by Linda Ramey, Ph. D. Principal, Thumbprint Endeavors LLC

In case you have not noticed, there are many who are not on board with the impact of humans on the environment.  And while the scientific evidence is growing by the volumes, still there are those who say we need to do more studies, or worse yet, nothing at all to curb our carbon-based fuel consumption.  Our built environment and transportation needs to sustain our western lifestyle, is well, unsustainable.  So, where is the weak link?  Communication.  Education.  The job of taking the data and putting that information into a convincing format to not only educate but to educate those who are facing backwards or still on the fence. 

In his Keynote talk at the recent Ecobuild Conference, Robert A. Peck, Commissioner, Public Buildings Service for Bob Peckthe U.S. General Services Administration made the point clearly – if we put the same building occupants, with their same habits back into even the Greenest of buildings, we will get less than optimal results. If we want to achieve the results we expect, it will take more than simply constructing more LEED-certified buildings. We need what might be termed Green Coaches, to prod or lead, which ever the case may be, to ensure that peoples’ behaviors are in line with the most sustainable use of resources, energy and space.

We need to make the most compelling case and convincing arguments, using some psychology to effect long term thinking on the humans and environmental impacts.  Not just data, but wording that swaying people’s thinking and behaviors. How do we convince someone that it is truly in everyone (and everything’s) best interest to do this?  We need to use all the tools in the toolbox and people who know how to effectively use those educational tools.  One example of a type of tool we need in educating would be to employ a type of environmental psychology to achieve results.  Dr. McKenzie-Mohr and other researchers in this field provide tremendous insights about where we have missed the mark on the environment and where we need to steer the message if we are to reach the intended audience and convince them to get onboard.  More on “Fostering Sustainable Behavior” is available at http://www.cbsm.com.

Another source of information on this topic would be the newly released publication (FREE download!) from the Center for Research on Environmental Decisions at Columbia University. “The Psychology of Climate Change Communication A Guide for Scientists, Journalists, Educators, Political Aides, and the Interested Public”, (www.CRED.Columbia.edu/guide).  Both of these sources represent tools for what I am calling a Green Coach – someone who can take the findings in the reports and explain the importance of the data in everyday terms.

Think of it this way.  We have all had the experience of sitting through a presentation that appears to be prepared for a different audience.  Or perhaps it was a professor who knew everything there was to know about a topic, except how to explain it to others.  It felt like we were in the wrong room or the presenter really just missed the mark and did not think through or know what we were there to learn.  Maybe it was the style, maybe it was the content, maybe it sailed over our heads or it was too simple, too complex or not enough detail to get at what needed to be said.  That is the case too often today.  For years the information and the warnings regarding climate change have been posted.  Some are heeding the advice.  Others are not.  The data has not changed (indeed, it is now more drastic than previously thought according to a recent MIT study) but the message has not been overwhelmingly heard.

Back to the toolbox, we need a new format, a new on-target presentation.  And that is where the Green Coaches come in.  They can reach out, connect with our audience.  Yes, we need to present the facts, the findings of the studies but the language and the wording needs to relate the information while addressing the “what does this have to do with me?” questions.   Those personal connections with the general public need to be made to help them to see the impact of their daily decisions.   Scientists, engineers, architects have the much needed data and answers to problems, but sometimes they need to work with those skilled in crafting a message that reaches and educates the building users and the general public.

Where is the American public getting their information today – TV, newspapers, the web, radio talk shows, tabloids?  Reporting by the media outlets are not effectively getting the job done.  By their very nature, they display attention-grabbing headlines and tease with media blurbs.   Newspaper and popular magazine articles get cut short, often pairing informed scientific statements with un- or ill-informed controversial opinions, implying both as having equal merit.  Those who are unsophisticated media consumers readers and listeners are often confused, disbelieving that any real answers are out there.  With this, the general public is left doubting or saying that they still don’t know for sure what the experts are talking about.  We also have the preachers – but unfortunately they often speak with opposing voices.  With this torrent of technical information (and misinformation), perhaps we need an interpreter, a Green Coach to decipher and spell it out. 

We need someone who can take the information and translate it to speak to the general public.  Someone who can help to reformat the presentation of the data from those in the know (scientists, engineers, building design, energy and resource conservation experts) and put it into easy to understand language, with the psychological twist that targets the audience we have not been able to reach.  We need what educators call pedagogy.  That means the linkage between the subject matter knowledge and how to facilitate the learning by breaking it down.  Providing a step by step, play by play educational guide for the technical information so it can be easily grasped by novices – that coach who can call the plays to get the sustainable behaviors that secure the end Green result.

In addition to providing other Green Building services, this role of being “Green Coaches”, is what we do at Thumbprint Endeavors.  We believe that educating and translating to help others more clearly understand data and reports is the often the missing link.  Our Thumbprint Endeavors Team provides this link by developing the personal connections for building occupants that result in their understanding and commitment. Clearly communicating and educating clients provides the desired sustainable behavior changes needed for LEED buildings to achieve the Green results that the designers and owners intend. 

