are changing rapidly as the global demand for
sustainable structures increases. Society is wavering on the edge of change after seeing the
devastating effects of climate change and depletion of natural resources. After all, sustainability
not only adheres to the construction industry, but also to all societal infrastructures around the
world. Changes in the construction industry practices are one way for sustainability in an
unstable world, and contractors and owners are not clamoring quickly to meet the need for
changes in the construction industry. A single American home produces approximately 26,000
pounds of greenhouse gases each year, and every year more and more homes are being
constructed (Schendler and Udall, 2005). Latest applications of sustainable design are cutting
edge, most efficient, and, sometimes, most costly to the overall project. However, keeping up
the latest, up-to-date green techniques and systems does come at a price to not only the builder
and consumer, but also to the environment.
Problem Statement
Presently there is a debate over sustainability in the design and construction of residential
structures. Residential structures are smaller scale and vary from site to site and project to
project making it difficult to make cost estimates. Sustainable rating systems exist, but there still
is a desultory commitment to sustainability. Such rating systems, like the United States Green
Building Councils (USGBC) Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design for homes
(LEED-H), offer certification levels for residential structures, but builders and developers do not
utilize them. The movement of building green could be attributed to a trend in building;
however, this could also be the way of thinking is the future of building. But, why are builders
14
and other larger scale residential projects not dedicating 100 % of their efforts toward green
building? Builders, designers, and developers look at budget, time, and costs, and sustainability
is often the easiest to cut. The overlapping and complexity of the rating systems dilutes the
meaning behind the programs to help the environment. However, there is a responsibility of the
builder to bring change to the industry, and start the movement toward green homes.
Purpose of Study
The purpose of this study was to provide an understanding of the decision making process,
from a builders point of view, on residential sustainability. The procedure started by asking
residential builders of North Central Florida belonging to the Builders Association of NorthCentral Florida (BANCF) to assess various topics and concepts on sustainability. Residential
sustainability survey was categorized into different levels based on frequency, opinion,
importance, experience, and familiarity. The aim of the study was to identify the apprehensions,
cost conflicts, levels of integrations, and confusion associated with residential sustainability in
the current housing market. This study built upon existing research on the applicability of rating
systems and other sustainable practices in the residential sector.
15
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
Defining and Designing Sustainability
Sustainability is a term with a many definitions. Brandon (1999) points out there are
existing definitions, but all are open to interpretation on key words or phrases. How can
sustainability prove effective there are different interpretations of what is sustainability? There
is a balance between economic, social, and environmental factors, but the key is finding
equilibrium (Figure 2-1). Due to the nature of the construction industry, green buildings have to
be measured and quantified in order to prove that sustainability has enough foreseeable benefits
for the contractors and/or owners. With more than 40% of the total United States energy
consumption going to buildings, there is a benefit for the environment to build more sustainably,
but what about to the owner or to the contractor (Means, 2002)? There are risks associated with
building green, as with all building projects, but these risks can carry a higher price tag. The
construction industry is being hit by increased material prices. Within four years the costs of
construction products have increased dramatically: asphalt increased 190%; iron and steel
increased 114%; aluminum increased 72%; and concrete 36% (Cassidy, 2008). These risks
occur in the design phase and construction phase of a project.
A study by Kats (2003) confirms that the earlier green design was brought into the design
process, the lower the overall costs of the project. Therefore, when poor green design occurs, the
building may not reach its full potential. More directly, the building may never recoup the
additional costs. To combat poor design, cooperation between architects, contractors,
developers, estimators, owners, and governmental officials needs to be established. In other
words, integrated design needs to occur to successfully develop applicable sustainable systems.
16
Figure 2-1. Three spheres of sustainability (Adapted from 2002 University of Michigan
Sustainability Assessment, Source:
http://www.vanderbilt.edu/sustainvu/images/sustainability_spheres.png)
Helping designers minimize the risk to their investors is the CSIs Green Format. The
green product database organized around sustainable properties. The products in the database
are entered based on the products composition, embodied energy, life-cycle properties, and
operations-related performance. The level of cooperation between manufacturers and designers
will be greatly improved as manufactures put their products in the database (Barista, 2008). The
designers will no longer have to wade through many specification sheets to find the best match
when other projects have already tested and deciphered the products. This leads to the need for
changes on a larger scale in sustainability, and not just for isolated problems, as well as,
integration earlier in the conceptual and design phases (CII, 2006).
Active Systems for Sustainable Residential Design and Construction
Understanding where a home needs to change is one of the first steps toward sustainable
residential design and construction. According to the NAHB Research Center (2008), one of the
17
first ways to save energy is to look at a homes heating and cooling of space and the heating of
water. The next change should be the major appliances, equipment, and lighting in a home to
ensure they are optimum efficiency.
The microclimate of Florida area is mostly subtropical, and requires mechanical heating
and cooling for optimum indoor temperature comfort, however, the heating and cooling of space
requires a large amount of energy (Brown & DeKay, 2001). In order to achieve the goal of a
sustainable residential project, the heating and cooling needs to be based on high-efficiency
equipment as for a specified climate.
One possible source for heating is a Ground Source Heat Pump (GSHP). The GSHP
extracts heat from the ground, and uses it to heat the home, reducing the amount of energy
needed to heat the home. In the summer, the system runs in reverse to provide air conditioning,
depositing heat from the home into the ground. The total control over active systems is
culminated in the Net-Zero Energy House (NZEH). NZEH is a home that is capable of
producing and consuming less energy than is consumed or purchased from energy utilities
(NZEH Coalition, 2009). The United States Department of Energy (NAHB, 2008) defines a
NZEH as a house that is connected to the utility grid, but can be designed and constructed to
produce as much energy as it consumes on an annual basis. Just as the heating and cooling of
space was initially a large burden, the heating of water presents as an initial energy consuming
problem. The National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) Research Center (2008)
suggested that a solar water pre-heat system should be installed to heat residential water. The
subtropical climate permits for large amounts of sunlight in both the winter and the summer,
making this as a viable option to Florida builders. Another option, as mentioned before, is the
GSHP for heating water. However, neither will be efficient if the water consumption is high.
18
Therefore low-flow fixtures should be installed on all faucets, toilets, and showerheads. The
dishwasher and washer should be Energy Star compliant and come with a variety of watersensing that decrease water usage with smaller loads.
Passive Design for Sustainable Residential Design and Construction
Construction of a green home does not require excessive use of new building techniques or
computerized systems to reduce energy, but merely allows for an investigation into every
opportunity to reduce energy needs. As mentioned before, a NZEH (Net-zero energy home)
coalition denoted that certain changes in specific areas of a home yield the greatest return on
energy savings. Even though every home is different from site location and climate factors,
every home has an opportunity to save energy and produce renewable energy.
Exterior walls are one of the largest components of a home exposed to the outdoor
elements. The walls are penetrated by all the piping, wiring, insulation, and windows but still
should maintain a good amount of insulation. High energy efficient building envelop will permit
for lower variations in temperature conditions in the interior spaces and reducing solar gain
(Brown & DeKay, 2001). For optimal performance, a structures floorplan should be slightly
longer than it is wide. This allows for maximum solar gain in each room (Chiras, 2003). Site
specific window placement help alter the negative and positive pressure zones created around the
building, and will induce wind flow through the windows (Brown & DeKay, 2001). In short, the
effect is a comfortable environment with low energy costs, and, the owners claim, higher
productivity.
Progress Energy (2008) suggests that the range of R-values for ceiling insulation be
between R-19 R-30 for homes in Florida. R-value is a measurement for insulation based on the
resistance of heat flow, and is based on the insulations material, thickness, and density. The
higher the insulations R-value, the better the insulation is at regulating the mitigation of heat
19
with the outdoors (U.S. Department of Energy, 2009). One example of a new insulation tactic is
Structural Insulated Panels (SIPs). SIPs consist of two outer skins and an insulated core that
form a monolithic, nonstructural wall (Morley, 2000). SIPs of six inches thick will save up to
25% of the walls energy losses. The panels achieve this goal in two ways: 1) reducing heat loss,
and 2) reducing air leaks (Oak Ridge, 2008; Morley, 2000).
Another passive system option is green, or living, roofs. A green roof helps to mitigate the
urban heat island effect and reduces the added energy demands to keep buildings cool and offers
water management. A green roof can reduce water runoff and sewer overflows (USGBC, 2008).
The vegetation and soil act as a sponge, absorbing and filtering water that would normally run
down gutters, wash through polluted streets and overload the sewer systems. A properly
maintained roof garden can reduce energy costs by 10%, and reduce storm water runoff by 90%
(Kibert, 2008). Retained water is then available for use by the vegetation instead of being added
to the storm system. The water is slowed down since it must percolate through the green roof
system. An appropriate green design greatly influences how much energy buildings use and
when they use it (American Hydrotech, Inc., 2008). The design must incorporate a myriad of
environmental, lifestyle, and climatic contexts, which will dictate openings and wall placements.
In other words, the design becomes a passive mechanism to heat and cool the building all year
long.
Rating Systems for Sustainable Residential Design and Construction
Several options exist for developers and builders to regulate sustainable design and
construction. Many cover similar topics, issues, and assessments scales (Table 2-1). One
example is the United States Green Building Councils (USGBC) Leadership in Energy and
Environmental Design for Homes (LEED-H) rating system. Like the other LEED rating
systems, the buildings are rated on a whole-building point system that covers performance in five
20
areas of human and environmental health: sustainable site development, water savings, energy
efficiency, materials selection and indoor environmental quality. LEED-H categories include:
Innovation and Design Process, Location and Linkages, Sustainable Sites, Water Efficiency,
Energy and Atmosphere, Materials and Resources, Indoor Environmental Quality and Awareness
and Education. An overview of LEED-H can be found in Appendix B. The LEED levels of
performance range from Certified, Gold, Silver, and Platinum, based on points earned, Platinum
being highest (USGBC, 2008).
Another option is NAHBs Model Green Building Standard. Comparable to LEED-H, the
Green Building Standard focuses on the whole-building view of sustainability from conception
to operation. The parameters for the program criteria are energy and water efficiency, resource
efficient building design and materials, indoor environmental quality, and environmental impact
(NAHB, 2008). Points are given for Lot Design, Preparation, and Development, Resource,
Energy, and Water Efficiency, Indoor Environmental Quality, Operation, Maintenance, and
Homeowner Education, Global Impact, and additional categories for individual projects. This
rating system, from lowest to highest points, is bronze, silver, and gold (NAHB, 2006). In
addition to NAHBs Model Green Building Standard is the American National Standards
Institute (ANSI) approved ICC-700-2008 National Green Building Standard. Closely related to
the Green Model Building Standards, the ANSI Green Building Standard allows for regional
applications. The ANSI system covers energy, water, and resource efficiency, lot and site
development, indoor environmental quality, home owner education, site design and
development, and additional points. The ANSI system is point based, and a building can achieve
bronze, silver, gold, or emerald. The lowest point category must be at least 15% better than the
21
2006 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) (NAHB, 2008). NAHBs Model Green
Building Standard Guidelines can be found in Appendix C.
Similarly, Florida Green Building Coalitions (FGBC) Green Home Standard guides the
processes of selecting green features that are most cost effective and most beneficial to the
environment. FGBCs Green Home Standard is specific to residential structures in Florida, and
adapts sustainability to Floridas ecosystems and climates. The major divisions are Energy,
Water, Lot Choice, Site, Health, Materials, Disaster Mitigation, and General. The Green Home
Standard has also has point divisions ranging from bronze, silver, gold, and platinum (FGBC,
2009).
However, there are some skeptics to the advantages of having a green building. A study of
286 LEED-certified buildings, 1,045 Energy Star buildings, and 29 dual certified buildings found
LEED rating has no effect upon commercial rents, but Energy Star rating is associated with
rents higher by 2.8% (Cassidy, 2008). The sticker price for being green does not always carry a
premium price tag. There are some incentives available from city or other governmental
agencies that can offset the higher prices. Municipalities around the globe are trying to curb the
impact of construction, and those efforts have a major impact on construction activities (Wu et
al., 2003).
Case Study: Leeds City Office Park: The Leeds City Office Park, by Peter Foggo
Associates, is an example of how integrated design and the costs of green building can be offset
by the operational cost savings during the first few years. The program called for rental space,
parking, complied with sustainable principles, and dealt with the existing land contamination and
had architects, engineers, and surveyors that worked together on the project. The engineers
looked at the structural design, and reworked an exposed concrete structure to act as a climate
22
modifier. The building took strides to maximize natural day lighting and natural ventilation by,
for example, the use of atriums, sun shades, and a lighting control system. The result was a
building that has many green features in the building management system that is simple to
operate and understand. Even though the structural, glazed glass cost more than 20% of
conventional cladding, the building boasts a 70% saving in fuel bills compared to a normal fullyair conditioned office building (Edwards, 2003). Over the next few years, the building should
have recouped all of the additional costs for the green systems.
Table 2-1. Similarities and overlaps of categories in residential sustainable rating systems
NAHB Model
ANSI Green
FGBC Green
Category
LEED-H
Green Building
Building
Home Standard
Standard
Standard
SITE
MATERIALS
ENERGY
WATER
INDOOR
ENVIRONMENT
OWNER
EDUCATION
SITE DESIGN
INNOVATION
Sustainable
Sites
Lot Design,
Preparation, and
Development
Materials and
Resources
Energy and
Atmosphere
Water
Efficiency
Indoor
Environmental
Quality
Resource
Efficiency
Energy
Efficiency
Water
Efficiency
Indoor
Environmental
Quality
Awareness and
Education
Operation,
Maintenance
and Homeowner
Education
Location and
Linkages
Innovation and
Design Process
Global Impact
Additional
Points
Lot and Site

Development
Lot Choice
Resource
Efficiency
Materials
Energy
Energy
Water
Water
Indoor
Environmental
Quality
Health
Home Owner
Education
General*
Site Design and

