The Built Environment’s Social Costs, Part 3: Managing Common Pool Resources and the City Energy Project

Part 1 of this series focused on how a more deliberate quantification of productivity and health impacts, as well as the larger social costs associated with the built environment, could impact the decision making process relative to short and long range planning, value engineering exercises, related policy formulation, etc. Part 2 discussed some of the evolutionary reasons for our species’ shortsightedness and how involving more people in the decision making process can increase our collective ability to take the long view.

Another concept that is useful here is the tragedy of the commons. The basic idea is that individuals or small groups acting in their own self interest will often behave in a manner contrary to the long term best interests of the larger group that they are a part of. Specifically they will tend to behave in a manner that depletes resources common to the whole group (including environmental quality and global climate stability). However, there are features of group organization that have evolved over the history of our species that help curb these “selfish” behaviors and promote pro-social behavior beneficial to the larger group. Involving more people in the decision making process is one of these features.

In 1990, Elinor Ostrom formulated eight design principles that enable groups to successfully manage their common-pool resources for the longer term benefit of the group. More recently David Sloan Wilson et al. generalized Ostrom’s eight design principles to a wider range of groups and situations. Very briefly, these eight principles are as follows (taken from the Wilson et al. reference):

1. Clearly defined boundaries.
2. Proportional equivalence between benefits and costs (and a more comprehensive accounting of benefits/costs must be performed as discussed in Part 1).
3. Collective-choice arrangements (ensure that those affected by the rules can participate in modifying the rules, i.e., involve as many people impacted by the rules/behaviors as possible).
4. Monitoring (managing free-riding and exploitation – transparency can be a component of this).
5. Graduated sanctions for rule violators (resource distribution, public shaming, gossiping and ostracizing can be components of this, along with more formalized legal means).
6. Conflict resolution mechanisms (to resolve conflict quickly and fairly).
7. Minimal recognition of rights to organize (groups must have authority to conduct their own affairs).
8. For groups that are part of larger social systems, there must be appropriate coordination among relevant groups (build responsibility for governing/decision making in nested tiers from the lowest level up to the entire interconnected system).

Simplified forms of the first seven principles evolved over the long history that our ancestors spent as hunter/gatherers, living in comparatively small groups. The last one has come into play more recently as our societies have grown in size and complexity. The larger the group, with more potentially competing subgroups composed of varying related individuals (social/culturally and genetically), the harder it is to set up and maintain these design principles. One question then becomes how we effectively upscale the elements of these design principles that are fine tuned for small groups. This LinkedIn post and subsequent comments discuss this in more detail.

Let’s briefly look at managing common pool resources with respect to Kansas City’s selection to participate in the City Energy Project. This is a 3-year initiative by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and the Institute for Market Transformation (IMT) to promote energy efficiency improvements in commercial and institutional buildings. Two critical issues being addressed as part of this effort are 1) encouraging the business community to rapidly adopt the Mayor’s Energy Challenge and 2) sharing their benchmarking and building data with the City. As discussed in Part 1, the potential productivity and health benefits often associated with projects making energy focused improvements may be enough to move the needle for some building owners. This falls under Ostrom’s second design principle.

Per Part 2, the more key stakeholders directly or indirectly involved in this decision for any individual building, the more likely a building owner will adopt the Mayor’s Energy Challenge, all else being equal. This falls under Ostrom’s third design principle. And sharing benchmarking and building data is critical for measuring and monitoring progress as a community, a component of Ostrom’s fourth design principle. Sharing this data isn’t required to participate, but it is required to receive the benefit of public recognition (back to the second design principle). And the lack of data sharing itself will be transparent (Ostrom’s fourth design principle), potentially leading to various degrees of peer pressure and shaming intended to promote data sharing (Ostrom’s fifth design principle). Even if the peer pressure and shaming are only perceived to have occurred (or just feared to potentially occur), they can be effective motivators for behavior change in order to avoid negative impacts on social and economic status.

It will be interesting to see how successful the City Energy Project is, in Kansas City as well as the other nine selected cities, and how the degree of success can be tied to Wilson et al.’s generalization of Ostrom’s eight design principles. It’s likely that many elements of the design principles are being incorporated inadvertently simply because they’re already recognized as best practices. But a contextual, systematic incorporation of Wilson et al.’s and Ostrom’s work in this area would likely increase the City Energy Project’s overall success.