Linda Ramey, Ph. D. Linda Ramey, Ph.D.can be reached for more information at: www.thumbprintendeavors.com.

The Institute of Green Professionals (IGP) just released a member survey indicating reasons why its membership has grown faster than the initial years of USGBG - an increase of over 530 members in its first 12 months!  Plus, over 100 of the world's most influential sustainability leaders are members. 

The Institute of Green Professionals is the only education and credentialing membership organization for sustainable development professionals (architects, engineers, land planners, landscape architects, accountants, appraisers, attorneys, IAQ and CSR experts) and others admitted by special application/consideration.  IGP confers the Fellow (FIGP) and Member (MIGP) professional designations to qualified individuals.

The recent Member survey indicates the top five (5) reasons for becoming a designated member of IGP:

#1.  The designation is a tool to get clients aware of my specialty expertise in sustainability.   A sample comment from an IGP member:  "I have been generally recognized as an architect who considers sustainability factors in all my projects, but the designation has been an effective marketing tool to highlight this and to more effectively reach out to a wider client base."

#2.  Personal satisfaction from an independent acknowledgement of my skills.  A sample comment from an IGP member:  " I have been a designated professional (P.Eng) for many years and this respected designation is both a reaffirmation and recognition of my specialty skills."

#3.  The IGP designation is a competitive advantage.  A sample comment from an IGP member:  "In the increasingly fuzzy world of so-called experts in so many areas of sustainability, this is the one designation that has clear standards, ethics and required experience and education - as IGP becomes more recognized, the comeptitive advantage of members will increase - I got one new client as a direct result of describing my new designation in my company newsletter."

#4.   Value for the money.  A sample comment from an IGP member:  "I took advantage of the recent membership special at $109 . . .  what a deal! This included my two courses for my FIGP designation, I wrote an article for their blog that got me lots of attention, and the membership certificate is beautiful."

#5.   Chance of a better job position.   A sample comment from an IGP member:  "Professional certification, beyond my primary designation as an AICP, shows to an employer that I go beyond the regular guy and that my skills are better, that they have been tested by another independent body and that I am the better choice as an employee."

The IGP survey was completed by 72% of all members as of 2/1/2010 (excluding Honorary Fellows).  The top five responses (above) are reported in order of member importance/response.  

If you are an IGP member and you would like to make an additonal comment about IGP and why you are a member, please send along. 

Grant W. Austin, M.S., MAI, MRICS
on behalf of the IGP Board of Directors

Before you get the entire book, you may want to look at a summary of the book's key conclusions, found in an article entitled Ten Principles for Sustainable Property Underwriting and Valuation  - this is free in the "Articles" section of the Green Building Finance Consortium.

The entire book Value Beyond Cost Savings is available free - go to the home page of Green Building Finance Consortium.  Let me know what you think - Grant.

I anticipate that most readers will scan this posting and then handily reject it as just "too academic" and lacking professional applicability.   It is more conceptual than the typical meal that is fed to you as a sustainability professional, however, it addresses what may be a much more important issue - at what level humankind will accept sustainability?  At what level will we naturally accept our relationship to nature and the physical world?   Give it a try and let me know what you think.  COMING SOON - surprising news on the tremendous growth of MIGP (Member) and FIGP (Fellow) designated sustainability professionals at the Institute of Green Professionals! 

 Discussion of "Biophilia"

by A. Vernon Woodworth, AIA, LEED AP

The human being is a complex organism with a discriminating consciousness capable of abstract thought, language, and a high degree of technical manipulation of our physical surroundings.  These abilities, along with limitless ambition and imagination, have led to a condition of alienation from our instincts and environment.  Our science, technologies, political systems, belief systems, and patterns of consumption have all evolved to reinforce a duality between self and object, figure and ground, man and nature.  Despite unprecedented material resources and technical ability modern society has led to a sense of alienation and emptiness that has left many wondering where we are headed.  The emergence of radical fundamentalist beliefs, irresponsible economic practices on the part of major corporations, and ongoing evidence of catastrophic environmental collapse all suggest that the prevailing worldview is nearing its denouement, a dramatic moment in the evolution of our species. 

The new science of ecology, developed in the middle of the 20^th C. to explore the interrelationships between species and their environments, began a process of shifting scientific exploration from isolated and ever-smaller phenomena to the systems of interactions that together form an ecosystem.  Simultaneously the relatively recent discipline of psychology began exploring the impact of relationships and environmental conditions on personal development.  It was a psychologist, Erich Fromm, who coined the term “biophilia” to describe a fundamental human emotion.  Fromm was trained as both a social psychologist and a psychoanalyst and held an optimistic view of humanity’s ability to overcome the guilt, alienation, and loss that accompany the development of consciousness.  In his “Humanist Credo” Fromm wrote “I believe that the man choosing progress can find a new unity through the development of all his human forces, which are produced in three orientations.  These can be presented separately or together: biophilia, love for humanity and nature, and independence and freedom”[1]. 

