ga leed id credit analysis - university of florida · projects known to have achieved or attempted...

1 | 17

Powell Center for Construction & Environment University of Florida 341 Rinker Hall Gainesville, FL 32601

July 26, 2009

Assessment of Impact on Health and Environmental Building Performance of Projects Utilizing the Green Advantage LEED ID Credit

This study, undertaken collaboratively by the University of Florida’s Powell Center for Construction and Environment and Green Advantage, Inc., sought to determine the health and environmental impacts that can be attributed to the use of Green Advantage Certified personnel to achieve a specified LEED Innovation in Design (ID) Credit. The requirements for this LEED ID Credit call for 30% of the General Contractor’s/Construction Manager’s or Subcontractors’ key personnel, prior to and throughout the construction phase of the commercial project, be Green Advantage Certified (Appendix A – LEED CIR Interpretation of Green Advantage ID Credit). Surveys were administered to industry representatives familiar with Green Advantage Certification and its uses per the LEED ID Credit requirements. All respondents reported using Green Advantage Certified personnel on a project but did not necessarily reach the thirty percent (30%) threshold to achieve the credit. Survey data were collected electronically from principals from completed projects throughout the United States: Texas, Pennsylvania, and Minnesota. Twelve people received the survey with 9 responding (Appendix B - Survey). A variety of commercial project types were reported: commercial office, automobile dealership, higher education, computer research building, school lab, and retail. Below are additional attributes of the respondents and associated projects.

All are LEED AP 8 of 9 are General Contractors, 1 is an Architect 6 of 9 (66%) are Green Advantage Certified, 2 of which are GA instructors Experience with LEED projects ranges from 1 to 24 projects All received LEED Certification for projects cited in the survey – 6 received Gold, 1 Silver, & 2 Certified All have participated in LEED project(s) for a minimum of one year

Of the 9 people surveyed 3 achieved the Green Advantage LEED ID credit on a project. Some projects exceeded the required thirty percent (30%) and one even achieved fifty-one percent (51%). The remainder of the respondents reported various reasons that the credit was not achieved: 1) the requirements of the credit were achieved, but submission did not occur because the maximum number of Innovation Credits had already been selected; 2) the credit was attempted too late in the project to meet the requirement; or 3) Green Advantage Certified personnel were utilized, but at a percentage level below the LEED ID Credit requirement.

2 | 17


Methodology Projects known to have achieved or attempted the GA LEED ID Credit were identified by Green Advantage personnel or training organizations that prepare project personnel for the GA exam. Principals associated with these projects were contacted and asked to participate in a survey to assess the effectiveness of using Green Advantage Certified personnel. The survey was administered electronically with no time limitations. The majority of the questions asked participants to rate responses using a Likert scale, from one to five, with five being the highest rating. The remaining questions had specified response options, or allowed for written comments from participants. Survey completion time was estimated to be approximately twenty minutes. Results The results of this survey are divided into two categories of respondents. The three respondents who worked on projects that achieved the credit are termed Respondent Set A. The six respondents who worked on projects that did not achieve the credit are termed Respondent Set B. Various health, environmental and behavioral impacts were assessed through the survey questions. Data from Respondent Set A are exhibited on the left and data from Respondent Set B on the right. The following graphs display the results.

Set A Set B

To What Degree Were the Following Groups Impacted Related to Health? Individual Responses

3 | 17


*Note: Empty columns indicate that the particular topic was not applicable to the project they were discussing. ** Note: The Likert scale is from 1-5, 5 being the highest. The above charts show how the two sets of respondents ranked various categories of individuals in terms of the perceived health impacts as a result of utilizing Green Advantage Certified personnel. Health impacts for workers on site as well as a variety of occupant categories were examined. Workers on site were perceived to have significant benefit and received an average score of 4.67 from Respondent Set A and an average score of 4.33 from Respondent Set B. Most respondents reported significant beneficial health impacts to occupants specifically employees, visitors, and students with all three ratings from Respondent Set A awarding a 5 and an overall average rating of Respondent Set B of 4.29.