Development
Additional
Points
Site
General*
Disaster
Mitigation
* General encompasses both Owner Education and Innovative design within its credits
MISC.
N/A
N/A
23
N/A
Refining Sustainability
Predicting the impacts of certain design decisions with respect to environmental and
economic is a task that must be tackled early in the design phases. Systems, such as Building for
Environmental and Economic Sustainability (BEES), help apply life-cycle assessment (LCA) to
measure the environmental performance of a building. Also, BEES allows for the choosing of
materials based on cost-effectiveness and environmental impacts, which is important for owners
and/or contractors (Kibert, 2008). The LCA assesses all stages of environmental impact. Means
(2002) highlighted the stages of materials as stated below:
(1) Raw Materials Acquisition
(2) Product Manufacture
(3) Transportation
(4) Installation
(5) Operation and maintenance
(6) Recycling and waste management
Similarly, Wu et al. (2003) summarized the basic environmental impacts to the
competition of land between agriculture and construction, the consumption of both renewable
and non-renewable resources, the volume of waste produced, and the air pollution from
processing and transporting of materials. The factors all point toward looking at construction as
continuous process and all the effects from start to finish.
Movements to reuse and recycle have prompted designers to think about what happens to
the materials at the end of a buildings life cycle. The raw materials are being depleted, and the
landfills keep growing. In fact, over 130 million tons of waste and debris is from construction
jobsites and demolition, accounting for about 25% of all solid waste discarded in the United
States (Lennon, 2005; Tam, 2008). Extending the life of materials can help with emissions and
24
energy required to make new materials. The implementation of recycling construction and
demolition debris (C&D) is a movement in direction of producing a sustainable building during
all phases of construction and demolition (Kibert, 2008). The reuse of materials in construction
is a worldwide industry change that needs to occur.
Case Study: Glencoa Visitors Center: A building that is designed with LCA in mind is
the Glencoe Visitors Center in Scotland. The design of the building was focused primarily on
the potential of recycling of the materials used in the building. The site was demolished and the
materials from the existing site were used in the construction of the building. The building uses
local timber from the surrounding area and this timber were not treated in order to avoid an offgassing. Almost all of the building can be dismantled for recycling later (Sassi, 2006).
Pricing Sustainability
Considering a building from start to finish has a direct effect on pricing and overall cost
analysis of a project. According to the Construction Industry Institute (CII), at the University of
Texas at Austin (2006), 80% of environmental and economic costs are already defined by the
final stage of design. Because green materials are generally not mainstreamed, some materials
lack scale to absorb manufacturing costs, or are special orders that come at an increased price. A
study by the U.S. Department of Energys Building America Residential System (2006)
demonstrated that lead builders could successfully provide 30% energy savings in homes on a
cost-neutral basis.
Yet, some green products are not under the constraints of hazardous or toxic material
compliance because they comply with LCA model. Malin (2000) emphasizes the advantage to
using a more mainstreamed product with a higher initial cost but that has lower life-cycle cost
overtime. This provides a higher cost to the contractor, but lower costs to the owner over time.
25
By using mainstreamed green products, and then selecting higher priced green products to be
used for the greatest environmental impact, costs can be lowered.
Differing sustainable practices can aid in the pricing of buildings. An analysis of green
roofs by Nelms (2008) designated performance measures based on parameters such as design
forces, initial costs, and project resources. The results found that for low-rise buildings
application of a green roof had a five time greater benefit than high-rise buildings. Green roofs,
depending on the structure and soil, can capture between 50% and 90% of typical rain fall on the
roof surface. The rain water can be retained and used in other applications to lessen costs
(American Hydrotech, 2008). Similarly, according to Langdon (Mendler et al., 2006) higher
points were given for integrated design during the LEED evaluation of 60 buildings. The cost of
the integrated design added to the overall budget, but had cost savings because the changes. In
effect, the costs become almost negligible because the savings are recuperated during the life of
the building.
Another technique is the application of high-efficiency appliances. Using Energy Star
and high energy efficient appliances, the structure should have a 30% decrease in energy use on
utility costs (USGBC, 2007). For example, the average residential refrigerator of 17 cubic feet
has an electricity usage of 1,460 kWh per year, whereas the average Energy Star refrigerator of
the same size uses 254 kWh per year (Parker & Dunlop, 1994). The savings for refrigeration to
the home owner are approximately 500% compared to the average home not using an Energy
Star refrigerator. The home is said to be an Energy Star home because all the appliances are
rated through Energy Star to be the most technologically advanced and energy efficiency
appliances. These homes are at least 15% more energy efficient than homes built to the 2004
26
International Residential Code (IRC), and include additional energy-saving features that
typically make them 20 to 30% more efficient than standard homes (Energy Star, 2008).
Society has become more conscious of the consequences of bad design, including: sick
building syndrome and hidden operation costs. Ellis and Partners (as cited by Edwards, 2002)
found the movement to not only be initiated by owners, but by tenants who wanted change in
their office dwellings. Building green forces more thought into the conceptual design, the
selection of materials, and add to the overall cost. As a result, the building becomes more
valuable in the eyes of the owners and the occupants. Green buildings boast reductions in annual
operating costs by a multiple of 10 (capitalization rate) to estimate the increased value of the
building (Mendler et al., 2006). The buildings then gain a market advantage on the other older,
conventional buildings.
Owning and Branding Sustainability
Even though most green buildings recoup the extra price of building green in the first few
years, the average American homeowner is not in a home long enough to see the cost saving
effects (Edwards, 2003). There are many strategies to consider, but daily habits and patterns that
affect energy use in the home as well as proper maintenance of systems, equipment and
appliances will determine the results. Maintenance includes changing Heating, Ventilation, and
Air Conditioning (HVAC) filters, scheduling regular heating and cooling systems cleaning,
including periodically checking the operation of solar systems (NAHB, 2008). Occupant
awareness and education will ensure the performance.
On the other hand, building green also can cause a companys image to the public to
improve. According to Brandon (1999), there needs to be a clear consensus on the definition and
understanding of sustainability, a comprehension of the relationships between sustainability,
client, and construction industry, a measurement of progress, and the proper protocols and a
27
proper management framework to promote sustainability in the public mind. This prompts
companies to remake the way their company operates. For example, Turner Construction
Company became the first construction management firm to measure the companys current
carbon footprint, and finding a way to reduce it. Recycling and training of their workers to be
LEED-AP status is also a way for Turner Construction Company to have a grassroots approach
on being green (Cullen, 2008).
When the choices arise over whether or not to include sustainable materials or products
into a building, the initial costs can be daunting. Most green products have higher initial costs,
but can have overall lower costs overtime. Yet, positive aspects can outweigh the negative
aspects. Edwards (2002) explains that benefits include: reduced investment risk; improved rental
income; increased leasable area; improved building flexibility; lower construction costs;
enhanced company image; and improved marketability through improved working environment.
The earlier the concepts of sustainable design are implemented, the better result and cost
savings. Product selection is important during the design phase because the decisions will
dictate the overall project cost and delineation of the project budget. Appropriately finding
solutions for designing green can be used to help lower the costs of using non-green materials in
a green way (Malin, 2000). An example of rethinking sustainability, a parking lot retrofit project
in Bellingham, Washington used a rain garden versus a conventional vault to collect rain water.
Designers understood the value of using green materials to achieve the same result. Because of
careful designing and planning, the city saved 80% on the rain garden, or a savings of $22,000
(EPA, 2008).
Case Study: Building Research Establishment: The Building Research Establishment
(BRE) design by Feilden Clegg Bradley Architects was designed to be green, while maintaining
28
the demands of the owners and occupants. The program called for an office park that was a Low
Energy Office and that focused on ventilation, daylighting, and energy needs. The ventilation
comprised of Building Management System (BMS) that operated windows and small depth of
the floor plates. But where ventilation could not occur because of site restraints, the designers
created the wave floor. The wave incorporates a sound block from other offices while still
letting ventilation move through the building. Ventilation routes move above and under the
ceiling plane and under the above floor plane. The configuration allows an even distribution and
night time cooling. Owners can look forward to decreased energy costs, operating costs, higher
premiums, improved image, while the tenants can enjoy increased productivity and healthier
environment. And, not to cloud all the economic benefits, building green is also good for the
environment and the sustainability of our future.
29
CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Survey Objective
The objective for this study was to identify impetus for being sustainable as it applies it to
the residential construction industry. How the residential sector is implementing green design in
a profitable and appropriate manner is part of the analysis. With the advancement of technology,
being green is becoming easier; but with a price tag that matches the new technology. The aim
of this study was to investigate how building green is implemented by residential builders,
contractors, developers, and designers based on:
Overall experience with green building techniques, concepts, and practices.
Importance to the company to be green during the design, construction, and market
phases.
Overall opinion of sustainability and sustainable rating systems for residential projects.
Overall familiarity with green building concepts, techniques, or products.
Frequency of application of sustainable building concepts, techniques, or products in the

design, construction, and marketing of their homes.
Therefore, the targeted audiences for the study were developers and builders that dealt with
residential sector that have or have not implemented green design. The study measured a
companys experience, importance, opinion, familiarity, and frequency on sustainability. The
aim of the study was to identify the apprehensions, cost conflicts, levels of integrations, and
confusion associated with residential sustainability in the current housing market.
Development
The survey, found in Appendix A, was based on a series of questions to gauge the
sentiment of green design and the actions taken to implement green design. The questions fall
into categorical themes: familiarity, general opinion, frequency of applications, importance, and
30
experience. Data collected was analyzed that fell into these categories. The methodology
resulted from the grouping of those parameters. The procedures to reach the goals of the study
were carried out through:
A literature review was done to document how sustainability is defined, designed, priced,
implemented, and marketed. The literature also provided a conceptual base for the
survey and criteria for the studys parameters.
Case studies were examined to exemplify the aims of the study and parameters.
Data was collected from web based survey and compared against the aims of the study.
A final result was based from the procedures mentioned.

Explanation of Survey
Demographics
The demographic section had a series of fill- in-the-blank questions that would help
quantify the respondent. The section includes: the name of the company, the type of company,
the typical scope of work, the amount of Work, typical size of residences, typical prices, and
typical delivery method used. The responders name, title, and contact information was also
requested. The purpose of the demographic information was to categorize a companys size and
volume of Work versus the practice green design and construction.
Likert Scale Questions for Experience, Importance, Opinion, Familiarity, and Frequency
Responses toward Sustainable Design
The questions were targeted to have the respondent answer pertaining to their companys
attitudes and actions toward green design in their training and projects. The Likert scale
questions for sustainable practices pertaining to experience were questions 1, 3, and 4. The
Likert scale question pertaining to importance was question 2. The Likert scale questions
pertaining to opinion were 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14, 15, 18, 19, and 20. The Likert scale questions
pertaining to familiarity were questions 11, 12, and 13. The Likert scale questions pertaining to
31
frequency were questions 16 and 17. The questions were to determine if the green techniques,
rating systems, and governmental laws are helping or hindering the dissemination of green
design in the residential construction sector.
Another aspect to the questions were to help determine the importance of green design in
the companys overall mission and the degree which the company implements sustainability.
Allowing opinion in the amount of effort put into green design helped identify why some design
actions, rating systems, or products are not fully executed or used. Understanding if the
proposed clients do not care for green design will help determine if the company deems it
necessary to include in their projects.
Close-ended Questions for Familiarity Responses toward Sustainable Design
Knowledge of the respondents was examined through a checklist of green building
techniques, practices, and concepts. The question for familiarity with sustainable practices was
question 21. The range of possible choices was extracted from LEED-H guidelines, NAHB
Green Home Standards, and the literature review. The respondents were to choose from a
variety of green building terms.
Ordinal Questions for Importance Responses toward Sustainable Design
Respondents were directed to place different items in numerical order of importance during
the design, construction, and sales phases. The ranking scale questions for the importance of
sustainable practices were questions 22, 23, and 24. By asking the respondents to prioritize their
companys main goals, a companys commitment to green building was determined.
Open-ended Questions for Free Responses toward Sustainable Design
The open-ended questions were used to discover relevant issues and views from the
expressed directly opinion of the responder, in the words of the responder. The open-ended
questions were 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, and 31. The questions directly asked about rating systems, the
32
reasons for sustainability, and what issues are coming up within a company pertaining to
sustainability. The rationale for the questions was to permit the respondents to highlight their
specific view of sustainability in the residential construction sector.
Summary
The survey included a distinction of perception of green design, intention of green
design, and the profitability of green design. The value of green design is also quantified in
terms of what the company finds to be most profitable. The different parts of the survey are
grouped by the different types of questions.
Selection of Participants
The survey was distributed electronically through a web-based survey to residential home
builders belonging to the Builders Association of North Central Florida (BANCF). The survey is
directed to a competent, knowledgeable employee who knows the financial and clientele
obligations of their company while maintaining a connection to the sustainable design decisions.
The survey was voluntary with neither financial loss nor gain. There were no associated risks
with participating in the survey. The respondents information was collected anonymously with
no obligation to supply all information and with the right to withdrawal from the study at any
time.
The data obtained from the survey helped identify the need for clarification in green
building and construction in residential projects. The information would be useful to the home
builder industry to understand the best aspects, practices, and confusions in sustainable design.
In addition, the study helped identify the opinion of sustainability, frequency of use of
sustainability, experience with green building, familiarity with green concepts, and the
importance of sustainability within their company.
33
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS
Survey Response
Responses from the survey were returned via the internet from developers and builders in
the North-Central region of the state of Florida. The respondents were members of the Builders
Association of North Central Florida (BANCF). Sixteen responses were received of 150
distributed by email solicitation. Of the 16 responses, seven responses were from developers,
eight responses were received from builders, and one respondent did not specify trade. The
response rate was approximately 11%. The response was lower than expected.
Demographic Profile of Respondents
The typical respondent was a residential builder (50%), developer (43.8%), and one
unspecified trade (6.2%) who worked within North-Central Florida and is a member of BANCF.
In this research, a developer is defined as a company or person that invests in, develops, and
subdivides real estate for the purpose of building and selling homes. In this research, a builder is
defined as a company or person that builds or supervises homes under a contract or for
speculation. The typical projects were single family homes and mixed-use projects. The average
size of residential projects was approximately 1,760 sq ft. The average annual contracted work
of the respondents was $3.84 million. The range of the volume of work was $1.0 million to $8.0
million annually. Fifty percent of respondents provided demographic information. The position
of the respondent was the president (62%), the vice-president (13%), the owner (13%), and the
director (6%) of the company with one respondent (6%) not specifying a position or title (Figure
4-1).
34
6%
6%
President
13%
Vice President
Owner
Director
62%
13%
Unspecified
Figure 4-1. Respondents position within their company, as a percentage of total typical
respondents
Survey Results
The results of the survey were categorized and analyzed based on the following
parameters:
Experience with sustainable practices and concepts;