The etymology of the term “biophilia” combines “bio-“ (life) with “-philia” (friendship, abiding relationship).  The Harvard natural scientist E. O. (Edward Osborne) Wilson has explored a “biophilia hypothesis” in several books and papers.  This hypothesis suggests an instinctual connection to nature that informs our emotional being at its deepest level.  In one talk Wilson asks “how could our relation to nature, on which survival depended minute by minute for millions of years, not in some way be reflected in the rules of cognitive development that generate the human mind?”[2].  

In this same talk Wilson mentions totem worship and the power of place as two examples of biophilia.  Totemic culture establishes descent of the family or clan from an animal or nature spirit ancestor as the basis of personal, familial and cultural identity.  Kinship is the ultimate human value expressing the network of relationships upon which society and personality are largely based.  By claiming kinship with an animal or nature spirit a bond is declared with the animate dimension of the natural world.  The phenomenon of totemism, observed in primal societies worldwide, provides a clear example of the dynamic nature of biophilia in human culture. 

We have all experienced the power of certain places.  Waterfront locations are inherently peaceful while mountains and rivers can inspire awe.  The “dreamtime” mythology of the Australian aborigines describes the origins of natural features in terms of the deeds and exploits of prehistoric creatures who roamed the earth at the time of creation.  The aboriginal people, hunter-gatherers with little material culture, maintain their identity and sense of connection to their belief system by repeating the stories of the dreamtime and visiting the physical features where the vital energy of these mythological beings are manifest.  The dreamtime is an expression of the force of biophilia forming the essential motivating force in a primal human culture.  Other examples of belief systems that fall under the general category of “animism”[3] similarly express the dynamic of biophilia, whereby connection to the life force inherent in the natural world is maintained. 

As culture and technology evolved and cities were established human attitudes towards nature, along with religious belief systems, evolved as well.  The basis of worship and source of religious energy became increasingly remote from the natural world.  Deities lived on mountaintops or in ethereal realms rather than in rocks and streams.  Nature worship tended to become marginalized, especially in urban centers.  Increasingly nature became something to be tamed and subjugated.  The French sociologist and ethnologist Claude Levy-Bruhl used the term “participation mystique” to describe the psychological relationship of the “primitive mind” with nature.  Swiss psychologist Carl Jung used the phrase frequently as an equivalent of the psychological concept of “projection”, whereby contents belonging to the subject are recognized by that individual only in another.  When projections are withdrawn, Jung observed, the subject may react negatively towards the object which is no longer fulfilling his or her psychological needs.  A similar process can be ascribed to the evolving human relationship to the natural world as technology and cities developed.  Nature went from the sacred container of life to a wild force that required taming, being devalued and often destroyed. 

The epic of Gilgamesh, perhaps the oldest known written work of literary fiction, can be read as a parable of the evolving psychological relationship of man to nature.  Gilgamesh is a ruler of great power who has become distracted and bored with the business of civilization.  He befriends a half-wild figure named Enkidu who lives as an animal in intimate connection to nature and together they set off on a heroic quest, resulting in Enkidu’s death.  Gilgamesh is inconsolable and goes to great lengths to find the key to immortal life in hopes of reviving his companion, but all his efforts are in vain.  The tale is about more than the limits of human love and power.  This is a tale of the loss of our participation mystique with nature and the awareness of mortality that are the consequence of an independent consciousness. 

Although increasingly abstract and divorced from nature imagery religious belief systems continued to provide a sense of connection to sacred forces outside the individual self well into the historical era.  The Renaissance era introduced the age of Humanism, a philosophical system that rejected reference to supernatural forces.  As material progress has advanced, particularly since the time of the Industrial Revolution, the consequences on the natural world have become increasingly evident.  Our connection to the natural world that was complete and all-encompassing, then sacred, then tragically disrupted, has now become toxic, imperiling our world and ourselves. 

The current environmental crisis appears to have stirred the deep layers of our collective psyche where the instinctual force of biophilia resides.  Increased appreciation for the indigenous relationship to nature, countercultural belief systems that emphasize environmental stewardship, and the rising demand for sustainable practices in manufacturing, transportation, and the building sector are all symptoms of an emerging appreciation of our essential relationship to the natural world.  Ecology, once described as a “subversive science”[4], is rapidly replacing the dominant belief system with a new view of the world.  James Lovelock’s Gaia Hypothesis is a provocative expression of this new ecologicalJames Lovelock worldview.  By understanding all life as one interactive super-organism with self-regulatory properties the Gaia hypothesis provides a framework for a new understanding of our place on the planet earth.  This understanding, in concert with an awakening of our instinctual emotional connection to the life force (biophilia), may be our last best hope for avoiding total environmental calamity.  

 [1] Fromm, Erich The Heart of Man: Its Genius for Good and Evil, 1965. 

[2] Wilson, E. O. “Arousing Biophilia: A Conversation with E. O. Wilson” Williams College 1990.

[3] “The belief of animism is probably one of man's oldest beliefs, with its origin most likely dating to the Paleolithic age. From its earliest beginnings it was a belief that a soul or spirit existed in every object, even if it was inanimate. In a future state this soul or spirit would exist as part of an immaterial soul. The spirit, therefore, was thought to be universal.” From “Animism” by Alan G. Hefner and Virgilio Guimaraes. 