Averaged Responses

Set A Set B

6

4 | 17


To What Degree Were the Following Areas Environmentally Impacted? Individual Responses

Set A Set B

Set A Set B

Averaged Responses

5 | 17


The charts above show that Respondent Set A reported either 4 or 5 rating levels for all surveyed impacts in terms of environment – site, water, energy, indoor air quality, materials & resources and innovation. The average rating for these six categories was 4.56, with an overall rating of 4.67. Respondent Set B reported 3, 4 or 5 rating levels of impact related to the environment in the various categories, excluding innovation, that received a 2 rating, with a six category average rating of 4.05 and an overall rating of 4.33. G Additionally, construction crews’ ability to work more effectively as a result of utilizing Green Advantage personnel was queried. Respondent Set A reported that crew behaviors were positively affected in several categories, with 100% indicating that the crew worked collaboratively frequently or all of the time, 100% indicating that frequently problems were spotted that would affect green building performance and 66% reporting that frequently the crew found ways to cut costs when compared with other projects. In Respondent Set B the results were comparatively diminished with 50% indicating frequent collaboration, 66% stating problems were frequently spotted with one additional respondent reporting that this happened rarely, and only one in six respondents reporting that costs were cut. Respondents were also asked to voice an opinion related to the use of Green Advantage Certified personnel in making the project greener. Sixty-seven percent (67%) of the nine respondents noted positive effects, with the greatest degree of change cited by Respondent Set A with 67% of those respondents indicating that the project was “much” greener.

Set A Set B

How Would You Rate the Following, based upon meeting this Standard?

6 | 17


0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5

Cooperation

Want to act environmentally friendly on project

concerned with potential health issues

Interested in creating greener approaches to their work

Share vision or purpose

Interested in learning more about green construction

Openness to creative solutions to advance green construction

Reduced fear about green building

Reduced confusion, anger, or frustration about having to build green

Interested in getting more LEED points to make the building greeener

Felt empowered

Increased Enthusiasm for the project

1 No Change

2

3

4

5 Great Change

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

CooperationWant to act environmentally friendly on project

concerned with potential health issuesInterested in creating greener approaches to their work

Share vision or purpose

Interested in learning more about green constructionOpenness to creative solutions to advance green construction

Reduced fear about green building

Reduced confusion, anger, or frustration about having to build greenInterested in getting more LEED points to make the building greeener

Felt empowered

Increased Enthusiasm for the project

1 No Change

2

3

4

5 Great Change

Set A

Set B

If attitudes did change throughout the project, which attitudes of the construction field personnel and to what degree?

7 | 17


Reported attitudinal changes were also assessed in the survey. The above graphs show the variation in answers given by the two sets of respondents. Respondent Set B noted that the most significant impact attributed to workers wanting to act environmentally friendly on the project with an average rating of 3.67. The attitudinal change reported for this same impact averaged 4.0 for Respondent Set A. The most significant changes were reported in the following categories by both groups: cooperation, want to act environmentally friendly, interested in creating greener approaches, reduced confusion, anger or frustration about having to build green and increased enthusiasm for the project. It is noteworthy that the most consistent ratings given at the 5 level were attributed to the project in Respondent Set A that “achieved the highest GA participation percentage to date – 51%”.

Set A Set B

Averaged Responses

8 | 17


This phenomenon was anticipated when devising the survey and prompted another question posed to all respondents: Is the current threshold of thirty percent (30%) of key personnel specified in the credit high enough? The following graphs show respondents’ perspectives.

Set A

33%

67%

Much Lower

Lower

Okay where it is

Higher

Much Higher

Set B

83%

17%Much Lower

Lower

Okay where it is

Higher

Much Higher

All respondents reported that the 30% threshold was adequate, with a higher threshold being seen as more desirable, particularly among Respondent Set A participants, with 67% recommending a higher threshold. In terms of Respondent Set A’s impressions of GA and its usefulness to a project one representative stated “It was responsible for insuring a Gold Certification…because of the knowledge it instilled in the people in the field who policed the project daily.” Another representative stated that “GA Certification has presented the sole opportunity for us to fill the void that exists in our industry when it comes to educating trade contractors and field workers on green building techniques and strategies.” The last representative stated that it “helped tradesman focus on the MR and EQ credits”. Respondent Set B had similar opinions as the projects that achieved the credit, with 5 of 6 reporting that it was pertinent to subcontractor’s ability to easily understand green building and allowed them to be more confident and willing to participate in a green project.

Do you feel as if this standard was the appropriate percentage (30%)? Do you think it should be higher or lower?