Importance of sustainability within the company;
Opinion of sustainability in residential design;
Familiarity with sustainable practices and concepts;
Frequency of use of sustainable practices and concepts.
The responses were analyzed for a typical respondent and as a comparison between
developers and builders. A typical respondent response is the average of all the responses from
the survey. Within the familiarity tier, the category was broken further down into the following:
Familiarity with sustainable techniques;

Familiarity with existing rating systems;
Familiarity with sustainable concepts and techniques.
The importance tier covered the importance of sustainability during the design,
construction, and marketing phases. Along with the highest response count in the tables, the
rating average is shown. The rating average is the weighted response count divided by the total
number of responses to highlight the highest, weighted response.
35
Experience with Sustainable Practices

Typical respondent
Table 4-1 contains responses to questions 1, 3, and 4 that related to experience of the
respondents with sustainable practices. The responses to these questions were used to quantify
the amount of practical application of green building done by each respondent. Questions were
posed in a 5-point Likert rating scale format (1=No Experience; 2=Barely Experienced;
3=Somewhat Experienced; 4=Experienced; 5=Very Experienced). Question 1 asked about the
level of experience with sustainable practices within the respondents company. Ninety-four
percent of respondents had experience in sustainability. Of those 94% respondents, 38% were
very experienced. The rating average was 4.0 or somewhat experienced in sustainability.
Questions 3 and 4 about asked the experience of the designers and contractors within the
company, respectively. Forty-seven percent of the respondents stated that their designers were
very experienced (Table 4-1). Ninety-three percent of respondents noted that their designers had
experience, whereas, 96% of respondents indicated that their contractors had experience. The
rating average for designer experience was 4.13 and the rating average for contractor experience
was 4.19. Both rating averages indicated that contractors and designers have some experience
with sustainable practices and design. Less than seven percent of respondents for both groups
felt that their designer and contractor have minimum experience. One respondent answered
N/A for the question about design experience because of their company type.
Developer and builder
When asked about the companys experience with green building, the developer
respondents responded with a rating average of 4.29 (between experienced and very
experienced) and the builder group responded with 3.63 (between somewhat experienced and
experienced) based on the Likert scale rating (1=No Experience; 2= Less Experienced;
36
3=Somewhat Experienced; 4= Experienced; 5=Very Experienced) as in Table 4-2. The

experience of primary designer with sustainability for developers was 4.67 (experienced) and
3.63 (somewhat experienced) for builders. The experience of the contractor with sustainability
for developers had a rating average of 4.29 (experienced) and builders with a rating average of
4.00 (experienced).
Importance of Sustainable Practices
Typical respondent
Table 4-3 contains responses to question 2 that related to the importance of sustainable
practices. The question was posed in a 5-point Likert scale format (1=Not Important; 2=Rarely
Important; 3=Somewhat Important; 4= Important; 5=Most Important). Forty-six percent of
respondents felt sustainable practices were very important to their company. On the other hand,
six percent felt sustainable practices were not important, and 12% felt sustainable practices were
somewhat important. The rating average of the typical respondent was 4.13 (important).
In question 22, respondents were asked to rank answers related to importance of
sustainable practices to their company during the design phase (Figure 4-2). Questions were
posed in a 6-point ranking rating scale format (6=Least Important; 5=Rarely Important; 4=Less
Important; 3=Somewhat Important; 2=Important; 1=Most Important). Fifty-seven percent of
respondents felt a marketable design was the most important aspect in the design phase with a
rating average of 1.64 (Table 4-5). The next important aspect was an aesthetically pleasing
design. Sixty-seven percent of typical respondents ranked it as the second most important, and it
had a rating average of 2.08 (important). The next important practice was low initial costs.
Thirty-one percent of typical respondents agreed that it was third most important and had a rating
average of 3.08 (somewhat important). Energy efficient design was fourth important practice.
Forty-three percent of typical respondents ranked it fourth most important, and it had a rating
37
average of 3.21 (somewhat important). The next aspect was energy rating system approved.
Fifty percent of typical respondents ranked it fifth most important, and it had a rating average of
4.64 (less important). Lastly, 69% of all respondents chose an energy/sustainable certified
designer as the least important aspect with a rating average of 5.54 (least important).
Figure 4-2. Ranking of importance of sustainable practices and concepts during design phase for
typical respondents
In question 23, respondents were asked to rank answers based on importance of sustainable
practices during the construction phase (Figure 4-3). Questions were posed in a 5-point ranking
rating scale format (5=Least Important; 4=Rarely Important; 3=Somewhat Important;
2=Important; 1=Most Important). Table 4-7 shows that cost was the most important factor with
69 % of respondents ranking it first. Cost had a rating average of 1.38 (most important). Next
was constructability of a project with 46 % of typical respondents ranking it second most
important. Constructability had a rating average of 1.92 (important). Forty-seven percent of
38
respondents ranked energy efficiency as third most important aspect. Energy efficiency had a
rating average of 2.6 (somewhat important). Energy rating system approved was next with 40%
of typical respondents ranking it as fourth most important. Energy rating system approved had a
rating average of 4.27 (rarely important). Finally, a green certified contractor was least
important. Twenty-nine of typical respondents selected it as least important with a rating
average of 4.86 (least important).
Figure 4-3. Ranking of importance of sustainable practices and concepts during the construction
phase for typical respondents
In question 24, respondents were asked to rank answers based on importance of sustainable
practices during the marketing phase (Figure 4-4). Questions were posed in a 6-point Likert
rating scale format (6=Least Important; 5=Rarely Important; 4=Less Important; 3=Somewhat
Important; 2=Important; 1=Most Important). As shown in Table 4-9, 73% of typical respondents
selected cost as first most important practice. Cost had a rating average of 1.4 (most important).
Next, 60% of typical respondents chose design of the building as second most important with a
39
rating average of 2.2 (important). Sixty-four percent of respondents chose options and extras as
third most important aspect with a rating average of 3.06 (somewhat important). Next, 46 %
respondents ranked energy efficiency of the entire building as fourth most important aspect with
a rating average of 4.15 (rarely important). Fifty-eight percent of respondents selected energy
efficient appliances as fifth most important aspect with a rating average of 4.58 (less important).
Lastly, 79% of respondents ranked energy rating system approved least important aspect with a
rating average of 5.43 (least important).
Figure 4-4. Ranking of importance of sustainable practices and concepts during the marketing
Table 4-4 contains responses from developers and builders to question 2 that related to the
importance of sustainability to their company. Questions were posed in a 5-point Likert rating
scale format (1=Not Important; 2=Rarely Important; 3=Somewhat Important; 4= Important;
40
5=Most Important). Both developers and builders said that sustainability is important to their
company. Developers agreed slightly stronger, with a rating average of 4.14 (experienced), as
compared to builders rating average of 4.00 (experienced).
Table 4-6 contains responses from developers and builders to question 22 that related to
the most important aspects in the design phase of a building. Questions were posed in a 6-point
ranking scale format (6=Least Important; 5=Rarely Important; 4=Less Important; 3=Somewhat
Important; 2=Important; 1=Most Important). A developers ranking, in ascending rating average
(most important to least important), was as follows: a marketable design (1.14), an aesthetically
pleasing design (2.17), energy efficient design (3.00), low initial costs (3.60), energy rating
system approved (4.67), and energy certified designer (5.57). For builders, the most important
aspects during the design phase, in ascending rating average (most important to least important)
was aesthetically pleasing design (2.00), marketable design (2.14), low initial cost (2.71), energy
efficient design (2.75), energy rating system approved (4.63), and, least important, energy
certified designer (5.50).
Table 4-8 contains responses from developers and builders to question 23, which related to
the most important aspects in the construction phase of a building. Question was posed in a 5point ranking scale format (5=Least Important; 4=Rarely Important; 3=Somewhat Important;
2=Important; 1=Most Important). During the construction phase, both developers and builders
believed cost was the most important with a rating average of 1.33 and 1.43, respectively. In
fact, both agreed that constructability (a rating average of 1.67 and 2.14 respectively), then
energy efficient building (a rating average of 3.00 and 2.50 respectively), then energy rating
system approved (a rating average of 3.86 and 4.57 respectively), and finally, energy certified
41
designer or contractor (a rating average of 4.33 and 5.14 respectively) were the order of
importance from most important to least important.
Question 24 related to the most important aspects during the marketing phase. Question
was posed in a 6-point ranking scale (6=Least Important; 5=Rarely Important; 4=Less Important;
3=Somewhat Important; 2=Important; 1=Most Important). Developers and builders believed
that during the marketing phase, the most important aspects were options and extras (a rating
average of 3.40 and 3.00 respectively), then energy efficiency (a rating average of 4.43 and 4.33
respectively), followed by energy efficient appliances (a rating average of 4.50 and 4.67
respectively), and, lastly, the least important was energy rating system approved (a rating
average of 5.67 and 5.86 respectively). A maximum of 13 respondents answered questions about
the ranking of importance during the marketing phase as shown in the response counts as shown
in Table 4-10.
Opinion about Sustainable Practices
Typical respondent
Table 4-11 contains responses to questions 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14, 15, 18, 19, and 20 that
related to a respondents opinion about sustainable practices. Questions were posed in a 5-point
Likert rating scale format (1=Strongly Disagree; 2=Disagree; 3=Somewhat Disagree; 4=Agree;
5=Strongly Agree). The subcategories within the opinion group of questions were opinions on
overall company view (Q5; Q20), perceived monetary value of sustainable practices (Q6; Q8;
Q15), constructability of sustainable residential projects (Q7; Q14), and marketability of
sustainable residential projects (Q9; Q10; Q18; Q19). Question 5 asked the respondents if they
believed that sustainability was actively practiced. More than half of the respondents (56%)
strongly agreed that their company practiced sustainability. Thirty-eight percent of respondents
agreed their company actively practiced sustainability. The rating average for question 5 was 4.5
42
(agreed). Question 20 asked the respondents if they believed sustainable construction benefited
the environment. Sixty-two percent of respondents strongly agreed that green building benefited
the environment. However, 18% of respondents felt neutral or disagreed that green building
benefits the environment. The rating average for question 20 was 4.31 (agreed).
Question 6 asked if green practices equate to increased costs. Sixty-two percent of
respondents strongly agreed that sustainable homes equated to increased costs. All respondents
agreed or strongly agreed that green building means increased costs. Question 6 had a rating
average of 4.63 (agreed). Question 8 asked if green building should be sold at a premium.
Forty-six percent of typical respondents strongly agreed while 18% of respondents agreed home
should sell at a premium. On the other hand, 30% of typical respondents agreed that homes
should not sell at a premium while 12% of typical respondents strongly disagreed. The rating
average for question 8 was 3.63, that is, on average the respondents somewhat disagreed that
homes should sell at a premium. Question 15 asked respondents how much they agreed that
rating systems were worth the extra costs. Thirty-one percent of typical respondents agreed the
rating systems were worth the increase in fees. Twelve percent of respondents strongly
disagreed that rating systems were worth the increase. Only 6% strongly agreed the rating
systems justified an increase in costs. The rating average for question 15 was 2.94 (disagreed).
Question 7 asked respondents if green design is more complicated to build than traditional
designs. Thirty-eight percent of typical respondents agreed that sustainable design was more
complicated to build. Thirty-eight of typical respondents agreed that sustainable design was
more complicated, however, none of the respondents strongly agreed. On the other hand, 12% of
respondents strongly disagreed, and 31% disagreed with this statement. The rating average was
2.81 (disagreed). Question 14 asked typical respondents about the confusion over which
43
sustainable rating system to use. Sixty-two percent of respondents strongly agreed that there was
confusion over the different rating systems available. However, 6% of all respondents disagreed
that there was confusion. The rating average for question 14 was 4.31 (agreed).
Question 9 asked if respondents agreed that there was a growing demand for green homes.
Thirty-one percent agreed that there is a growing demand for green homes. Twelve percent of
typical respondents strongly agreed that there is a market, and 18% strongly disagreed. The
rating average was 3.00 (somewhat agreed). Question 10 asked if respondents agreed that
consumer demand for green homes is changing their home designs. Twelve percent of
respondents strongly agreed that sustainability demand is changing the design of their homes.
Fifty percent of typical respondents agreed that there is an effect, but 18% disagreed there was
any effect of sustainable consumer demand on the design of their homes. The rating average was
3.38 (somewhat agreed). Question 18 asked respondents if they agreed that there was a
consumer preference for sustainable residences. Thirty-five percent of typical respondents
strongly disagreed that there was a consumer preference. Thirty percent of respondents agreed
that there was a preference. The rating average was 2.69 (disagreed). Respondents equally
strongly disagreed (31 % of respondents) and agreed (31 % of respondents) that green building
made their homes sell faster (Q 19). Six percent strongly agreed that building green aided the
ability of their homes to sell faster. The rating average was 2.69 (disagree).
Table 4-12 contains responses to questions 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14, 15, 18, 19, and 20 that
related a developer and builder responses opinion about sustainable practices questions.
Questions were posed in a 5-point Likert rating scale format (1=Strongly Disagree; 2=Disagree;
3=Somewhat Disagree; 4=Agree; 5=Strongly Agree). Both rating averages for the belief that
their company actively incorporates sustainability were between agree and strongly agree with
44
rating averages of 4.71 for developers and 4.25 for builders (Q 5). The same result applies for a
ranking of the respondents agreement with the statement that building green means higher costs.
Developers rating average was 4.86 and builders rating average was 4.38 (Q6). When asked if
sustainable homes were more complicated to build, developers somewhat agreed that green
buildings were more complicated (Q7), with a rating average of 3.29. Developers agreed that
green homes should sell at a premium with a rating average of 4.14. Builders disagreed that
green buildings were more complicated, with a rating average of 2.63, and somewhat agreed
green homes should sell at a premium with a rating average of 3.50. Both groups disagreed that
there was a growing demand for sustainable homes with rating averages of 2.86 for developers
and 2.88 for builders (Q9). If there were any design changes made, as a result for consumer
demand for sustainable homes, both developers (rating average of 3.57) and builders (rating
average of 3.00) somewhat agreed (Q10). The confusion over rating systems was similar with
both groups agreeing to strongly agreeing that there is confusion as asked in question 14. Both
developers (rating average of 4.29) and builders (rating average of 4.38) agreed with this
statement. Likewise, both groups disagreed that those rating systems were worth the extra costs
(Q15). Developers and builders responses were closely related with rating averages of 2.86 and
2.88, respectively. Again, both developers (rating average of 2.57) and builders (rating average
of 2.50) disagreed that there is a consumer preference for sustainable homes (Q18). Both
developers and builders disagreed, with the rating averages of 2.71 and 2.38, respectively, that
building green helps their homes sell faster (Q19). However, both groups agreed or strongly
agreed that sustainable design benefits the environment with developers rating average of 4.43
and builders rating average of 4.13 (Q20).
45
Familiarity with Sustainable Practices