[4] Subversive Science: Essays Towards an Ecology of Man by Paul Shepard and Daniel McKinley (eds.) Boston Houghton Miflin Co. 1969.

______________

A. Vernon Woodworth, AIA, LEED AP, is a registered architect and code consultant with extensive experience in design, construction, code enforcement, and sustainability issues.  For the past 10 years Vernon has chaired the Boston Society of Architects’ Codes Committee, seeking to harmonize the Massachusetts State Building Code with the national model codes.  Vernon has also served as Chair of the AIA Codes Committee (2004) and was a member of the AIA’s Sustainability Task Group in 2006.  He has served on the AIA Board of Director’s Sustainability Discussion Group (SDiG) in 2007 and 2008, and on the AIA's Committee on the Environment (COTE) Advisory Group in 2009.  Vernon is the author of “From Ratings to Requirements: The Greening of Building Codes” which appeared in the 2007 ICC Building Safety Journal, and is a member of the International Code Council's Sustainable Buildings' Technology Committee, charged with producing the new International green Construction Code (IgCC).   Vernon currently teaches in both the Architecture and the Interior Design schools of the Boston Architectural College.

Corporate Sustainability is about to Change Forever…Are you Ready?
by Tad Radzinski

Over the past six months, two significant developments have put in motion a chain of events that will likely change the face of corporate sustainability forever.   Executive Order 13514, signed into effect by President Obama in November, mandates that government agencies must monitor and report their GHG output and comply with other environmental requirements including the reduction of waste and the use of “environmentally preferable materials, products, and services.”  Additionally, the order calls for 95% of all applicable federal contracts to also meet sustainability requirements.  

In the private corporate sector, in October, Wal-Mart, the world’s largest retailer, instituted the Wal-Mart Sustainability Index, a set of questions to assess the sustainability of suppliers with the goal of conducting a lifecycle analysis and ranking products according to environmental impact.  Wal-Mart rolled out the first phase of this project in October, and suppliers are already scrambling to participate in the Index and improve their sustainability score.

Between these two initiatives, the federal government with its more than a half trillion dollar procurement budget, and the Wal-mart index which all but guarantees preference to vendors who are implementing sustainable practices across an organization,  businesses and organizations of all sizes, across virtually all industries, will soon be feeling the pressure to kick-up sustainability efforts.

What does ALL this Mean for YOUR Business?

Most sustainability watchers agree:  these two developments are just a precursor to what is sure to be mandated sustainability targets in the private and public sector.  Given that, forward-thinking companies, whether they are federal or Wal-Mart vendors or not, are already incorporating more greening into the corporate culture.  From a corporate perspective, as sustainability moves from being an option to a mandate, sustainability will soon provide a key competitive advantage in the marketplace.  

So how can the average company get ready for what’s coming?  Here’s a short checklist of processes and actions to get you started:

• Hire or appoint a corporate sustainability officer.  Like any other critical business function, your sustainable program needs a leader.  The federal government agencies are now mandated to fulfill this job function and savvy private companies are doing the same.  One caveat:  if you appoint a sustainability officer with little or no expertise in the field, make sure he or she receives training or consulting services from an experienced and credible agency (e.g., see the courses and designations by the leading credentialing orgainzation for sustainability professionals, the Institute of Green Professionals).
• Establish a benchmark of your organization’s environmental, economic and social performance.  This is a critical step in establishing goals and developing a comprehensive sustainability program. Remember - if you can’t measure it, you can’t manage it.
• Establish cross-functional teams to develop sustainability programs for your organization. Pulling data from the aforementioned benchmarking exercise will help your team establish realistic and achievable goals.
• Set initial sustainability goals that will provide quick success.  Look for low/no cost initiatives to reduce environmental impact, such as waste reduction and recycling. This will help build momentum for the program and funding for the more arduous and long- term tasks.
• Provide sustainability training to all people in your organization as it relates to their specific job functions. The ultimate goal is to make sustainability a part of the culture.
• Once developed, communicate information on the sustainability program to your entire organization, from employees to customers and other stakeholders.
• If your company manufactures or supplies products it is important to understand and evaluate the products’ life cycle impacts. This can be done by completing or outsourcing a life cycle assessment (LCA). The LCA will be a valuable tool to help you make changes to the product or service and reduce environmental impacts and overall costs. 

---------------------------
Tad Radzinski is the cofounder and president of Sustainable Solutions Corporation, , a leading provider of corporate sustainability programs. Tad has over 24 years of diversified experience in engineering and sustainable design.  Prior to starting his company, Tad served as the Waste Minimization Program National Expert for the Environmental Protection Agency.

Tad has a B.S. in Mechanical Engineering from Drexel University (1991) and an M.S. in Water Resources and Environmental Engineering from Villanova University (1995). He serves as an Adjunct Professor at Villanova University teaching graduate classes in Principles of Sustainable Development and Industrial Pollution Prevention. Tad is a registered professional engineer in the state of Pennsylvania (1995), a LEED Accredited Professional (2001), and is trained as an ISO-14001 lead auditor.   Tad can be reached via email at tad@sustainablesolutionscorporation.com or by phone at 610-569-1047.