The Built Environment’s Social Costs, Part 2: The “Shortsightedness” of Homo Sapiens

Part 1 of this series focused on how a more deliberate quantification of productivity and health impacts, as well as the larger social costs associated with the built environment, could impact the decision making process relative to short and long range planning, value engineering exercises, related policy formulation, etc. Yet this is rarely performed as part of the master planning, design, retrocommissioning or post occupancy evaluation processes.

One reason for this is that our evolutionary history has indirectly led to a form of shortsightedness. Our “stone-age” or hunter/gatherer brains and cognitive abilities evolved in the vastly different and more limited context of our ancestors. The people dealt with on a daily basis were fewer, the geographic area and environmental variability smaller, and the “future” limited to the annual cycles of weather, migration, etc.  Most of our evolutionary history was spent in this type of environment. As a result our analytical analyses and emotional responses tend to over emphasize those events, threats, etc., that have immediate impact on our daily lives. Examples include job loss, daily deadlines and initial costs as opposed to 5+ year paybacks, the long term health implications of safe routes to schools or the regional economic impacts 20 years in the future from green house gas (GHG) emissions.

In addition, the degree of our reactions, responses, urgencies, and calls to action end up being relative to our perception of the impact on both ourselves and those we call our own.  Current and projected crises in other countries or regions, or that affect different social/cultural groups and are not perceived as providing us with risk, may not result in a response or change in our behavior. It’s easier to see the short term, first cost benefit from value engineering out those extra HVAC zones than the longer term productivity/health benefits to future building occupants and tenants you may not even know if you’re the designer/contractor, developer and/or building owner.

Fortunately, this picture begins to change when decision making shifts from the individual and very small group level to larger groups. If cooperation and group unity is achieved, decision making is often made with respect to the common good.  Delayed, long-term benefits are given more weight by groups, such as whole companies, community boards, city voters, etc., than by individuals. For example, the development, modification, and acceptance of building codes is a group endeavor; one that generally increases initial cost while at the same time providing for a safer environment over the life-spans of our buildings, which may be multi-generational.  This is also a reason why longer term considerations are given more weight the more integrated the planning/design/construction/occupancy process is; the collective “group” is larger and includes more representation from all of the relevant key stakeholder subgroups.

Essentially the more people involved in the decision making process, the better we’re able to account for long term costs/benefits and the more “pro-social” our behavior is, all else being equal. I did a pilot study on this specifically with respect to sustainable construction decision making back in 2009 (paper/slides available here), and the results fell in line with this. If you’re interested in learning more about the research that underlies decision making relative to environmental risk, encouraging “pro-social” behavior and evolutionary multi-level selection theory, I recommend starting with the Center for Research on Environmental Decisions and Evolution: This View of Life.

Part 3, the final part in this series, will look at how all of this correlates with successfully managing common pool resources (such as energy and water), and apply this framework to some specific examples, including Kansas City’s recently begun implementation of the City Energy Project.

The Built Environment’s Social Costs, Part 1: Quantifying Productivity, Health and Larger Societal Costs

As designers, we have a responsibility to investigate and present the social costs and benefits of our designs to all key stakeholders. Whether its building safe routes to schools , taking a project to Net Zero, or evaluating the number of separate HVAC zones in an individual project, our clients, building occupants and the general public should be aware of the associated productivity and health implications at the individual/local level, as well as what the larger social/cultural and economic ramifications are.

Business operating costs (the “people” costs) range anywhere from 10 to 100+ times building operations costs, depending on the number and salary level of the employees and type of facility.[i] [ii] Because of this, even small percentage improvements in productivity and health can dwarf the associated decreases in operational costs obtained from sustainable built environment solutions, and this can drastically change the results of any life cycle cost analysis.