Typical respondent
Table 4-13 contains responses to questions 11, 12, and 13 that related to a respondents
familiarity with sustainable practices. Questions were posed in a 5-point Likert rating scale
format (1=Unfamiliar; 2= Less Familiar; 3=Somewhat Familiar; 4=Familiar; 5=Very Familiar).
These responses were used to quantify the typical respondents familiarity with residential
sustainable rating systems, concepts, and techniques.
Question 11 asked respondents to rate their familiarity with USGBCs LEED-H rating
system. Equally, respondents were somewhat familiar (31%) or very familiar (31%) with
LEED-H. Six percent of total respondents were unfamiliar with the LEED-H rating system.
Respondents familiarity with USGBCs LEED-H had a rating average of 3.69 (somewhat
familiar). Question 12 asked respondents to rate their familiarity with NAHBs Green Building
Standard. Equally, respondents were somewhat familiar (31%) or familiar (31%) with the rating
system. Twelve percent were very familiar with NAHBs Green Building Standard.
Respondents familiarity with NAHB Green Home Standard had a rating average of 3.31
(somewhat familiar). Question 13 asked respondents to rate their familiarity with Energy Star.
Fifty-six percent of respondents were very familiar with the Energy Star rating system.
Similarly, 38% of typical respondents were familiar with the Energy Star system. The rating
average was 4.5 (familiar). Respondents were somewhat familiar with both LEED-H and Green
Home Standard and familiar to very familiar with Energy Star. Of the three rating systems
presented, 56% of typical respondents were the most familiar with Energy Star. Next, 31% of
typical respondents were familiar with USGBCs LEED-H followed by 12% of typical
respondents familiar with NAHB Green Home Standard.
46
Table 4-15 contains responses to question 21 that related to a respondents familiarity with
sustainable practices, techniques, and concepts. Respondents were most familiar with drought
tolerant plants and landscaping (93.8%), Energy Star appliances (93.8%), and Low-E glass (93.8
%). Respondents were least familiar were Green Globes (12.5 %), vegetated roof (25 %), and
thermal bridge (25 %) as shown in Figure 4-5.
Questions 11, 12, and 13, related to a respondents familiarity with sustainable practices.
Questions were posed in a 5-point Likert rating scale format (1=Unfamiliar; 2= Less Familiar;
3=Somewhat Familiar; 4=Familiar; 5=Very Familiar). These responses were used to quantify
the developers and the builders familiarity with residential sustainable rating systems, concepts,
and techniques. The familiarity with USGBCs LEED-H resulted in a rating average of 4.00 for
developers and 3.38 for builders (Table 4-14). Developers felt familiar with the rating system,
and the builders were between somewhat familiar and familiar. Both groups were somewhat
familiar with NAHBs Green Building Standard with developers rating average being 3.43 and
builders rating average being 3.13. The familiarity with Energy Star brought both groups
between experienced and very experienced with a rating average of 4.43 for developers and 4.63
for builders.
Table 4-16 presents a difference between builders and developers relative to their
familiarity with the green building concepts and techniques. All developers (100%) were
familiar with site selection, minimal disturbance to surrounding areas, access to open space,
drought tolerant plants and landscaping, drip irrigation, rainwater collection systems, and
construction waste management. All builders (100%) were familiar with Energy Star appliances
and Low-E glass. The developers were least (0%) familiar with Green Globes, and the builders
47
were least familiar (12.5%) with reduction of heat island effect, FSC Certified Wood, vegetated
roof, and rain garden.
Frequency of Use of Sustainable Practices
Typical respondent
Table 4-17 contains responses to questions 16 and 17 that related to the frequency of use
of sustainable practices. Questions were posed in a 5-point Likert rating scale format (1=Never;
2=Rarely; 3=Sometimes; 4= Often; 5=Frequently). These responses were used to quantify the
respondents company frequency of using residential sustainable rating systems and
sustainability training.
Question 16 measured the frequency of using sustainable rating systems to assess the
typical respondents projects. Fifty percent of respondents often used a rating system for
assessing green or sustainable design. Six percent of respondents never used a rating system,
and 18% respondents sometimes used a sustainable home rating system. The rating average was
3.88 (often). Question 17 asked about the frequency of the respondents company to actively
train employees in sustainability. Fifty-five percent of respondents trained their employees in
sustainability practices often. Twenty-nice percent of respondents sometimes trained their
employees. The rating average was 3.57 (sometimes).
Developers often actively use a rating system to assess their homes sustainability, as
shown with a rating average of 4.57 (see Table 4-18). Builders sometimes use rating systems
with a rating average 3.13. There was a difference in responses related to active training of
employees in sustainability practices. Developers actively trained their employees (rating
average 4.00), but builders rarely train their staff (rating average 2.25).
48
Figure 4-5. Percentage of green building concepts and practices familiar to typical respondents
49
Analysis of Results
Experience with Sustainable Practices
The typical respondent was very experienced with sustainable design, with a rating
average of 4.00 (experienced) (Table 4-1). However, developers had higher rating averages for
every question related to experience in sustainable practices as compared to builders.
Developers had a rating average of 4.41 for overall experience signifying that developers were
experienced to very experienced with sustainable practices. Builders had an average of 3.75
which means that they were somewhat experienced or experienced with sustainable practices.
Table E-1 shows the comparison of developers to builders using the chi-squared test. The results
show that 95 % of the time, the expected variation in observed counts would be 7.81 with three
degrees of freedom (d.f.). The actual tabulated count was 0.355. Therefore, there is no
significant difference between the developer response and the builder response at 95 %
confidence level (7.81 > 0.355).
Importance of Sustainable Practices
Each typical respondent, developers, and builders agreed that building sustainable homes
are important to their company (Table E-2). The typical respondent had a rating average of 4.13.
Developers had a higher rating average of 4.14 (more important) compared to the builders rating
average of 4.00 (important). As expected, there is no significant difference between the two
responses based on a 3.84 allowable variation with one d.f. at 95% confidence level (3.84 >
0.005). Ranking of importance during the design phase also yielded no significant variation
between the two test groups based on an expected variation of 12.6 with six d.f. at 95 %
confidence level (12.6 > 0.877) as shown in Table E-3. Based on the rating average, developers
believed that marketable design was the most important and builders believed that an
aesthetically pleasing design was foremost. During the construction phase, developers and
50
builders ranked the levels of importance the same (Table E-4). As expected, the chi-squared test
allowed a variation of 11.1 with five d.f. at 95 % confidence level, but the actual value was
significantly lower at 0.083 (11.1 > 0.083). Likewise, the marketing phase ranking was the same
for both groups. A variation of 19.7 at four d.f. at 95% confidence level led to the predicted
outcome that there is no significant difference with an actual value of 0.006 (19.7 > 0.006) as
shown in Table E-5.
Opinion on Sustainable Practices
The typical respondents strongly agreed that they actively incorporated green building
practices. The typical respondent strongly disagreed there was a consumer preference for
sustainable design and, also, making their homes sell faster. The average developer somewhat
agreed to agreed to most Likert scale questions as shown in Table 4-12 with an overall rating
average of 3.66. Builders had an overall rating average of 3.35 (somewhat agreed). The
expected deviance between developers and builders was 19.7 with 11 d.f. at 95 % confidence
level for a chi-squared test. The actual value was lower at 0.485 (Table E-6). Developers and
builders do not vary significantly on opinion of sustainable practices (19.7 > 0.485).
Familiarity with Sustainable Practices
Most typical respondents were very familiar with LEED-H and Energy Star. Developers
had an overall rating average for Likert scale questions of 3.95. A rating average of 3.95 is
between somewhat familiar (3) and familiar (4), but closer to familiar. Builders overall rating
average for familiarity Likert scale questions were 3.71. As shown in Table E-7, the expected
variation between developers and builders is expected to be 7.81 with three d.f. at 95 %
confidence interval. The actual chi-squared value was 0.133. The result means there is not a
significant difference between the responses with 95% confidence level (7.81 > 0.133).
51
On the other hand, familiarity with sustainable building concepts and techniques produced
a variation between the two test groups. Overall, developers were familiar with 69.2 % of all
options. Builders were familiar with 51.3 % of all options. Table E-8 shows that the difference
between the two groups is expected to be 55.8 with 40 d.f. at 95 % confidence level. The actual
value was much greater at 538.3, which means that there is a difference between developers and
builders on varying levels of familiarity with green building concepts and techniques (55.8 <
538.3).
Frequency Use of Sustainable Practices
Typically, the typical respondent often employs sustainable practices and training. The
typical developer agrees with an overall rating average 4.29 (Table E-9). Contrastingly, the
typical builder rarely employs sustainable practices and training with an overall rating average of
2.69. The expected variation between the two groups was 5.99 with two d.f. at 95 % confidence
level. The actual value was 1.223. Therefore, there is no significant difference between the
developer response and the builder response at 95 % confidence level (5.99 > 1.223).
Summary
In general, both developers and builders responses did not differ significantly on the
parameters of experience, importance, opinion, familiarity, and frequency of sustainability and
green building. Developers had a better grasp of sustainable concepts than builders. Also,
developers actively trained their staff in sustainable practices more often than builders, but not
significantly more. Developers and builders agreed that the cost of sustainable design is most
important during the construction phase and disagreed that having a certified energy designer
and/or an energy rating system were least important.
52
Table 4-1. Responses to Likert scale questions related to experience in sustainable practices for
typical respondents
No
Somewhat
Very
Rating Response
Question
Experience
Experienced
Experienced
Avg.
Count
1
2
3
4
5
Q1. What level of
experience does
your company
0%
6%
25%
31%
38%
4.00
16
have in green or
(0)
(1)
(4)
(5)
(6)
sustainable
building?
Q3. Is (are) the
primary
designer(s)
0%
7%
20%
26%
47%
experienced with
4.13
15
(0)
(1)
(3)
(4)
(7)
green or
sustainable
practices?
Q4. Is the
primary
contractor
0%
6%
12%
38%
44%
experienced with
4.19
16
(0)
(1)
(2)
(6)
(7)
green or
sustainable
practices?
Note: One respondent answered N/A to the second question
53
Table 4-2. Responses to Likert scale questions related to experience in sustainable practices for
developers and builders
No
Somewhat
Very
Rating Response
Question
Experience
Experienced
Experienced
Avg.
Count
1
2
3
4
5
Q1. Does your
company have any
experience in green
or sustainable
building?
0%
0%
14%
43%
43%
Developer
4.29
7
(0)
(0)
(1)
(3)
(3)
0%
13%
25%
25%
38%
Builder
3.86
8
(0)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(3)
Q3. Is (are) the
primary designer(s)
experienced with
green or
sustainable
practices?
0%
0%
17%
0%
83%
Developer
4.67
6
(0)
(0)
(1)
(0)
(5)
0%
13%
25%
13%
50%
Builder
3.29
8
(0)
(1)
(2)
(1)
(4)
Q4. Is the primary
contractor
experienced with
green or
sustainable
practices?
0%
0%
14%
43%
43%
Developer
4.29
7
(0)
(0)
(1)
(3)
(3)
0%
13%
13%
38%
38%
Builder
4.00
8
(0)
(1)
(1)
(3)
(3)
54
Table 4-3. Responses to Likert scale questions related to importance of sustainable practices for
typical respondents
Not
Somewhat
Very
Rating Response
Question
Important
Important
Important
Avg.
Count
1
2
3
4
5
Q2. How important to
your company is
green design or
6%
0%
12%
38%
46%
4.13
16
sustainable and
(1)
(0)
(2)
(6)
(7)
building sustainable
homes?
Table 4-4. Responses for Likert scale questions related on importance in sustainable practices
for developers and builders
Not
Somewhat
Very
Rating Response
Question
Important
Important
Important
Avg.
Count
1
2
3
4
5
your company is green
design or sustainable
and building sustainable
homes?
0%
0%
14%
28%
57%
Developer
4.14
7
(0)
(0)
(1)
(2)
(4)
12.5%
0%
12.5%
25%
50%
Builder
4.43
8
(1)
(0)
(1)
(2)
(4)
55
Table 4-5. Rating of importance of sustainable practices against other factors during the design
Q22.
Answer Options
1 - Most
Important
6 - Least
Important
Rating
Average
Response
Count
Aesthetically
Pleasing Design
17%
(2)
67%
(8)
8%
(1)
8%
(1)
0%
(0)
0%
(0)
2.08
12
Energy/Sustainable
Certified Designer
(i.e. LEED-AP)
0%
(0)
0%
(0)
0%
(0)
15%
(2)
15%
(2)
69%
(9)
5.54
13
Low initial costs
15%
(2)
15%
(2)
31% 23%
(3)
(4)
15%
(2)
0%
(0)
3.08
13
Energy Rating
System Approved
(i.e. LEED-H Gold)
0%
(0)
0%
(0)
14%
(2)
21% 50%
(3)
(7)
14%
(2)
4.64
14
Energy Efficient
Design
7%
(1)
14%
(2)
43% 21%
(3)
(6)
14%
(2)
0%
(0)
3.21
14
Marketable Design
57%
(8)
21%
(3)
21%
(3)
0%
(0)
0%
(0)
1.64
14
0%
(0)
56
Table 4-6. Responses related to ranking of importance of sustainable practices during design
phase between developers and builders
1 - Most
6 - Least Rating Response
Q22.
2
3
4
5
Important
Important Avg.
Count
Aesthetically
Pleasing Design
17%
0%
67% 0% 17% 0%
Developer
2.17
6
(1)
(0)
(1)
(0)
(0)
(4)
17%
0%
0%
67% 17% 0%
Builder
2.00
6
(1)
(1)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(4)
Energy/Sustainable
Certified Designer
0%
0%
0% 14% 14%
71%
Developer
5.57
7
(0)
(0)
(0)
(1)
(1)
(5)
0%
0%
0% 17% 17%
67%
Builder
5.50
6
(0)
(0)
(0)
(1)
(1)
(4)
Low initial costs
0%
20% 20% 40% 20%
0%
Developer
3.60
5
(0)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(0)
(2)
14% 29% 14% 14%
0%
29%
Builder
2.71
7
(1)
(1)
(1)
(0)
(2)
(2)
Energy Rating
System Approved
(i.e. LEED-H
Gold)
0%
0%
17% 17% 50%
17%
Developer
4.67
6
(0)
(0)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(3)
0%
0%
13% 25% 50%
13%
Builder
4.63
8
(0)
(0)
(1)
(2)
(1)
(4)
Energy Efficient
Design
0%
14% 71% 14% 0%
0%
Developer
3.00
7
(0)
(1)
(1)
(0)
(0)
(5)
13%
0%
13% 25% 25%
0%
Builder
2.75
8
(1)
(0)
(1)
(0)
(2)
(2)
Marketable Design
14%
0%
0%
0%
0%
86%
Developer
1.14
7
(1)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(6)
29%
29% 43% 0%
0%
0%
Builder
2.14
7
(2)
(2)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(3)
57
Table 4-7. Rating of importance of sustainable practices against other factors during the
construction phase for typical respondents
Q23.
Answer Options
Energy/
Sustainable
Certified
Contractor (i.e.
LEED-AP)
Energy Rating
System Approved
(i.e. LEED-H
Gold, local or
state program)
1 - Most
Important
0%
(0)
0%
(0)
21%
(3)
0%
(0)
50%
(7)
29%
0%
(0)
13%
(2)
13%
(2)
40%
(6)
20%
(3)
13%
Cost
69%
(9)
23%
(3)
8%
(1)
0%
(0)
0%
(0)
Constructability
31%
(4)
46%
(6)
23%
(3)
0%
(0)
Energy Efficient
Building
13%
(2)
27%
(4)
47%
(7)
13%
(2)
58
6 - Least
Important
Rating
Avg.
Response
Count
(4)
4.86
14
(2)
4.07
15
0%
(0)
1.38
13
0%
(0)
0%
(0)
1.92
13
0%
(0)
0%
(0)
2.6
15
Table 4-8. Responses related to ranking of importance of sustainable practices during