The Synergy of Sustainability and Mitigation
By Barry Reid, LEED AP

Those in the construction industry are fast learning that providing sustainably-built workplaces and homes is the smart thing to do socially, environmentally and economically. The industry is emerging from “green building” into an era where sustainability is table stakes, what you need to do just to get in the game. There is a commitment to implementing and abiding by practices that consistently conserve and efficiently use our limited resources.

However, an important and relevant adjunct to sustainability is sometimes overlooked by architects, builders and developers – although never by insurers and regulators. By choosing the correct products and building practices, architects and builders can mitigate or even reduce the adverse effects on buildings from severe water damage as a result of wind-driven rain or flooding brought on by severe storms and natural disasters.

Often, in at-risk areas, sustainable or green building practices end up conflicting with efforts that address mitigation, namely risk reduction to the building envelope and its long-term durability and performance. But sustainability and mitigation are synergistic concepts, and don’t need to be an either/or proposition. At Georgia-Pacific Gypsum, we’re suggesting that these two important issues can be addressed simultaneously at all stages of the building process – from design through final  onstruction.

This combined effort makes effective use of sustainable products and practices while also taking steps to mitigate or minimize weather-related problems that may occur during the construction process or post-occupancy. It can help make buildings more energy efficient with better indoor air quality, and prevent or reduce weather-related damage.

Lessons Learned, Courtesy of Mother Nature

When sustainability and mitigation are not implemented, there can be unpleasant consequences.

Consider the story of a fictional general contractor – we’ll call him Fred. Working with a design team of architects, consultants and sub-contractors, Fred has followed U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) LEED® guidelines in constructing a one-story suburban office center on a previously developed site. He was diligent in addressing the environmental and health impacts of the building in addition to reducing the building’s overall energy use and water consumption. His team reused building materials from other local projects, selecting materials with high recycled content from regional sources.

They installed low-water-use toilets and urinals. They selected low-VOC (Volatile Organic Compounds) materials, and designed the building to be energy efficient, using both mechanical and natural ventilation strategies incorporated with natural light planning.

Among the benefits of Fred’s design and construction practices were lower energy costs, thousands of gallons of water conserved and a healthy building where the workforce was proud to work.

Unfortunately, Fred did not take into account the building’s location and any natural events that might adversely impact the use, disaster resistance, performance and recovery of the building. And indeed, something bad happened that Fred hadn’t envisioned – a 100-year flood, bringing a torrent of water into the building that finally crested at the two-foot mark. Because the building’s walls were constructed with conventional, paper-faced drywall (used for its recycled content), and the walls were insulated with water-absorbing insulation that was not moisture- or mold-resistant, Fred had to replace thousands of square feet of saturated materials – all of which got a permanent home in a landfill.

Because mitigation measures were not considered in the construction phase, Fred’s well-intentioned sustainability efforts – that were an investment of an additional one to three percent of the building’s cost – ended up being anything but sustainable.

On the other end of the spectrum, a builder – let’s call her Jen – remodeled a Victorian home in an area that had recently been rezoned for office use in a coastal region recovering from a devastating hurricane. Jen was determined to closely follow regulations from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for building in special flood hazard areas.*

* To learn more about the FEMA requirements for construction in special flood hazard areas, visit www.gp.com/fema.

Jen diligently followed mitigation guidelines, including the use of construction materials highly resistant to flood damage throughout the structure. She employed dozens of mitigation measures, such as installing hurricane shutters on entry doors and on all windows. Her mantra was simple: keep the water out, construct assemblies that dry easily when wet and use moisture-forgiving building materials.

Unlike Fred, Jen didn’t give much thought to operational efficiencies or “green” methods. Her structure was a fortress that would likely survive a flood, but it was built to minimum standards, which resulted in an inefficient building with high utility costs and marginal comfort for future occupants.

Sustainability + Mitigation = Durability

These examples are fictional – but not unrealistic. Too often, building contractors and owners choose one or the other – sustainability or mitigation. A successful high-performance building should be built to last, but if sustainable practices and mitigation measures aren’t selected and implemented together, the building may not last its normal lifetime.

Sustainability is more than LEED ratings and green certifications. And mitigation is more than risk aversion. A building must be durable from both perspectives.  

Products that are durable and weather resistant are inherently sustainable, and they are at the center of Georgia-Pacific Gypsum’s product offerings – especially our Dens™ Brand of gypsum panels which are moisture-forgiving due to fiberglass mats and treated cores. They’re designed to mitigate the ill effects of exposure to water over the many stages of a building’s lifecycle.

If you incur costly re-building due to a weather event, sustainability has been defeated. Homes and buildings should be designed and built to last, and building to sustainability and mitigation standards isn’t difficult. Here are a couple of common examples that demonstrate the concept.