9 | 17


Respondent Set A stated that on-site meetings were held daily or weekly as was recommended, but not required in the credit, to ensure that subcontractors were aware and understood the green principles that were to be followed. “Green toolbox meetings” were held to bring additional focus on green issues such as implementing a strict IAQ plan. Similarly, Respondent Set B reported holding meetings daily or weekly with some citing frequent review of disposal procedures for various items on the project to minimize confusion as to what is requested of the subcontractors. Two of the three industry representatives from Respondent Set A stated that there was a decrease in costs and the other stated no change. Cost savings were attributed to training on recycling and reusing products and the respondent believed that “we saved $1,000 off of our original budget” because of the training provided in preparation for the GA exam. The other respondent stated that it was difficult to quantify cost savings, but stated that meeting the credit requirements reduced the time for the general contractor’s staff to have to conduct training. In one project, achievement of the credit was attributed to the project’s achieving LEED Gold while LEED Silver was attempted. In comparison, Respondent Set B described the greatest cost savings from the use of the training related to improvements in the building’s performance and occupant health. They believed the only impact is the overall positive impact of green buildings over time by having smaller energy bills, etc. The majority did not observe any direct construction cost impacts. Therefore, the cost benefits were largely seen as affecting owners and occupants, rather than direct cost savings to contractors. Finally, Respondent Set A, when queried about additional benefits, predicted a reduced likelihood of sick building syndrome more than on a non-LEED project. Also, meeting the credit and experience on the cited project was thought to facilitate the green construction process as well as provide added benefits for future projects. The third representative stated that there were no additional benefits. Discussion Green Advantage Certified personnel are being utilized on numerous construction projects throughout the United States. Many favorable anecdotes are available that support this practice. This report represents the first quantitative analysis of its impacts, particularly as it relates to its achievement of the GA LEED Innovation Credit and its impact on health, environmental and attitudinal indices.

10 | 17


In general, this study confirms the findings that have been expressed by project principals, architects, trainers and others as to their favorable experiences in using GA Certified personnel. Health, environmental, and attitudinal changes are attributed to the use of GA Certified personnel and in this case, “more is better.” Projects that meet or exceed the credit requirements are reported as having achieved even more beneficial results. Beyond these general effects, some particular effects are worth emphasizing. For example, the notion of a project’s aspiring to be LEED Silver, but attaining LEED Gold due to the attributes of GA Certified personnel is worth highlighting. Another example is the observed increase in cooperation that was mirrored in reports of working collaboratively. It seems likely that understanding of the rationale and best practices that promote integrated design and construction has a direct effect on the health and environmental improvements that were recognized by virtually all of those surveyed. A third example relates to cost savings. Although more nebulous savings were cited in the construction process, the potential for crews to identify ways to cut costs and produce buildings with higher predicted performance were exhibited more frequently on projects achieving or exceeding the thirty percent (30%) threshold. With general contractors potentially having the ability to exceed the level of certification intended for a given project at no extra cost with the utilization of GA Certified personnel, should there be a change in green contracts? Perhaps owners and architects could encourage projects to be greener with a bonus stipulation in the contract if the GC works within the contract award amount and attains a higher level of certification or other environmental or health performance targets. Conversely, if the minimum certification level is not achieved using Green Advantage personnel, a contract penalty could occur. A risk/reward contract could further incentivize the GC and subcontractor personnel to share the health and performance benefits with the owner. This subject could be further studied in the future. Overall, respondents reported more environmental benefits than health benefits. This could have occurred because the types of projects surveyed most were office buildings. Those that achieved the credit seemed to view the use of GA Certified personnel more highly than those that did not, but all recognized its importance to improvement of environmental and health benefits. Moreover, many believe it is an investment in future projects in which the same GA Certified personnel can be successfully utilized again without additional costs. Conclusion The following are important statistics that summarize the data from the 9 respondents, using a 5 point scale with 5 being the highest.

11 | 17


8 out of 9 (89%) recommended the Green Advantage LEED ID Credit for use on another LEED Project 8 out of 9 (89%) recommended the Green Advantage LEED ID Credit for use on a non-LEED Project 9 out of 9 (100%) gave an overall rating for positive environmental benefit of 4 or 5 with an average rating of 4.44 7 out of 9 (78%) stated that Green Advantage Certified workers frequently spotted problems that would affect green

building performance 6 out of 9 (67%) stated that the credit’s required 30% personnel threshold is acceptable with the remainder (33%)

suggesting it be higher 8 out of 9 (89%) saw positive impacts in terms of health for employee occupants, with 6 out of 9 (67%) respondents

giving a top rating of 5 6 out of 9 (67%) gave an overall rating for positive health impact of 5 with an average rating of 4.56 5 out of 9 (56%) gave a positive health impact for workers on site of 5 with an average rating of 4.44 6 out of 9 (67%) stated that Green Advantage Certified workers frequently worked more collaboratively together