construction phase between developers and builders
1 - Most
Q.23
2
3
4
5
Important
Important Avg.
Count
Energy/Sustainable
Certified
Contractor (i.e.
LEED-AP)
0%
0% 17% 0% 67%
17%
Developer
4.33
6
(0)
(0)
(1)
(0)
(1)
(4)
0%
0% 14% 0% 43%
43%
Builder
5.14
7
(0)
(0)
(1)
(0)
(3)
(3)
Energy Rating
System Approved
(i.e. LEED-H
Gold, local or state
program)
0%
14% 14% 57% 0%
14%
Developer
3.86
7
(0)
(1)
(1)
(0)
(1)
(4)
0%
0% 14% 29% 43%
14%
Builder
4.57
7
(0)
(0)
(1)
(2)
(1)
(3)
Cost
33% 0%
0%
0%
0%
67%
Developer
1.33
6
(2)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(4)
14% 14% 0%
0%
0%
71%
Builder
1.43
7
(1)
(1)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(5)
Constructability
50%
33% 17% 0%
0%
0%
Developer
1.67
6
(3)
(2)
(1)
(0)
(0)
(0)
14%
0%
0%
57% 29% 0%
Builder
2.14
7
(1)
(2)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(4)
Energy Efficient
Building
0%
17% 67% 17%
0%
0%
Developer
3.00
6
(0)
(1)
(1)
(0)
(0)
(4)
13%
0%
0%
38% 38% 13%
Builder
2.50
8
(1)
(1)
(0)
(0)
(3)
(3)
59
Table 4-9. Rating of importance sustainable practices against other factors during the marketing
Q24.
Answer
Options
Options and
Extras
Energy
Efficiency of
Entire
Building
Energy
Efficient
Appliances
Energy Rating
System
Approved (i.e.
LEED-H
Gold, local or
state program)
Design
Cost
Most
SomeImportant
what
1
2
3
4
0%
21% 64%
0%
(0)
(3)
(0)
(9)
5
14%
(2)
Least
Important Rating
Response
Average Count
6
0%
3.07
14
(0)
0%
(0)
8%
(1)
8%
(1)
46%
(6)
39%
(5)
0%
(0)
4.15
13
0%
(0)
0%
(0)
0%
(0)
5
(42%)
7
(58%)
0%
(0)
4.58
12
7%
(1)
0%
(0)
0%
(0)
7%
(1)
7%
(1)
79%
(11)
5.43
14
60% 13%
(2)
(9)
13% 13%
(2)
(2)
0%
(0)
0%
(0)
0%
(0)
0%
(0)
8%
(1)
0%
(0)
2.2
15
1.4
15
20%
(3)
73%
(11)
60
Table 4-10. Responses related to ranking of importance of sustainable practices during the
marketing phase between developers and builders
1 - Most
Q24.
2
3
4
5
Important
Important Avg.
Count
Options and Extras
0%
0% 80% 0%
20%
0%
Developer
3.40
5
(0)
(0)
(0)
(1)
(0)
(4)
0%
25% 63% 0%
13%
0%
Builder
3.00
8
(0)
(2)
(0)
(1)
(0)
(5)
Energy Efficiency
of Entire Building
0%
14% 14% 29% 43%
0%
Developer
4.43
7
(0)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(0)
(3)
0%
0%
0% 67% 33%
0%
Builder
4.33
6
(0)
(0)
(0)
(2)
(0)
(4)
Energy Efficient
Appliances
0%
0%
0% 50% 50%
0%
Developer
4.50
6
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(3)
(3)
0%
0%
0% 33% 67%
0%
Builder
4.67
6
(0)
(0)
(0)
(2)
(0)
(4)
Energy Rating
System Approved
(i.e. LEED-H
Gold, local or state
program)
0%
0%
0% 17%
0%
83%
Developer
5.67
6
(0)
(0)
(0)
(1)
(0)
(5)
0%
0%
0%
0%
14%
86%
Builder
5.86
7
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(1)
(6)
61
Table 4-11. Responses to Likert scale questions related to opinion of sustainable practices for
typical respondents
Strongly
Strongly
Rating Response
Question
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Avg.
Count
1
2
3
4
5
Q5. Do you agree that
your company actively
0%
0%
6%
38%
56%
4.50
16
incorporates green or
(0)
(0)
(1)
(6)
(9)
sustainable design?
green or sustainable
0%
0%
0%
38%
62%
4.63
16
(0)
(0)
(0)
(6)
practices equate to
(10)
increased costs?
12%
31%
18%
0%
38%
2.81
16
(2)
(5)
(3)
(0)
designs are more
(6)
complicated to build?
12%
18%
6%
18%
46%
3.63
16
homes should be sold at
(2)
(3)
(1)
(3)
(7)
a premium?
Q9. Do you agree there
18%
18%
18%
12%
is a growing demand for
31%
3.00
16
(3)
(3)
(3)
(2)
(5)
homes?
consumer demand for
18%
0%
18%
12%
sustainable homes has
50%
3.38
16
(3)
(0)
(3)
(2)
affected construction
(8)
and/or design of your
homes?
is increased confusion
0%
6%
18%
12%
62%
4.31
16
over which green
(0)
(1)
(3)
(2)
(10)
standards to use?
Q15. Does your
company agree that
12%
25%
25%
6%
31%
2.94
16
rating systems are worth
(2)
(4)
(4)
(1)
(5)
the extra costs?
there is a consumer
preference of green or
12%
25%
18%
12%
31%
2.69
16
sustainable homes over
(2)
(4)
(3)
(2)
(5)
traditionally or nongreen homes?
62
Table 4-11. Continued

Question
Q19. Green or
sustainable design
and/or construction
help you sell your
homes faster.
Q20. Green or
sustainable design
and/or construction
benefit the
environment.
Strongly
Disagree
1
Strongly
Agree
5
Rating
Avg.
Response
Count
18%
(3)
31%
(5)
6%
(1)
2.69
16
6%
(1)
18%
(3)
62%
(10)
4.31
16
Neutral
3
31%
(5)
12%
(2)
0%
(0)
12%
(2)
63
Table 4-12. Responses to Likert scale questions related to opinion about sustainable practices
Strongly
Strongly
Rating Response
Question
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Avg.
Count
1
2
3
4
5
incorporates green or
sustainable design?
0%
0%
0%
29%
71%
Developer
4.71
7
(0)
(0)
(0)
(2)
(5)
0%
0%
13%
38%
50%
Builder
4.86
8
(0)
(0)
(1)
(3)
(4)
practices equate to
increased costs?
0%
0%
0%
14%
86%
Developer
4.86
7
(0)
(0)
(0)
(1)
(6)
0%
0%
0%
38%
63%
Builder
4.38
8
(0)
(0)
(0)
(3)
(5)
designs are more
0%
29%
14%
0%
57%
Developer
3.29
7
(0)
(2)
(1)
(0)
(4)
13%
25%
25%
0%
38%
Builder
2.63
8
(1)
(2)
(2)
(0)
(3)
homes should be sold at
a premium?
0%
14%
14%
14%
57%
Developer
4.14
7
(0)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(4)
25%
13%
25%
0%
38%
3.50
8
Builder
(2)
(1)
(2)
(0)
(3)
is a growing demand for
homes?
14%
29%
14%
0%
43%
Developer
2.86
7
(1)
(2)
(1)
(0)
(3)
13%
13%
25%
25%
25%
Builder
2.88
8
(1)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(2)
64

Question
Strongly
Disagree
1
Neutral
3
Strongly
Agree
5
17%
(1)
25%
(2)
0%
(0)
0%
(0)
17%
(1)
25%
(2)
67%
(4)
50%
(4)
0%
(0)
0%
(0)
0%
(0)
0%
(0)
0%
(0)
13%
(1)
29%
(2)
13%
(1)
14%
(1)
0%
(0)
57%
(4)
75%
(6)
14%
(1)
13%
(1)
29%
(2)
25%
(2)
29%
(2)
25%
(2)
14%
(1)
38%
(3)
14%
(1)
0%
(0)
43%
(3)
25%
(2)
0%
(0)
25%
(2)
29%
(2)
25%
(2)
14%
(1)
25%
(2)
14%
(1)
0%
(0)
Rating Response
Avg.
Count

consumer demand for
sustainable homes has
affected construction
and/or design of your
homes?
Developer
Builder
3.57
3.00
4.29
4.38
2.86
2.88
2.57
2.50

is increased confusion
over which green
standards to use?
Developer
B
Q15. Does your
company agree that
rating systems are worth
the extra costs?
Developer
Builder
there is a consumer
preference of green or
sustainable homes over
traditionally or nongreen homes?
Developer
Builder
65

Question
Strongly
Disagree
1
Neutral
3
Strongly
Agree
5
29%
(2)
38%
(3)
14%
(1)
13%
(1)
14%
(1)
25%
(2)
43%
(3)
25%
(2)
0%
(0)
0%
(0)
0%
(0)
0%
(0)
0%
(0)
25%
(2)
14%
(1)
0%
(0)
29%
(2)
13%
(1)
57%
(4)
63%
(5)
Rating
Avg.
Response
Count
2.71
2.38
4.43
4.13
Q19. Green or
sustainable design
and/or construction help
you sell your homes
faster.
Developer
Builder
Q20. Green or
sustainable design
and/or construction
benefit the environment.
Developer
Builder
66
Table 4-13. Responses to Likert scale questions related to familiarity with sustainable practices
for typical respondents
Somewhat
Very
Rating Response
Question
Unfamiliar
Familiar
Familiar
Avg.
Count
1
2
3
4
5
Q11. How familiar
is your company
with the U.S. Green
Building Councils
(USGBC)
Leadership in
Energy and
Environmental
Design for Homes
(LEED-H)?
6%
(1)
6%
(1)
31%
(5)
25%
(4)
31%
(5)
3.69
16
Q12. How familiar

is your company
with the National
Association of
Home Builders
(NAHB) Green
Building Standard?
0%
(0)
25%
(4)
31%
(5)
31%
(5)
12%
(2)
3.31
16
Q13. How familiar