• Flooding can ruin the interior of a house or building. If you consider sustainability and mitigation at the beginning of the construction process, you’ll create a structure that just might survive flooding. Rigid or closed cell insulation prevents infiltration of water; borate treated lumber framing is water resistant; and non-paper faced drywall, such as DensArmor Plus® interior panels, resists moisture and mold-growth. With proper ventilation these construction materials allow for a drainable, dryable wall that resists mold growth. Even when the materials get wet, they will generally dry out without delaminating or developing mold – making mitigation a matter of time and “airing out” rather than replacing materials. (Note that in catastrophic situations, where polluted waters might sit for days inside structures, any type of gypsum panel and some other building materials would need to be evaluated for contamination by local building officials to determine if replacement is required.)

• Wind-driven rain can also damage structures when it penetrates openings in soffits, under roofs and other openings such as vents. Sustainability and mitigation are achieved with a tight enclosure that resists moisture. However, the products you use must resist moisture too, so any water that gets in dries out without damaging walls and ceilings.  

The answer is to create walls that have minimal openings to non-absorbent surfaces such as non-paper-faced drywall. Consider spray foam insulation at the knee walls/edge of the roof structure for your attic insulation strategies to stop wind-driven rain through the soffits.

Employing sustainability and mitigation together doesn’t compromise the energy efficiency of a tightly built structure, but allows the “forgiveness” needed for the building products to dry out.

Here are some additional tips to ensure that your projects properly blend sustainability and mitigation.

Think and plan beyond green. With architects, contractors, owners and insurers at the table from the beginning, sustainability and mitigation are assured. A thorough, upfront assessment of the short- and long-term impact of every aspect of a building’s design, construction, and materials used will lessen the economic, environmental and societal burdens that could occur later.

For instance, products that allow for draining, cleaning and drying are much better sustainability and mitigation choices than those that lead to tearing out and replacing in the wake of a severe weather event. Fiberglass mat panels – such as Dens™ Brand gypsum panels for use on exterior and interior surfaces of the building enclosure, behind tile in wet areas, in shafts and stairwells, and within a roofing system – can be used along with other water-resistant materials in wall cavities to provide a water management strategy that protects the value of the structure.

Incorporate green when building to resist weather events. Recurring costs like utility expenses and insurance premiums, as well as the long-term marketability of the structure, should all play a role in when and how you choose building products and processes.

Construction projects need to be infused with common sense as well as regulatory realities. A few pragmatic practices – like elevating structures in flood-prone regions and leaving the first floor for parking or entryways – can eliminate headaches later. The result will be well-designed and well-built structures that are durable, environmentally sound, economically relevant and socially significant.

In other words, with a bit of effort, you can achieve the synergy of sustainability and mitigation.

©2009 Georgia-Pacific Gypsum LLC. All rights reserved.

________

Barry Reid, LEED AP, has more than 20 years experience in the Building Products industry. He is Business Development Marketing Manager for Georgia-Pacific Gypsum LLC, whose current initiatives include integrating sustainable and building science principles into Georgia-Pacific’s building products to enhance the long- term performance of building enclosures in both residential and commercial construction.

In order to accommodate Abode Communities request to explore water saving measures for landscape irrigation, Khalifeh & Associates Inc. set out to design the first gray water system approved by the County of Los Angeles. 

At a time when Los Angeles is facing water shortages, Abode Communities (a non-profit developer specializing in sustainable low-income housing projects) was committed to invest the necessary resources for designing and installing an environmentally sound system that would reduce water consumption in their 70 unit senior housing project.

Khalifeh & Associates explored different ways to meet this challenge and found that the best way to reduce consumption would be to retain, filter, and reuse the discharged water from the project’s onsite laundry facility. The effluent released from the washing machines would be captured in a 750 gallon underground storage tank located nearby the Laundry room. Contractors bid this system to have an installed cost of $60,000 and project that landscape water consumption to be reduced by 90%, giving the system a 25 year payback. The water factors of standard front load clothes washers are 31.5 gallons per cycle, 1 hour cycle time, and there are a total of 7 washers installed onsite. The laundry facility operates 12 hours per day, making its’ water usage 2,646 gallons/day.

31.5 gallons per wash x 1hr cycle x 7 washing machines x 12 hour occupancy = 2,646 gallons per day

100% of the effluent released by the washing machines will be captured in an underground storage tank equipped with a small irrigation pump. The effluent from the washing machines require sufficient filtration and treatment before landscape application is done. Dependant on the type of soil, local codes require respective minimum square footage of irrigation area per 100 gallons of estimated daily gray water dispersal. The Soil sample taken by a Geotechnical engineer proved the soil to be in a category requiring 100ft² of landscape area per 100 gallons of gray water. This made the total required area 2,646ft².

2,646 gallons x 100ft² ÷ 100gallons = 2,646ft² of required landscape area

The actual total irrigation field onsite is just less than 10,000ft² which is considerably larger than the minimum required area per code. With this information along with plumbing system design drawings and additional calculations, Khalifeh & Associates sought to have their water saving system approved by the Los Angeles County Building and Safety plancheck department. Such a system had never been approved and thus review of the Khalifeh & Associates proposal was extremely thorough. The county wanted to know, without a doubt, that the system would function properly and that well thought out safety measures would be incorporated to address the possibility of system failure.