Although measures of statistical significance have not been employed, the quantified responses and observations from the survey participants support the following conclusions:

1) The use of GA Certified personnel is beneficial to the construction and performance of green buildings. 2) Achieving the GA LEED Innovation Credit significantly improves the likelihood of realizing increased environmental

benefits. 3) Achieving the GA LEED Innovation Credit significantly improves the likelihood of realizing increased health benefits

among workers and occupants. 4) Increasing the threshold of personnel required under the GA LEED Innovation Credit brings additional environmental

and health benefits. 5) Desirable attitudinal differences among crew members can be attained for projects that use GA Certified construction

personnel 6) Using GA Certified personnel can significantly improve environmental and health measures for LEED projects as well as

other projects that may not aspire to attain LEED Certification.

Acknowledgements Special thanks to Kristin Gray of the Powell Center for her leadership and to Charles Kibert, Ph.D., also of the Powell Center, for supervising the study. Green Advantage Inc. worked with the Powell Center to develop the survey, provide contact information for industry representatives and pursue these representatives to obtain a survey response. In addition, they suggested edits to the report during the drafting process.

12 | 17


Appendix A

Credit Interpretations Credit Rulings Home > Innovation & Design Process > LEED Accredited Professional

INNOVATION & DESIGN PROCESS: LEED Accredited Professional (IDc20)

3/22/2005 - Credit Interpretation Request Green Advantage is an educational partner of the USGBC and Green Advantage (GA) certification is intended to further the effort towards market transformation of green building by certifying individuals who have demonstrated a basic understanding of key environmental and related building methods and techniques. The GA Exam is applicable primarily to contractors, subcontractors and trades people. Other practitioners may take the exam, but contractors, subcontractors and trades people represent the core market. Under the Agreement with USGBC, GA Certification is designed to be a non-competitive, complementary offering that supports LEED Accreditation. USGBC Chapters coordinate and authorize training for the GA Exam and are encouraged to steer architects, engineers and designers to take the LEED Accreditation training and exam. If these individuals are interested in GA Certification, it is recommended as an additional offering for those who wish to be both LEED Accredited and GA Certified. Please advise if the following represents a strategy appropriate for an innovation credit: Intent: To increase demonstrated knowledge of contractors, subcontractors and tradespeople about green building practices and approaches. Requirements: 1. Prior to and throughout the construction phase of the project, 30% of the General Contractor's or Construction Manager's personnel* will be Green Advantage Certified. *Personnel must be actively involved in the day-to-day activities and of the following classifications, if applicable: + Architect's on site representative; + Contractor; + Construction Manager including Project Executive + Project Manager + Project Engineer + Quality Control Manager + Mechanical/ Electrical/Plumbing (MEP) Coordinator

13 | 17


+ Superintendent + Assistant Superintendent, and/or + General Foreman 2. Prior to and throughout the construction phase of the project, 30% of Subcontractor personnel** will be Green Advantage Certified. **Personnel must be actively involved in the day-to-day activities and of the following classifications: + Project Manager + Superintendent + Project Engineer + Quality Control Manager + General Foreman, or + Trade Foreman Contractors and Subcontractors are also encouraged to conduct a one-hour on-site orientation to green building for all individuals participating in the project prior to beginning work as well as periodic meetings throughout the construction process. Submittals: Documentation to demonstrate credit achievement should include a complete list of all Contractor, Construction Manager and Subcontractor Organizational and Project Managers on the project, noting their role in the project, who is GA certified, and including a copy of a GA certification certificate for each individual. Calculations for Contractor, Construction Manager and Subcontractor Organizational and Project Managers should be provided separately to demonstrate compliance. If this project is classified as a Multi prime Contract, the Construction Manager and each Prime Contractor will adhere to those percentages and classifications aforementioned under the contractor and subcontractor descriptions, respectively.

4/21/2005 - Ruling Your proposal is acceptable for achieving an innovation credit; it is robust and expected to achieve positive benefits for your project and toward the education and transformation of the construction sector.

14 | 17


Appendix B

15 | 17


16 | 17


17 | 17


ga leed id credit analysis - university of florida · projects known to have achieved or attempted...

Documents