is your company
with Energy Star
brand (i.e.
appliances,
HVAC)?
0%
(0)
0%
(0)
6%
(1)
38%
(6)
56%
(9)
4.5
16
67
Table 4-14. Responses to Likert scale questions related to familiarity with sustainable practices
Somewhat
Very
Rating Response
Question
Unfamiliar
Familiar
Familiar
Avg.
Count
1
2
3
4
5
Q11. How familiar is
your company with
the U.S. Green
Building Councils
(USGBC) Leadership
in Energy and
Environmental
Design for Homes
(LEED-H)?
0%
0%
14%
42%
42%
Developer
4.00
7
(0)
(0)
(1)
(3)
(3)
12.5%
12.5%
25%
25%
25%
Builder
3.38
8
(1)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(2)
your company with
the National
Association of Home
Builders (NAHB)
Green Building
Standard?
0%
14%
0%
29%
57%
Developer
3.43
7
(0)
(1)
(0)
(2)
(4)
0%
37.5%
12.5%
0%
50%
Builder
3.13
8
(0)
(3)
(1)
(0)
(4)
your company with
Energy Star brand
(i.e. appliances,
HVAC)?
0%
0%
14%
29%
57%
Developer
4.43
7
(0)
(0)
(1)
(2)
(4)
0%
0%
0%
42%
57%
Builder
4.63
7
(0)
(0)
(0)
(3)
(4)
68
Table 4-15. Familiarity with green building concepts and practices for typical respondents
Q21. Answer Options
Response
Response Count
Site selection
88%
14
Minimal Disturbance to surrounding Areas
75
12
Access to Open Space
63
10
Drought tolerant plants and landscaping design
15
94
Drip Irrigation
88
14
Xeriscaping
81
13
Permeable Pavement
69
11
Erosion Control
63
10
Reduction of Heat Island Effects
38
6
Pest control Alternatives
56
9
Graywater Reuse
63
10
Energy Star Appliances
15
94
Storm Water Treatment
56
9
SIPs
31
5
Value Engineering
69
11
Green Label
3
5
Refrigerant Management System
38
6
Solar Water Heating System
56
9
Low-E Glass
15
94
Rainwater Collection Systems
69
11
FSC Certified Wood
31
5
Renewable Energy System
44
7
Passive Design
63
10
Construction Waste Management
69
11
Photovoltaic Energy
75
12
Thermal Bridge
25
4
Vegetated Roof
25
4
Rain Garden
44
7
Compact Development Density
81
13
Pipe Insulation
63
10
Daylighting
56
9
Framing Efficiency
69
11
Energy Modeling
63
10
Solar Orientation
81
13
VOCs
63
10
Green Globes
13
2
Carbon Dioxide Monitoring
38
6
Use of Readily-Renewable materials
69
11
Radon Protection
63
10
Use of recycled or salvaged materials
69
11
69
Table 4-16. Familiarity with green building concepts and practices for developers and builders
Developers Response Builders
Response
Q21. Question
(D)
(B)
Count
Count
Site Selection
7
75%
6
100%
Minimal Disturbance to surrounding Areas
7
50
4
100
7
25
2
100
Drought tolerant plants and landscaping
7
87.5
7
100
design
Drip Irrigation
7
75
6
100
Xeriscaping
85.7
6
75
6
Permeable Pavement
85.7
6
50
4
Erosion Control
85.7
6
37.5
3
Reduction of Heat Island Effects
71.4
5
12.5
1
57.1
4
62.5
5
Graywater Reuse
85.7
6
50
4
85.7
6
8
100
85.7
6
37.5
3
SIPs
28.6
2
25
2
Value Engineering
85.7
6
50
4
Green Label
28.6
2
37.5
3
Refrigerant Management System
57.1
4
50
2
Solar Water Heating System
42.9
3
62.5
5
Low-E Glass
85.7
6
8
100
Rainwater Collection Systems
7
37.5
3
100
FSC Certified Wood
57.1
4
12.5
1
Renewable Energy System
42.9
3
37.5
3
Passive Design
85.7
6
37.5
3
Construction Waste Management
7
50
4
100
Photovoltaic Energy
71.4
5
75.0
6
Thermal Bridge
12.5
1
25.0
2
Vegetated Roof
42.9
3
12.5
1
Rain Garden
71.4
5
12.5
1
Compact Development Density
85.7
6
75.0
6
Pipe Insulation
71.4
5
50.0
4
Daylighting
71.4
5
37.5
3
Framing Efficiency
57.1
4
75.0
6
Energy Modeling
71.4
5
62.5
5
Solar Orientation
85.7
6
62.5
6
VOCs
57.1
4
62.5
5
Green Globes
0.0
0
25.0
2
Carbon Dioxide Monitoring
28.6
2
37.5
3
Use of Readily-Renewable materials
71.4
5
62.5
5
Radon Protection
42.9
3
75.0
6
Use of recycled or salvaged materials
71.4
5
62.5
5
70
Table 4-17. Responses to Likert scale questions related to frequency of use of sustainable
practices for typical respondents
SomeRating Response
Question
Never
times
Frequently
Avg.
Count
1
2
3
4
5
Q16. How often does
6%
12%
18%
12%
50%
use a rating system for
3.88
16
(1)
(2)
(3)
(2)
(8)
assessing green or
sustainable design?
Q17. How often does
0%
14%
29%
14%
43%
3.57
14
train its employees in
(0)
(2)
(4)
(2)
(6)
green techniques?
Note: Two respondents, based on their company opinion, skipped the second question
Table 4-18. Responses to Likert scale questions related to frequency of use of sustainable
practices for developers and builders
SomeRating Response
Question
Never
times
Frequently
Avg.
Count
1
2
3
4
5
Q16. How often does
use a rating system for
assessing green or
sustainable design?
0%
0%
14.5%
14.5%
71%
Developer
4.57
7
(0)
(0)
(1)
(1)
(5)
12.5% 25%
12.5%
25%
25%
Builder
3.13
8
(1)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(2)
Q17. How often does
train its employees in
green techniques?
0%
0%
28.5%
28.5%
43%
Developer
4.00
7
(0)
(0)
(2)
(2)
(3)
0%
0%
33%
33%
33%
Builder
2.25
6
(0)
(0)
(2)
(2)
(2)
Note: Two respondents for builders, based on their company opinion, skipped the second
question
71
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSION
Sustainable design and construction of residential projects will be essential in the future.
There are benefits to green design for the environment and inhabitants, but what are the benefits
to those who build the homes? The commitment and dedication not only needs to come from the
consumer side, but also from those designing homes, constructing homes, and developing
residential areas. The study highlighted a snapshot of responses from developers and builders
based on their knowledge, application, and dedication to sustainability. The snapshot proved to
have valuable information into the minds of those who control how the world lives. Taken as a
whole, the respondents do have a commitment to sustainability and building green. Both
developers and builders believe sustainability benefits the environment, but, at the same time, do
not believe there is a consumer preference for green homes. These contradictions in logic led to
confusion of how to build and assess their green projects.
The stated hypothesis compared the difference between developers, builders, and the
typical respondent based experience, familiarity, opinion, frequency, and importance of
sustainable residential design. Most respondents, in the open-ended questions, believed there
should be more sustainable homes, but there is no market nor are the prices justified. Similarly,
all respondents believed that green homes should be sold at a premium and are more difficult to
construct, but do not help sell a home faster. The results proved there is a noted environmental
benefit for sustainable design among developers and builders, but there is not perceived financial
benefit to integration in residential projects.
Based on the literature review, there was a proved benefit for sustainable buildings, but
mostly lacked clarity for the residential sector, as well as, the perceived benefits to developers
and builders. Analyzing the responses of builders and developers on sustainable and green
72
practices in residences allowed for an understanding why green construction is not further
implemented into residential projects.
73
CHAPTER 6
RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendations
To further the research in this area, or to expand on the study, there are several
suggestions. First, the study should be expanded to cover a larger sample size of the residential
industry. There needs to be more variety within the respondents to include more design firms
and architects and for those respondents to enter all needed information for analysis. Next, there
needs to be established contacts to ensure the completion of the surveys by respondents, either by
web survey or paper survey. Finally, there should be an updating of recent changes in most
energy rating programs that might change responses.
Limitations and Further Research
It should be noted that the study was limited to respondents from North-Central Florida in
BANCF. The survey was distributed via a web based server that presented limited responses and
field responses. The survey was limited by 16 responses: eight builders, seven developers, and
one unknown. Further research would be to expand the sample size and research into newer
rating systems and sustainable techniques and applications on the residential scale.
74
APPENDIX A
SUSTAINABLE AND RESIDENTIAL PRACTICES SURVEY
Informed Consent Disclosure Agreement for Participants
Purpose of the study:
The purpose of the study is to investigate the incentives, the motives, and the affordability
of green buildings in residential applications for builders and designers. The purpose of this
research study is to find the to find the current consensus of home builders on going green, to
determine the median home price of affordable green homes, to determine the change builders
are making to homes to be green and affordable, and to find how collaboration and the
companys position on green building affects their commitment to affordable green and/or green
design.
What you will be asked to do in the study:
If you choose to participate in the study, you will undergo a short survey will which
consists of the series of questions related to their companys views and practices on sustainability
design and green construction.
Time Required:
The survey should take about 20 to 30 minutes to complete.
Risks and Benefits:
There is no personal discomfort, stress, or personal risks associated with participating in
this study. There are no direct benefits for participation in this study.
Compensation:
For participating in this study you will not receive any compensation. You are free to
withdraw at any time during the study.
Confidentiality:
The results of your participation will be confidential to the extent provided by law. As
such, the researcher will have no way of associating your responses directly with you. Your
participation is entirely voluntary and you may withdraw your consent at any time during the
survey. In the event that you do withdraw consent, the results of your participation, to the extent
that they can be identified as yours, will be returned to you, removed from the research records,
or destroyed. You may withdraw from the study at any time.
Whom to contact if you have questions about the study:
If you would like to learn more about the study, you may contact the principal investigator,
Kristen Hlad, at (352) 246-3116, or by email, at hladdio@ufl.edu, or the faculty supervisor, Dr.
Svetlana Olbina, at (352) 273-1166.
Whom to contact about your rights as a research participant in the study:
UFIRB Office, Box 112250, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611-2250; (352)
392-0433.
Agreement:
I have read the procedure described above. I voluntarily agree to participate in the
procedure and have received a copy of this description.
Date:
Date:
Participant Signature:
Principal Investigator:
75
Demographic Information
i. Please fill-in with specific information. Please be reminded all information you will provide
will be treated with utmost confidentiality, and will be used for statistically analysis only.
Name
Position
Type of Company (builder, developer, design firm, etc.)
Typical residences constructed (townhomes, single-family, apartments)
Annual Total of Work in Dollars
Typical size of residences
Typical price of residences in Dollars
Typical Delivery Method used (i.e. Design-Build)
76
Perception of the Respondents

Please rate the each of the statements below on your level of agreement according to your
companys views. Please be reminded that there is no right or wrong answer, and that every data
you will provide will be treated with utmost confidentiality.
1. What level of experience does your company has in green or sustainable building?
No Experience
1
Somewhat
Experienced
3
Very Experienced
4
2. Do you agree that sustainable design and building green homes is important to your
company?
Strongly Disagree
1
Neutral
3
Strongly Agree
5
3. How experienced is (are) the primary designer(s) in your company with green or
sustainable practices?
No Experience
1
Somewhat
Experienced
3
Very Experienced
4
4. How experienced is the primary contractor with green or sustainable practices?

No Experience
1
Somewhat
Experienced
3
Very Experienced
4
5. Do you agree that your company actively incorporates green or sustainable design?
Strongly Disagree
1
Neutral
3
77
Strongly Agree
5
6. Do you agree that green or sustainable practices equate to increased costs?

Strongly Disagree
1
Neutral
3
Strongly Agree
5
7. Do you agree that green or sustainable designs are more complicated to build?
Strongly Disagree
1
Neutral
3
Strongly Agree
5
8. Do you agree that green or sustainable homes should be sold at a premium?

Strongly Disagree
1
Neutral
3
Strongly Agree
5
9. Do you agree there is a growing demand for green or sustainable homes?

Strongly Disagree
1
Neutral
3
Strongly Agree
5
10. Do you agree that consumer demand for sustainable homes has affected construction
and/or design of your homes?
Strongly Disagree
1
Neutral
2
Strongly Agree
5
11. How familiar is your company with the U.S. Green Building Councils (USGBC)
Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design for Homes (LEED-H)?
Unfamiliar
1
Somewhat
Familiar
3
Very Familiar
4
12. How familiar is your company with the National Association of Home Builders
(NAHB) Green Building Standard?
Unfamiliar
1
Somewhat
Familiar
3
78
Very Familiar
4
13. How familiar is your company with Energy Star brand (i.e. appliances, HVAC)?
Somewhat
Familiar
3
Unfamiliar
1
Very Familiar
4
14. Do you agree there is increased confusion over which green standards to use?
Strongly Disagree
1
Neutral
2
Strongly Agree
5
15. Does your company agree that rating systems are worth the extra costs?
Strongly Disagree
1
Neutral
2
Strongly Agree
5
16. How often does your company actively use a rating system for assessing green or
sustainable design?
Never
1
Sometimes
3
Frequently
5
17. How often does your company actively train its employees in green techniques?
Never
1
Sometimes
3
Frequently
5
18. Do you agree that there is a consumer preference of green or sustainable homes over
traditionally or non-green homes?
Strongly Disagree
1
Neutral
3
Strongly Agree
5
19. Green or sustainable design and/or construction help you sell your homes faster.
Strongly Disagree
1
Neutral
3
79
Strongly Agree
5
20. Green or sustainable design and/or construction benefit the environment.

Strongly Disagree
1
Neutral
3
80
Strongly Agree
5
Familiarity of Respondents
Please check the statements according to your companys views or practices. Please check all
that apply.
21. Which of the following green building practices/concepts is your company familiar with?
Site selection
Minimal Disturbance to
surrounding Areas
Drought tolerant plants
and landscaping design
Drip Irrigation
Xeriscaping
Permeable Pavement
Erosion Control
Reduction of Heat Island
Effects
Graywater Reuse
SIPs
Value Engineering
Green Label
Refrigerant Management
System
Solar Water Heating
System
Low-E Glass
Rainwater Collection
Systems
FSC Certified Wood

Renewable Energy
System
Passive Design
Construction Waste
Management
Photovoltaic Energy
Thermal Bridge
Vegetated Roof
Rain Garden
Compact Development
Density
Pipe Insulation
Daylighting
Framing Efficiency
Energy Modeling
Solar Orientation
VOCs
Green Globes
Carbon Dioxide
Monitoring
Use of Readily
Renewable materials
Radon Protection
Use of recycled or
salvaged materials
81
Ordinal Questions
22. Please write a number between 1 and 6 next to each item below. Put a 1 next to the item that
is MOST important to your company in the design of a residential building. Put a 6 next to the
item that is LEAST important. Please use each number only ONCE.
_____ Aesthetically Pleasing Design
_____ Energy/Sustainable Certified Designer (i.e. LEED-AP)
_____ Low initial costs
_____ Energy Rating System Approved (i.e. LEED-H Gold)
_____ Energy Efficient Design
_____ Marketable Design
is MOST important to you in the construction of a residential building. Put a 6 next to the item
that is LEAST important. Please use each number only ONCE.
_____ Fewer Days on the Market
_____ Energy/Sustainable Certified Contractor (i.e. LEED-AP)
_____ Energy Rating System Approved (i.e. LEED-H Gold, local or state program)
_____ Cost
_____ Constructability
_____ Energy Efficient Building
is MOST important, according to your company, what consumers look for when purchasing a
new home. Put a 6 next to the item that is LEAST important. Please use each number only
ONCE.
_____ Options and Extras
_____ Energy Efficiency of Entire Building
_____ Energy Efficient Appliances
_____ Energy Rating System Approved (i.e. LEED-H Gold, local or state program)
_____ Design
_____ Cost
82
Please fill-in your responses below according to your companys views. Please be reminded that
there is no right or wrong answer, and that every data you will provide will be treated with
utmost confidentiality.
26. Which, if any, energy/sustainable rating system (i.e. LEED-H, utility programs, or state or
local program) does your company use to assess your structures?
______________________________________________________________________________
27. What is your opinion of energy/sustainable rating systems (i.e. LEED-H, NAHB, Energy
Star)?
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
28. Do you believe there is confusion within the current energy/sustainable rating systems (i.e.
LEED-H, NAHB, Energy Star) on how to use and/or implement into your homes?
______________________________________________________________________________
29. What is the main reason for using sustainable design in your projects?
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
30. How is your company making homes more green or sustainable?