For example, M.E. GROUP’s rectrocommissioning efforts at the Conrad Duberstein U.S. Courthouse and Post Office in Brooklyn, NY, resulted in 37 energy conservation measures (ECMs) that were estimated to cost $9,167,000 to implement and save $872,000/year in building operational costs.[iii] Using contextually gathered data from surveys, interviews/observations, and space condition measurements to strategically apply previous research on productivity relative to specific building conditions, such as lighting, acoustics, IAQ, etc., these same ECMs were conservatively estimated to result in $3,570,000/year in productivity improvements. This was 4.1 times the estimated operational savings while only considered some of the productivity benefits and excluding all of the potential savings related to health improvements. Simple payback using the operational savings only was 10.5 years. If we include productivity the length of time drops to 2.1 years. Yet we rarely consider quantified productivity and health impacts as part of the master planning, design, retrocommissioning or post occupancy evaluation process. For additional examples, see the following blog posts: How a Lack of Space/Flexibility Can Impact Teacher Productivity/Performance, Culture and Thermal Comfort and Study: Safe Routes to School Investments Save Millions and Improve Quality of Life.

Moving to a larger scale, data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration indicates that approximately 40.6% of U.S. CO₂ emissions generated annually is produced by buildings compared to transportation and industry.[iv] Using Johnson and Hope’s social cost of carbon (SCC) estimate[v] (also discussed in two of Laurie Johnson’s blog posts  here and here, as well as David Robert’s blog here), a reduction in annual CO₂ emissions of only 5% from the building sector would translate into $11.66 billion in avoided future U.S. economic damages, based on 2012 emissions data[vi] and Johnson and Hope’s 2010 SCC estimate using the 1.5% discount rate. Limiting this to the commercial sector only, that number would be $5.48 billion. That’s billions of dollars of avoided agricultural productivity decreases, health care cost increases, increased flood damages, etc. But as with productivity and health, we rarely take greenhouse gas (GHG) impacts into account as part of the master planning, design, retrocommissioning or post occupancy evaluation process.

If we did, the decision making process relative to short and long range planning, value engineering exercises, policy formulation, etc. would often have different outcomes. Part 2 of this 3 part series will discuss some of the evolutionary reasons for our species’ short sightedness and how we can increase our collective ability to take the long view during the decision making process. Part 3 will discuss how this correlates with successfully managing common pool resources (such as energy and water), providing specific examples, such as Kansas City’s recently begun implementation of the City Energy Project.

---

[i] CABE/BCO. 2005. The Impact of Office Design on Business Performance. Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment and the British Council for Offices, London, UK. 

http:/www.cabe.org.uk/.

[ii] Fisk, W. J. 2002. How IEQ Affects Health, Productivity. ASHRAE Journal 44(5):56-58.

[iii] Harmon, M. 2011. “The Commissioning Agent as Anthropologist – Part 1.” The Checklist: The Quarterly Newsletter of the Building Commissioning Association. (second quarter): 8-10. 

http://www.slideshare.net/marcel.harmon/the-commissioning-agent-as-anthropologist-part-1.

[iv] ©2013 2030, Inc. / Architecture 2030. All Rights Reserved. Data Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration (2012).

[v] Johnson, L. T. and C. Hope. 2012. The social cost of carbon in U.S. regulatory impact analyses: an introduction and critique. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences. September, 2012. http://www.eenews.net/assets/2012/09/17/document_gw_05.pdf.

[vi] EPA 430-R-14-003: Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990 – 2012: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/usinventoryreport.html.

Vacancy Sensors and Peer Pressure - Using Both to Reduce Energy Consumption

A good deal of research and case studies have demonstrated that vacancy sensors/settings (manual ON/auto OFF) save more energy than occupancy sensors/settings (auto ON/auto OFF). Some of the primary reasons for this include minimizing false-on occurrences, eliminating lights turning on when someone just quickly steps into and then back out of a space and the fact that people tend to leave their environmental conditions as is unless moved to action by some external stimuli (discomfort, peer pressure, etc.). There's also the additional benefit of providing more control to the occupant of their lighting.

Here's one more example demonstrating this – M.E. GROUP’s Kansas City office. On May 16, 2014 we changed the settings of our occupancy sensors from auto ON/auto OFF to manual ON/auto OFF. The image below shows the energy usage two weeks before and two weeks after this change (date indicated by vertical dashed line). For this time frame, there's a 34% energy savings. Now Memorial Day is included within the post two week time frame, but this is partially offset by the additional lighting used after hours (energy usage indicated in red) as a result of meeting a project deadline. As more time passes, we'll have more data for a better comparison.