                After several attempts to obtain the county’s approval, the engineers at Khalifeh & Associates were able to convince the plancheck department that all of the county’s stringent requirements would be satisfied. Their approval makes the team at Khalifeh & Associates the first consulting engineers to design an approved gray water system in the county of Los Angeles for reducing water consumption and improving the environment.

Jack Khalifeh is president of Khalifeh & Associates Inc. Consulting Engineers, P.E., a multidisciplined, professional engineering firm specializing in mechanical, electrical, plumbing, fire protection, lighting, sustainable design, commissioning and energy audit services. Jack is a LEED-accredited professional and a member of the U.S. Green Building Council. Visit www.khalifehassociates.com tel:(310)-305-1555

Regarding a great new source:  The Green Building Market and Impact Report 2009 by Rob Watson and Greener World Media has just been released . . . . by the way, Rob is known as the "Founding Father of LEED" and of course, is also a Member of the Institute of Green Professionals. Follow the link (above) to Rob's report.

Sustainable Facilities – The Standard of the Future
by Keith Pehl

Sustainable design is a responsible business practice. That’s why it is important for energy efficiency and sustainability to become the accepted standard in commercial construction. Not only will sustainable design help protect our environment and preserve our limited natural resources, it will also save businesses money in the long run. And, the more people know about sustainable design, the more likely they are to embrace the concept for their facility.

The ultimate goal of sustainable design is to create net zero-energy buildings that produce as much energy as is consumed. The benefits include reduced energy usage, improved indoor air quality, greater water conservation, and optimized operational and maintenance practices.

Much like the term “fast track” that was popular several years ago, the terms “sustainable” and “energy efficiency” should be part of every building design. You don’t hear the term “fast track” anymore. It was a new concept of speeding up design and construction to deliver a facility faster, but now it is standard operating procedure. Everyone wants their project fast-tracked. I want the same thing to happen for sustainable design.

While both economically and environmentally beneficial, implementing sustainable design techniques can be challenging, so they require the coordination of everyone involved.

My company, Optima Engineering, recently worked on a large department store, and we had to account for the impact of lighting on air conditioning and heating equipment. We reduced the total lighting wattage by more than 50 percent, which extended the lamp life and reduced maintenance needs – both sustainable features. The department store’s mechanical engineer installed 80 tons less air conditioning equipment because of the decreased heat emitted from the lighting system during summer. The reduced amount of equipment lowered construction costs and the amount of energy required to run the building.

However, the mechanical engineer did not account for the reduced heat produced by the lamps during winter, so the first time the heating system was used, the building could not get warm. To fix the problem, they installed electric duct heaters to give the heating system a boost on cold days. The solution still uses less energy overall, and it was a good lesson about how much heat lighting systems can provide for commercial buildings.

We learned another lesson with our own office, which is certified LEED Platinum. We had an energy model that was 30 percent below the industry baseline, but our energy usage doubled the model when we first moved into our building. After refining the lighting and mechanical controls, we were able to drop below 30 percent of the baseline. The lesson showed that energy modeling does work, but it highlighted the importance of commissioning and constantly monitoring energy usage to keep complex building systems working at peak efficiency.

One of the easiest ways to create sustainable facilities is to incorporate great design practices without adding to the owner’s budget. The crucial element is good planning. Since it can be difficult to identify sustainable solutions, it’s important to seek out experienced professionals who are familiar with multiple types of facilities and understand the different design techniques required for successful projects.

In my business, it is important to lead by example. Our 16,000-square-foot LEED Platinum office space is within a LEED Silver-certified building with rooftop solar thermal and solar photovoltaic systems. Solar photovoltaic panels on Optima's roofWe provide tours of our office and our roof at least three times a week. We offer seminars several times a month to educate our clients and the public about renewable energy, energy efficiency and other aspects of sustainable design.

Convincing facility owners to choose sustainable design is not always easy. That’s why it is also important to teach people about the total cost of building ownership. We have to start thinking more long-term. Sustainable design practices are almost always less expensive when you look at the total cost of ownership rather than the initial capital cost.

If planned properly, the costs of building sustainable facilities are comparable to “non-green” buildings. And, sustainable buildings bring the added benefits of reducing environmental impacts and providing a healthy working environment.

__________ 

Keith Pehl is president of Charlotte, N.C.-based Optima Engineering, P.A., a multidisciplined, professional engineering firm specializing in mechanical, electrical, plumbing, fire protection, lighting, sustainable design, commissioning and energy audit services. Pehl is a LEED-accredited professional and a member of the U.S. Green Building Council. Visit www.optimapa.com. 

USGBC Addresses Performance Anxiety
by Mark Stetz P.E., CMVP FIGP

In my last article, I discussed how LEED-certified buildings might not live up to expectations when their performance is objectively evaluated. While newly constructed LEED-certified buildings are designed to be energy-efficient, design intent is not always realized in the construction and commissioning phases. Frankel & Turner [1] showed that despite good intentions, about 20% of the LEED-certified buildings in their study didn’t perform to code.