______________________________________________________________________________
31. What is your companys attitude toward sustainability in the residential sector?
______________________________________________________________________________
83
APPENDIX B
OVERVIEW OF LEED-H
LEED for Homes Version 2008
INNOVATION AND DESIGN PROCESS (ID)
Credit 1 Integrated Project Planning
1.1
Preliminary Rating
1.2
Integrated Project Team
1.3
Professional Credentialed with Respect to LEED for Homes
1.4
Design Charrette
1.5
Building Orientation for Solar Design
Credit 2 Durability Management Process
2.1
Durability Planning
2.2
Durability Management
2.3
Third Party Durability Management Verification
Credit 3 Innovation of Regional Design
3.1 Innovation #1
3.2 Innovation #2
3.3 Innovation #3
3.4 Innovation #4
LOCATION AND LINKAGES (LL)
Credit 1 LEED ND
Credit 2 Site Selection
Credit 3 Preferred Locations
3.1 Edge Development
3.2 Infill
3.3 Previously Developed
Credit 4 Infrastructure
Credit 5 Community Resources
5.1 Basic Community Resources
5.2 Extensive Community Resources
5.3 Outstanding Community Resources
Credit 6 Access to Open Space
SUSTAINABLE SITES (SS)
Credit 1 Site Stewardship
1.1 Erosion
1.2 Minimize Disturbed Area of Site
Credit 2 Landscaping
2.1 No Invasive Plants
2.2 Basic Landscape Design
2.3 Limit Conventional Turf
84
2.4 Drought Tolerant Plants

2.5 Reduce Overall Irrigation Demand by at Least 20%
Credit 3 Local Heat Island Effects
Credit 4 Surface Water Management
4.1 Permeable Lot
4.2 Permanent Erosion Controls
4.3 Management of Run-off from Roof
Credit 5 Nontoxic Pest Control
Credit 6 Compact Development
6.1 Moderate Density
6.2 High Density
6.3 Very High Density
WATER EFFICIENCY (WE)
Credit 1 Water Reuse
1.1 Rainwater Harvesting System
1.2 Graywater Reuse System
1.3 Use of Municipal Recycled Water System
Credit 2 Irrigation System
2.1 High Efficiency Irrigation System
2.2 Third Party Inspection
2.3 Reduce Overall Irrigation Demand by at Least 45%
Credit 3 Indoor Water Use
3.1 High-Efficiency Fixtures and Fittings
3.2 Very High-Efficiency Fixtures and Fittings
ENERGY AND ATMOSPHERE (EA)
Credit 1 Optimize Energy Performance
1.1 Performance of ENERGY STAR for Homes
1.2 Exceptional Energy Performance
Credit 2 Insulation
2.1 Basic Insulation
2.2 Enhanced Insulation
Credit 3 Air Infiltration
3.1 Reduced Envelope Leakage
3.2 Greatly Reduced Envelope Leakage
3.3 Minimal Envelope Leakage
Credit 4 Windows
4.1 Good Windows
4.2 Exceptional Windows
Credit 5 Heating and Cooling Distribution System
5.1 Reduced Distribution Losses
5.2 Greatly Reduced Distribution Losses
5.3 Minimal Distribution Losses
85
Credit 6 Space Heating and Cooling Equipment

6.1 Good HVAC Design and Installation
6.2 High-Efficiency HVAC
6.3 Very High-Efficiency HVAC
Credit 7 Water Heating
7.1 Efficient Hot water Distribution
7.2 Pipe Insulation
Credit 8 Lighting
8.1 ENERGY STAR Lights
8.2 Improved Lighting
8.3 Advanced Lighting Package
Credit 9 Appliances
9.1 High-Efficiency Appliances
9.2 Water-Efficient Clothes Washer
Credit 10 Renewable Energy System
Credit 11 Residential Refrigerant Management
11.1 Refrigerant Charge Test
11.2 Appropriate HVAC Refrigerants
MATERIALS AND RESOURCES (MR)
Credit 1Material-Efficient Framing
1.1 Framing Order Waste Factor Limit
1.2 Detailed Framing Documents
1.3 Detailed Cut List and Lumber Order
1.4 Framing Efficiencies
1.5 Off-Site Fabrication
Credit 2 Environmentally Preferable Products
2.1 FSC Certified Tropical Wood
2.2 Environmentally Preferable Products
Credit 3 Waste Management
3.1 Construction Waste Management Planning
3.2 Construction Waste Reduction
INDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY (EQ)
Credit 1 ENERGY STAR with IAP (Indoor Air Package)
Credit 2 Combustion Venting
2.1 Basic Combustion Venting Measures
2.2 Enhanced Combustion Venting Measures
Credit 3 Moisture Load Control
Credit 4 Outdoor Air Ventilation
4.1 Basic Outdoor Air Ventilation
4.2 Enhanced Outdoor Air Ventilation
4.3 Third-Party Performance Testing
Credit 5 Local Exhaust
86
5.1 Basic Local Exhaust

5.2 Enhanced Local Exhaust
5.3 Third-Party Performance Testing
Credit 6 Distribution of Space
6.1 Room-by-Room Load Calculations
6.2 Return Air Flow/Room by Room Controls
6.3 Third-Party Performance Testing/Multiple Zones
Credit 7 Air Filtering
7.1 Good Filters
7.2 Better Filters
7.3 Best Filters
Credit 8 Contaminant Control
8.1 Indoor Contaminant Control During Construction
8.2 Indoor Contaminant Control
8.3 Preoccupancy Flush
Credit 9 Radon Protection
9.1 Radon-Resistant Construction in High-Risk Areas
9.2 Radon-Resistant Construction in Moderate-Risk Areas
Credit 10 Garage Pollutant Protection
10.1 No HVAC in Garage
10.2 Minimize Pollutants from Garage
10.3 Exhaust Fan in Garage
AWARENESS AND EDUCATION (AE)
Credit 1 Education of the Homeowner or Tenant
1.1 Basic Operations Training
1.2 Enhanced Training
1.3 Public Awareness
Credit 2 Education of Building Manager
87
APPENDIX C
OVERVIEW OF NAHB MODEL GREEN HOME BUILDING STANDARD
NAHB Model Green Home Building Guidelines Version 2006
Section 1 LOT DESIGN, PREPARATION, AND DEVELOPMENT
1.1 Select the Site
1.2 Identify Goals With Your Team
1.3 Design the Site
1.4 Develop the Site
1.5 Innovative Options
Section 2 RESOURCE EFFICIENCY
2.1 Reduce Quantity of Materials and Waste
2.2 Enhance Durability and Reduce Maintenance
2.3 Reuse Materials
2.4 Use Recycled Content Materials
2.5 Recycle Waste Materials During Construction
2.6 Use Renewable Materials
2.7 Use Resource-Efficient Materials
Section 3 ENERGY EFFICIENCY
3.1 Implement an Integrated and Comprehensive Approach to Energy-Efficient Design of
Building Site, Building Envelope, and Mechanical Space Conditioning Systems
3.2 Performance Path
3.3 Prescriptive Path
3.3.5 Renewable Energy/Solar Heating and Cooling
3.3.7 Innovative Options
Section 4 WATER EFFICIENCY
4.1 Indoor/Outdoor Water Use
Section 5 INDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
5.1 Minimize Potential Sources of Pollutants
5.2 Manage Potential Pollutants Generated in the Home
5.3 Moisture Management (Vapor, Rainwater, Plumbing, HVAC)
88
APPENDIX D
FLORIDA GREEN HOME BUILDING CERTIFICATION STANDARD
Florida Green Home Designation Standard of the FGBC, Version 6.0
Category 1: ENERGY
E1
Ratings
E2
Design, Finishes, Amenities
Category 2: WATER
W1
Fixtures
W2
Graywater Reuse
W3
Rainwater Harvesting
W4
Reclaimed Water Use
W5
Installed Landscape
W6
Installed Irrigation
Category 3: LOT CHOICE
Category 4: SITE
S1
Native Tree and Plant Preservation
S2
On-Site Use of Cleared Materials
S3
Develop an Erosion Control Site Plan
S4
Drainage / Retention
Category 5: HEALTH
H1
Combustion
H2
Moisture Control
H3
Source Control
H4
Cleanability
H5
Barrier Free Entrance
H6
Ventilation
Category 6: MATERIALS
M1
Components
M2
Waste Reduction
M3
Durability
Category 7: DISASTER MITIGATION
DM1 Hurricane (wind, rain, storm surge)
DM2 Flood
DM3 Wild Fire
DM4 Termites
89
Category 8: GENERAL
G1
Small House Credit
G2
Adaptability
G3
Renewable Power Generation
G4
Remodel
G5
Other
90
APPENDIX E
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
Analyzed Data
Experience
Table E-1. Data based on experience with sustainable practices using a chi-squared test between
Developers Builders
Chi(D)
(B)
Squared D.F.
Question
B-D
(B-D)^2
Q1. What level of experience
does your company have in
green or sustainable building?
4.286
3.625
-0.661
0.437
0.102
Q3. Is (are) the primary

designer(s) experienced with
green or sustainable practices?
4.670
3.625
-1.045
1.092
0.234
Q4. Is the primary contractor

experienced with green or
sustainable practices?
4.286
4.000
-0.286
0.082
0.019
0.355
Total
7.81 at 95% with 3
D.F.
7.81 > 0.355
Importance
Table E-2. Data based on importance of sustainable concepts and techniques with chi-squared
test between builders and developers
Developers
Builders
ChiQuestion
B-D
(B-D)^2
D.F.
(D)
(B)
Squared
your company is
green design or
4.143
4.000
-0.143
0.020
0.005
1
sustainable and
building sustainable
homes?
Total
0.005
1
3.84 at 95% with 1
3.84 > 0.005
D.F.
91
Table E-3. Data based on ranking of importance on sustainable concepts and techniques during
the design phase with chi-squared test between builders and developers
Q22.
Developers
Builders
ChiAnswer Options
(D)
(B)
B-D
(B-D)^2 Squared
D.F.
Aesthetically Pleasing
2.17
2.00
-0.170
0.029
0.013
1
Design
Energy/Sustainable
Certified Designer (i.e.
LEED-AP)
5.57
5.50
-0.070
0.005
0.001
Low initial costs
3.60
2.71
-0.890
0.792
0.220
Energy Rating System

Approved (i.e. LEEDH Gold)
4.67
4.63
-0.040
0.002
0.000
Energy Efficient
Design
3.00
2.75
-0.250
0.063
0.021
Marketable Design
1.14
2.14
1.000
1.000
0.877
0.877
Total
12.6 at 95% with 6
D.F.
92
12.6 > 0.877
the construction phase with chi-squared test between builders and developers
Q23.
Developers
Builders
ChiAnswer Options
(D)
(B)
B-D
(B-D)^2 Squared
D.F.
Energy/Sustainable
Certified Contractor
(i.e. LEED-AP)
4.33
5.14
0.810
0.656
0.152
Energy Rating System