Three of the primary reasons for the energy reduction contextually relevant for our office are 1) the elimination of work room lights automatically turning on when someone enters for a brief amount of time, even just to reach in and throw away trash or recycling, 2) the elimination of reception lights automatically turning on as we walk in and out the front door to access the rest room (our reception desk is not manned) and 3) open office lighting kept off for longer periods of time during the day (we have access to daylighting). We’re a high performance building consulting firm and energy conservation is part of our office social/cultural norms. Once the change was made, not only did the vacancy setting take advantage of our tendency to leave environmental conditions as is in general, it also took advantage of the fact that there's been some peer pressure to keep our lights off unless absolutely needed.

We’re able to measure the lighting and plug loads in our office because we make use of an Enistic energy management system that meters loads separately at our panel (overall and by circuit), as well as down to the individual workstation. Here’s a Prezi that tells the story of our LEED Platinum CI office (it’s no longer just tracking LEED – we did receive certification).

The Unrealized Opportunity of Our Crumbling Infrastructure

The Union of Concerned Scientists recently released a report on the dangers that climate change pose to our cultural resources. The report is summarized here - History Under Water: Climate Change Imperils Historic, Cultural Sites. 

As an aside, the article reports that our National Parks have $11 billion dollars of deferred maintenance needs now, without even accounting for the resilience measures necessary to address the impacts of climate change. Our schools have $271 billion dollars of deferred maintenance just to get them back up to minimum standards. To actually modernize our schools would require $542 billion (source). Our drinking water infrastructure – $1 trillion+ (source). Our bridges -  $20.5 billion annually spent through 2028 (source). And the list goes on and on relative to our national infrastructure. Plus there’s over $500 billion dollars of work out there to improve building energy efficiency, representing $130 billion dollars of savings annually in energy costs (source). A vast untapped reserve of jobs and economic boost is out there and energy efficiency itself represents a major wedge for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. But we don’t seem to have the political will to do it. And in the meantime our infrastructure and cultural resources will continue to deteriorate, more rapidly with worsening climate change impacts, and with major ramifications to our safety, economy and national identity.

School Reception Desks & Intimidation: Seeing a School through Student Eyes

School can be an intimidating experience for students. The first days and weeks of a school year, whether we’re talking about the student’s first day of school ever, at the beginning of a new school year, or in a new school after moving, can be particularly intimidating and even scary events in the life of a student.

It’s important that a school’s design not contribute to this feeling of intimidation. It should, in fact, help mitigate such feelings and facilitate positive interactions with teachers/staff and other students, as well as help students feel welcome. An elementary school’s reception desk provides an example of this.

In an elementary school, the youngest and shortest students should still be able to see over the counter at the reception desk. The design of the reception desk in the image on the left doesn’t allow for this, and provides those students affected with an intimidating and less welcoming experience. For this particular school, it was also an annoyance for those manning the desk in that they have to motion the students to peak around the side or they have to stand up. And that annoyance may be inadvertently felt by the student as well, increasing the negative nature of the interaction.

But at the school in the image on the right, the reception desk has a center section low enough for students, even the youngest and shortest students, to see over and engage the adult on the other side face to face. It encourages the human connection between receptionist and student as opposed to hindering it, and as such, represents the better practice.

As a side note, part of the reason we conduct post occupancy evaluations is to give the occupant a voice and allow us to see the facility through their eyes. As I conducted the analysis after visiting both of these schools, I realized I could have done a better job at showing the school through the eyes of the younger students. None of the photographs were taken from their perspective. Imagine how much more powerful the contrasting images would have been had they been taken from a kindergartner’s eye level perspective.

How a Lack of Space/Flexibility Can Impact Teacher Productivity/Performance

Spatial restrictions and a lack of flexibility can have significant impacts on productivity/performance, as was found during the fieldwork conducted for a Kansas school district’s master planning effort. Spatial restrictions in general, and the lack of space for support staff and the combined “gymacafetoriums” (gyms, cafeteria and auditorium) of several of the older elementary schools in particular, had resulted in a “culture” or “specialization” in scheduling that varied in scale from yearly/semester scheduling tasks to daily scheduling tasks. A large degree of effort was put into scheduling the multiple uses of individual spaces (down to the minute), and a lot of time was spent traversing from one end to the other of these schools, or out to the portables. As a result, a significant amount of time was diverted from the educational mission of the schools, limiting flexibility and constraining individual teaching and administrator styles.