The USGBC has been aware of this problem for some time, but now the LEED community and to some extent the general public are also aware of the ‘performance gap’ between expectations and achievement. The release of LEED 3.0 attempts to address this issue by doubling the available points for energy efficiency, raising the threshold against which savings are based, placing added emphasis on measurement & verification, and instituting minimum program requirements (MPRs) that will allow USGBC direct access to utility bill information. Yet the LEED certification process remains fundamentally an intent-based system. 

 Rather than sequestering itself in back rooms and issuing directives, the USGBC is using an open process of soliciting feedback and ideas for improving the LEED program. The Building Performance Initiative committee (BPI) held five meetings across the country and invited stakeholders – developers, owners, architects, and engineers – to discuss the current New Construction certification process. How might it be improved so that LEED certification actually indicates something more than good intentions?

I attended the Washington D.C. meeting where discussions revolved around whether New Construction certification should use design-based or performance-based methodology.

In a performance-based system, certification would be granted after occupancy and utility bill evaluation show that the building actually met design intent. One path is to grant conditional certification based on design and final certification based on performance. Another would be to require annual updates based on performance similar to the Energy Star program. The last would be to have buildings certified under the New Construction program enroll in EB/OM.

Before an actual methodology can be developed, the USGBC and building community still have to decide if New Construction certification should continue to be designed-based or make the leap to performance-based. One proposal – although discussed in somewhat facetious terms but with an element of truth to it – is to make the LEED plaque removable [2]. However, no one volunteered to be the person with the crowbar.

If the USGBC were a democracy, a performance-based approach would have passed by a wide margin with the Washington crowd, but regions. The San Francisco meeting was unanimous in wanting a performance-based system and they wanted it yesterday; the New York meeting wanted nothing to do with performance verification - so we were told - and felt design intent was sufficient.

Interestingly, the minimum program requirement of utility-bill access was seen by some owners/developers as being necessary, others felt it to be a deal-breaker and would walk away from LEED certification rather than allow outsiders access to their records. To his credit, Brendan Owens the USGBC's VP of Technical Development, stated he’d opt to lose potential participants rather than sacrifice program credibility.

Marcus Sheffer, head of the Energy & Atmosphere Technical Advisory Group (EA TAG), spoke regarding pending changes for LEED 2012 and how best to address the performance gap. He believes the role of building modeling should be to evaluate design alternatives, not to try to predict actual building performance with high precision.  Additional questions being addressed include identifying the proper metric to evaluate building performance – is energy use intensity (EUI) the right number, or should a building be evaluated based on energy cost, source energy, carbon dioxide emissions, or some combination of these? The ASHRAE 189P committee is struggling with this same issue.

Identifying an appropriate baseline and threshold will make a difference in the starting point against which savings or performance is compared. To improve the potential for performance verification, alternative compliance paths for EA5 (Measurement & Verification) are being considered.

Other barriers to translating intent into performance include architects who are primarily concerned with  aesthetics and functionality rather than building energy use, the lack of a feedback loop between those who pay the utility bills and those who operate the buildings, and contractual or legal barriers that add unnecessary roadblocks.

As an example of potential legal obstacles, the city of Arlington, VA, now requires all new buildings to seek LEED certification as a condition of occupancy. Requiring a performance review would put their buildings in a Catch-22 situation: a certificate of occupancy requires LEED certification; LEED certification would require occupancy and performance evaluation. Which will come first?

The fundamental question being asked is: do buildings that don’t achieve their design intent have the right to claim LEED certification? Some argue that yes they do, since LEED certification is recognition that the design is superior to other buildings, but there were several different proposed methods to make certification conditional or even revocable.

Toward the end of the meeting, Scot Horst explained that the Building Performance Initiative is USGBC’s effort to improve LEED and make it a more useful tool. By collecting utility information on a larger sample of buildings, it is expected that stronger conclusions can be drawn about where the disconnect between intent and performance lies. Unfortunately, conclusions alone are not sufficient. By improving our understanding of the differences, USGBC and ultimately the members of the building community will be in a better position to take action and improve building performance.

Tom Hicks – head of the BPI- asked those present if there were one thing we could do to improve the process and close the performance gap, what would that be? If you have suggestions, please feel free to use the ‘comment’ section of this blog.

The final BPI meeting will be held Friday morning (11/13) at Greenbuild to summarize what the USGBC learned from five different meetings and what actions it will recommend.

About the author

Mark Stetz, P.E. CMVP FIGP is the Principal of Stetz Consulting LLC and an energy engineer specializing in building performance verification and energy audits. He will be teaching Building Performance Verification at Greenbuild in 2009 and Measurement & Verification at the ASHRAE Winter Meeting in 2010 and  can be reached through http://www.stetzconsulting.com.

1. Energy Performance of LEED® for New Construction Buildings, Cathy Turner, Cathy; Frankel, Mark, New Buildings Institute May 2008 http://www.newbuildings.org/measuredPerformance.htm

2. A Better Way to Rate Green Buildings, Henry Gifford 2009, http://www.EnergySavingScience.com