Approved (i.e. LEEDH Gold, local or state
program)
3.86
4.57
0.710
0.504
0.131
Cost
1.33
1.43
0.100
0.010
0.008
Constructability
1.67
2.14
0.470
0.221
0.132
Energy Efficient
Building
3.00
2.50
-0.500
0.250
0.083
0.083
Total
11.1 at 95% with 5
D.F.
93
11.1 > 0.083
the marketing phase with chi-squared test between builders and developers
Q24.
Developers
Builders
ChiAnswer Options
(D)
(B)
B-D
(B-D)^2
Squared
D.F.
Options and Extras
Energy Efficiency
of Entire Building
Energy Efficient
Appliances
Energy Rating
System Approved
(i.e. LEED-H Gold,
local or state
program)
3.40
3.00
-0.400
0.160
0.047
4.43
4.33
-0.100
0.010
0.002
4.50
4.67
0.170
0.029
0.006
5.67
5.86
0.190
0.036
0.006
0.006
Total
19.7 at 95% with 4
D.F.
94
19.7 > 0.006
Opinion
Table E-6. Raw data based on opinion of sustainable concepts and techniques with chi-squared
Developers Builders
ChiQuestion
B-D
(B-D)^2
D.F.
(D)
(B)
Squared
Q5. Do you agree that your
company actively incorporates
4.714
4.250
-0.464
0.216
0.046
1
green or sustainable design?
Q6. Do you agree that green or
sustainable practices equate to
4.857
4.375
-0.482
0.232
0.048
1
increased costs?
sustainable designs are more
3.286
2.625
-0.661
0.437
0.133
1
sustainable homes should be
4.143
3.500
-0.643
0.413
0.100
1
sold at a premium?
Q9. Do you agree there is a
2.857
2.875
0.018
0.000
0.000
1
growing demand for green or
sustainable homes?
consumer demand for
sustainable homes has affected
3.571
3.000
-0.571
0.327
0.091
1
construction and/or design of
your homes?
Q14. Do you agree there is
increased confusion over which
4.286
4.375
0.089
0.008
0.002
1
green standards to use?
Q15. Does your company agree
that rating systems are worth
2.857
2.875
0.018
0.000
0.000
1
the extra costs?
Q18. Do you agree that there is
a consumer preference of green
or sustainable homes over
2.571
2.500
-0.071
0.005
0.002
1
traditionally or non-green
homes?
Q19. Green or sustainable
design and/or construction help
2.714
2.375
-0.339
0.115
0.042
1
you sell your homes faster.
Q20. Green or sustainable
design and/or construction
4.429
4.125
-0.304
0.092
0.021
1
benefit the environment.
Total
0.485
11
19.7 at 95% with
19.7 > 0.485
11 D.F.
95
Familiarity
Table E-7. Data based on familiarity with sustainable practices with chi-squared test between
Developers Builders
(BChiQuestion
B-D
D.F.
(D)
(B)
D)^2
Squared
your company with the
U.S. Green Building
Councils (USGBC)
4.000
3.375
-0.625
0.391
0.098
1
Leadership in Energy
and Environmental
Design for Homes
(LEED-H)?
your company with the
National Association of
3.429
3.125
-0.304
0.092
0.027
1
Home Builders
(NAHB) Green
Building Standard?
your company with
4.429
4.625
0.196
0.039
0.009
1
Energy Star brand (i.e.
appliances, HVAC)?
Total
7.81 at 95% with
3 D.F.
96
0.133
7.81 > 0.133
Table E-8. Data based on familiarity with sustainable concepts and techniques with chi-squared
Q21.
Developers Builders
ChiB-D
(B-D)^2
D.F.
Answer Options
(D)
(B)
Squared
Site Selection
100%
75%
-25.0
625.0
6.3
1
Minimal Disturbance to
100
50
-50.0
2500.0
25.0
1
surrounding Areas
100
25
-75.0
5625.0
56.3
1
Drought tolerant plants
100
87.5
-12.5
156.3
1.6
1
and landscaping design
Drip Irrigation
100
75
-25
625.0
6.3
1
Xeriscaping
85.7
75
-10.7
114.5
1.3
1
Permeable Pavement
85.7
50
-35.7
1274.5
14.9
1
Erosion Control
85.7
37.5
-48.2
2323.2
27.1
1
Reduction of Heat Island
71.4
12.5
-58.9
3469.2
48.6
1
Effects
57.1
62.5
5.4
29.2
0.5
1
Graywater Reuse
85.7
50
-35.7
1274.5
14.9
1
85.7
100
14.3
204.5
2.4
1
85.7
37.5
-48.2
2323.2
27.1
1
SIPs
28.6
25
-3.6
13.0
0.5
1
Value Engineering
85.7
50
-35.7
1274.5
14.9
1
Green Label
28.6
37.5
8.9
79.2
2.8
1
Refrigerant Management
57.1
50
-7.1
50.4
0.9
1
System
Solar Water Heating
42.9
62.5
19.6
384.2
9.0
1
System
Low-E Glass
85.7
100
14.3
204.5
2.4
1
Rainwater Collection
100
37.5
-62.5
3906.3
39.1
1
Systems
FSC Certified Wood
57.1
12.5
-44.6
1989.2
34.8
1
Renewable Energy
42.9
37.5
-5.4
29.2
0.7
1
System
Passive Design
85.7
37.5
-48.2
2323.2
27.1
1
Construction Waste
100
50
-50
2500.0
25.0
1
Management
Photovoltaic Energy
71.4
75.0
3.6
13.0
0.2
1
Thermal Bridge
12.5
25.0
12.5
156.3
12.5
1
Vegetated Roof
42.9
12.5
-30.4
924.2
21.5
1
Rain Garden
71.4
12.5
-58.9
3469.2
48.6
1
97
Table E-8. Continued.

Q21.
Answer Options
Compact Development
Density
Pipe Insulation
Daylighting
Framing Efficiency
Energy Modeling
Solar Orientation
VOCs
Green Globes
Carbon Dioxide
Monitoring
Use of ReadilyRenewable materials
Radon Protection
Use of recycled or
salvaged materials
Developers
(D)
Builders
(B)
B-D
(B-D)^2
ChiSquared
D.F.
85.7%
75.0%
-10.7
114.5
1.3
71.4
71.4
57.1
71.4
85.7
57.1
0.0
50.0
37.5
75.0
62.5
62.5
62.5
25.0
-21.4
-33.9
17.9
-8.9
-23.2
5.4
25.0
458.0
1149.2
320.4
79.2
538.2
29.2
625.0
6.4
16.1
5.6
1.1
6.3
0.5
0.0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
28.6
37.5
8.9
79.2
2.8
71.4
62.5
-8.9
79.2
1.1
42.9
75.0
32.1
1030.4
24.0
71.4
62.5
-8.9
79.2
1.1
66.365
12
Total
55.8 at 95% with
40 D.F.
98
55.8 < 538.77
Frequency
Table E-9. Raw data based on frequency of sustainable concepts and techniques with chisquared test between builders and developers
Developers
Builders
ChiQuestion
B-D
(B-D)^2
D.F.
(D)
(B)
Squared
Q16. How often does
your company
actively use a rating
system for assessing
design?
4.571
3.125
-1.446
2.092
0.458
Q17. How often does

your company
actively train its
employees in green
techniques?
4.000
2.250
-1.750
3.063
0.766
1.223
Total
5.99 at 95% with 2
D.F.
99
5.991 > 1.223
LIST OF REFERENCES
American Hydrotech Inc. (2008). Bringing green roofs to a whole new level. Retrieved
September 20, 2008, from http://hydrotechusa.com.
Barista, D. (2008). CSI's Green Format: A new tool in green product evaluation. Building
Design & Construction, 49(11), 3. Retrieved from ProQuest database.
Brandon, P.S. (1999). Sustainability in management and organization: the key issues? Building
Research and Information, 27(6), 390396.
Brown, G. and DeKay, M. (2001). Sun, Wind, & Light (2nd ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Cassidy, R. (2008). 10 ways you can hold down project costs. Building Design & Construction,
49(1), 9. Retrieved from ProQuest database.
Cassidy, R. (2008). Beware of hype on the value of green buildings. Building Design &
Construction, 49(9), 7. Retrieved from ProQuest database.
Chiras, C. (2003). Nuts + bolts--tapping into the sun. Natural Home. Retrieved March 20, 2008,
from http://www.naturalhomemagazine.com/Remodeling-Redecorating/2003-03-01/Nuts-Bolts.aspx.
Construction Industry Institute (CII). (2006). White Paper Idea #43. Retrieved September 21,
2008, from the University of Texas at Austin, Construction Industry Institute:
http://construction-institute.org/scriptcontent/btsc-pubs/CII-BTSC-43.doc.
Cullen, C. (2008). Turner Construction Company: reaching out to the community. Building
Design & Construction, 49(4), 66. Retrieved from ABI/INFORM Global database.
Edwards, B. ed. (2003). Green Buildings Pay. New York: Spoon Press.
FGBC. (2009). Green Home Designation Standard. Retrieved August 5, 2009, from
http://www.floridagreenbuilding.org/files/1/file/HomeV6Standard.pdf.
Kats, G. H. (2003). The Costs and Financial Benefits of Green Buildings. Retrieved September
20, 2008, from http://www.cap-e.com/ewebeditpro/items/O59F3259.pdf.
Kibert, C.J. (2008). Sustainable Architecture (2nd ed.). Hoboken: Wiley & Sons.
Malin, N. (2000). The cost of green materials. Building Research & Information, 28(5 & 6),
408 412. Retrieved from Informaworld.
Mendler, S., Odell, W., and Lazarus, M.A. (2006). The HOK Guidebook to Sustainable
Design(2nd ed). New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Morley, M. (2000, September). What are structural insulated panels? Fine Home Building.
Retrieved September 20, 2008, from http://www.finehomebuilding.com/howto/articles/structural-insulated-panels.aspx.
100
NAHB. (2008). NAHB National Green Building Program. Retrieved August 2, 2009, from
http://www.nahbgreen.org.
NAHB. (2006). NAHB Model Green Home Building Guidelines. Retrieved August 2, 2009, from
http://www.nahbgreen.org/content/pdf/nahb_guidelines.pdf.
NAHB/ICC. (2009). National Green Building Standard. Retrieved August 2, 2009, from
http://www.nahbgreen.org/Guidelines/ansistandard.aspx.
NAHB Research Center. (2008). Passive solar design. Retrieved September 20, 2008, from
http://www.toolbase.org/ToolbaseResources/level4DG.aspx?ContentDetailID=1288&
BucketID=4&CategoryID=10.
Nelms, C. E., Russell, A. D., and Lence, B. J. (2007). Assessing the performance of sustainable
technologies: a framework and its application, Building Research & Information, 35(3),
237 251. Retrieved from Informaworld database.
Net-Zero Energy Home Coalition. (2009). What is a Net-Zero Energy Home? Retrieved
September 20, 2008, from http://www.netzeroenergyhome.ca/.
Oak Ridge National Laboratory. (2008). Insulation: insulating a new house (do it right the first
time). Retrieved September 20, 2008, from
http://www.taunton.com/finehomebuilding/how-to/articles/structural-insulatedpanels.aspx.
Parker, D. and Dunlop, J. (1994). Solar photovoltaic air conditioning of residential buildings.
Retrieved September 20, 2008, from http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/en/publications/html/FSECRR-118-94/index.htm.
Progress Energy. (2008). R-values. Retrieved September 20, 2008, from http://www.progressenergy.com/custservice/carres/billtoolkit/rvalues.asp.
RS Means. (2002). Green Building: Project Planning & Cost Estimating. Massachusetts: Reed
Construction Data.
Sassi, P. (2006). Strategies for Sustainable Architecture. New York: Taylor & Francis, Inc.
Schendler, S. and Udall, R. (2005) LEED is brokenLets fix it. Retrieved August 2, 2009,
from http://www.aspensnowmass.com/environment/images/LEEDisBroken.pdf.
U.S. Department of Energy. (2006). Building America Residential System Research Results:
Achieving 30% Whole house energy Savings Level in Hot-Dry and Mixed-Dry Climates.
Retrieved June 5, 2009, from http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy07osti/39744.pdf.
U.S. Department of Energy. (2009). Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. Retrieved
August 1, 2009, from
http://www.energysavers.gov/your_home/insulation_airsealing/index.cfm/mytopic=11340.
101
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2008). Reducing Stormwater Costs through Low Impact
Development (LID) Strategies and Practices. Retrieved August 5, 2009, from
http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/lid/costs07/documents/reducingstormwatercosts.pdf.
USGBC. (2008). LEED for Homes Rating System. Retrieved August 20, 2009, from
http://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=3638.
USGBC. (2008). What is LEED? Retrieved August 20, 2009, from
http://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CategoryID=19.
Wu, D., Chan, E.H., and Shen, L. (2003). Scoring System for Measuring Contractors
Environmental Performance. Journal of Construction Research, 5(1), 159 - 167.
102
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
Kristen Hlad, the only child of Carol Anne and Gregory Michael Hlad, was born in
Dunedin, Florida. In 2001, she graduated cum laude from Palm Harbor University High School
International Baccalaureate program. She received her Bachelor of Design with a major in
Architecture from the University of Florida, as well as, a minor in mass communication studies
in May 2006. Kristen then went on to earn a Master of Architecture from the University of
Florida in May 2008 and a Master of Science in Building Construction in December 2009. She
was LEED-AP certified in May 2008.
103

Hlad K

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Hlad K

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

SUSTAINABILE PRACTICES IN RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS

A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL

2009 Kristen Hlad

To my husband and my parents

LITERATURE REVIEW .......................................................................................................16

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ...........................................................................................30

SUSTAINABLE AND RESIDENTIAL PRACTICES SURVEY.........................................75

OVERVIEW OF LEED-H .....................................................................................................84

OVERVIEW OF NAHB MODEL GREEN HOME BUILDING STANDARD ...................88

NAHB Model Green Home Building Guidelines Version 2006 ............................................88

FLORIDA GREEN HOME BUILDING CERTIFICATION STANDARD..........................89

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS ..................................................................................................91

Responses to Likert scale questions related to experience in sustainable practices for

Responses to Likert scale questions related to experience in sustainable practices for

Responses to Likert scale questions related to importance of sustainable practices for

Responses for Likert scale questions related on importance in sustainable practices

Responses related to ranking of importance of sustainable practices during design

Rating of importance of sustainable practices against other factors during the

Responses related to ranking of importance of sustainable practices during

Responses related to ranking of importance of sustainable practices during the

Responses to Likert scale questions related to opinion of sustainable practices for

Responses to Likert scale questions related to familiarity with sustainable practices

Responses to Likert scale questions related to familiarity with sustainable practices

Responses to Likert scale questions related to frequency of use of sustainable

Responses to Likert scale questions related to frequency of use of sustainable

Data based on importance of sustainable concepts and techniques with chi-squared

Data based on ranking of importance on sustainable concepts and techniques during

Data based on ranking of importance on sustainable concepts and techniques during

Data based on ranking of importance on sustainable concepts and techniques during

Three spheres of sustainability...........................................................................................17

Respondents position within their company, as a percentage of total typical

Ranking of importance of sustainable practices and concepts during the construction

Ranking of importance of sustainable practices and concepts during the marketing

Percentage of green building concepts and practices familiar to typical respondents.......49

American National Standards Institute

Builders Association of North Central Florida

Building for Environmental and Economic Sustainability

Building Management Systems

Florida Green Building Coalitions Green Home Designation Standard

Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning Systems

International Energy Conservation Code

International Residential Code

Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design Green Building Rating

LEED Professional Accreditation distinguishes building professionals

Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design Green Building Rating

Net-Zero Energy Home

National Association of Home Builders

Structurally Insulated Panels

Volatile Organic Compounds

United States Green Building Council

Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School

Lot and Site

Site Design and

Overall experience with green building techniques, concepts, and practices.

Overall familiarity with green building concepts, techniques, or products.

Frequency of application of sustainable building concepts, techniques, or products in the

A final result was based from the procedures mentioned.

Experience with sustainable practices and concepts;

Familiarity with sustainable techniques;

Experience with Sustainable Practices

3=Somewhat Experienced; 4= Experienced; 5=Very Experienced) as in Table 4-2. The

Familiarity with Sustainable Practices

Low initial costs