One principal stated that on the day before his interview was conducted, he and his staff had spent two hours talking logistics. He estimated that on average 15 to 20 minutes per day were spent dealing with scheduling issues and other related matters tied to space restrictions. At another school, the gifted teacher (who at the time occupied a former closet space), lamented that on the morning of her school’s interviews she found a special education meeting occurring in her office when she came in. As a result she had to find a space elsewhere to operate from, but that space ended up being taken over as well. The end result was that “education hadn’t happened in her room that day …”

At a third school, one staff member commented: “There are not enough staff restrooms and they are too far from the gym.  I only have a couple of minutes usually to walk halfway down the length of the building to get to a staff restroom and since there are only 2 toilets in that location they can be occupied when I need to quickly use the restroom and get to my next class. It creates a lot of anxiety!  I hate to make my classes/teachers wait for me.”

In the end, after implementing surveys and conducting in-context interviews and observation, and analyzing the data gathered, we conservatively estimated that addressing the elementary school space restrictions and lack of flexibility issues would have the following benefits:

• Eliminate 18,400 – 22,400 person-hours per school-year of wasted teacher/staff time spent scheduling and coordinating use of space. 
• Equates to approximately 2.16% - 2.63% of the total labor hours annually “spent” by the elementary school teachers/staff. 
• Translates to approximately $722,970 – $883,630 worth of teacher/staff time each year.

Another way to put this is that at least $722,970 – $883,630 was annually being spent for tasks/efforts not directly related to education, but required by the limitations of some of the district’s facilities. And these limitations weren’t present in all of the schools, creating a source of inequity among the district’s elementary schools. This became one of the many items addressed in the master plan, as well as one of the many reasons presented to the community for supporting the associated bond.

Don't Forget the People

Our built environment isn’t just about the building or the physical; it’s also about the people. It’s about understanding occupant daily activities and interactions, about understanding how this impacts building performance and vice versa, and how we account for this during master planning, design and post occupancy to align needs with the built environment. Because a facility’s contextual ability to meet our needs in turn shapes, enables, encourages, restricts and constrains all sorts of individual behavior. And this has a variety of quantitative and qualitative impacts on the individual as well as on the larger organization of which they are a part of (and to society in general).

So, don't forget the people.

To Be Green or Not To Be Green, That is the Question: Assessing & Encouraging Prosocial (Green) Decision Making in the Building/Construction Industry

Cognitive psychologists generally divide our decision making systems, with respect to risk, into analytical vs. emotional reactions. The former carefully considers costs versus benefits, while the latter interprets risks emotionally; as a “primitive and urgent reaction to danger” intended to rapidly size up a given situation and remove us from that danger. Neither system is particularly suited for rationally considering long-term benefits thanks to our evolutionary past as hunter/gatherers.

As a result our analytical analyses and emotional responses tend to over emphasize those events, threats, etc., that have immediate impact in our daily lives – i.e., job loss, daily deadlines, etc. vs. rising sea levels or green house gas (GHG) emissions. In addition, these studies have demonstrated that the degree of our reactions, responses, urgencies, and calls to action end up being relative to our perception of the impact on ourselves and those we call our own.

However, this picture begins to change when decision making shifts from the individual and very small group level to larger groups, as demonstrated by researchers affiliated with the Center for Research on Environmental Decisions (CRED). If cooperation and group unity is achieved, decision making is often made with respect to the common good.  Delayed, long-term benefits are given more weight by groups (households, companies, community boards, etc.) than by individuals.

Uniformity among group members, high levels of cooperation, and functional integration become the hallmarks of successful groups (see Evolution: This View of Life and The Evolution Institute for more information on this). Selfish behaviors tend to be locally advantageous and more relevant in the short term, while pro-social behaviors tend to be globally advantageous and more relevant in the long term. Prosocial behaviors also tend to enhance cooperation among group members.  And our social/cultural norms act as a kind of “glue”, binding together unrelated individuals within larger groups and providing a measure of uniformity in their behavior.

Relative to the building construction industry, it would seem that short term, local, benefits often outweigh long-term benefits when making decisions on how green to be. Following the above line of reasoning, this suggests that in those cases where short term, local benefits have won out, individuals or small groups whose common good did not necessarily coincide with green’s delayed benefits were the primary decision makers involved. And it would also suggest that these decision makers had less influence from other people within their own organization, as well as outside their organization.

So in 2009 I conducted a pilot study to test the following hypothesis: The more people who have a say in the decisions involved in a construction project (particularly earlier in the design process), the more likely it will be designed and built sustainably (LEED or otherwise), all else being equal. You can see a pdf of the paper and slides I presented at the 2009 Behavior Energy and Climate Change (BECC) conference here: The Decision to Go Green: Individual vs. Group Influences on Our Likelihood to Build Sustainably.

To test this, I compared a data set of certified, non-certified but green, and conventionally designed facilities with respect to the decision makers – the number of decision makers involved, who they were, their demographic make-up, their core values, and the degree of outside influence that impacted their decisions. Specifically I ran a Kendall’s Tau-B correlation test looking at the degree of correlation between the number of people involved in the decision process (directly and indirectly) and both a) the number of sustainable elements incorporated and b) the level of certification sought.

The reader is referred to the slides and paper for a more thorough discussion, but though preliminary, the results did support the hypothesis that the more people who have a say in the decisions involved in a construction project, the more likely it will be designed and built sustainably, all else being equal. This would suggest that by somehow creating an environment where building owners actively reach out to their employees, as well as their clients, tenants, surrounding neighbors, etc., and directly solicit their opinions regarding any new construction or existing renovations, it will increase the likelihood that these projects will be sustainable and certified. Future research will expand the database of projects examined and better control for local/regional variation.

Comfort Vs. "Cool": Thermal Comfort & Clothing Variability in Schools

Thermal comfort in schools is impacted by a variety of factors, and this was discussed somewhat in a previous post: Culture and Thermal Comfort. But beyond HVAC system problems as well as the differences in perceived temperature control, activity levels and physiology between students and adults (and between men and women), the variation between student and adult thermal comfort ratings are partially due to the typically greater variability in student clothing compared to adult clothing (particularly during the warmer months and for high school students). One’s perspective of acceptable clothing is shaped by peers and family, school policy, and society in general. Clothing is also used as a means of establishing “group” identity as well as signaling membership in that “group.” For teenagers who are still maturing and experimenting with who they eventually want to be and what “groups” they want to belong to, clothing is part of that experimentation, both in terms of clothing type and the amount worn (Harmon 2012).

Because the varying insulative properties of clothing also affect thermal comfort, when a large segment of the facility population has a wide range of clothing styles subject to frequent changes, it becomes more difficult to maximize thermal comfort. One potential means of addressing this beyond the building itself, is to encourage everyone to keep layers of clothing available. The goal is an occupant population that will add or reduce layers of clothing as individually needed and more uniformly respond to exterior weather conditions in terms of percentage of exposed skin, but still allow expression through clothing choices and styles (Harmon 2012).

This is a reasonable response to widely varying clothing styles because we know that occupants in general are more likely to adjust their clothing in response to changing thermal conditions as opposed to keeping them constant (Schiavon and Lee 2013). However, in K-12 environments this is complicated by socio-economic status (perhaps more so than in other environments) because low SES students may not have the financial resources to obtain multiple layers of clothing. In addition, energy models commonly assume a clothing insulation value of 0.5 clo for the cooling season and 1.0 clo for the heating season, with an abrupt change from one to the other as the seasons transition. But we know that clothing is not constant (and can be highly variable among the building population). Studies (Lee et al. 2013; Lee and Schiavon 2013; and Schiavon and Lee 2012, 2013) have shown that energy models making use of more dynamic models of clothing insulation result in improved thermal comfort, smaller HVAC equipment sizes and lower energy consumption.

References

Harmon, M. (2012) Creating Environments that Promote Efficiency and Sustainability: Anthropological Applications in the Building/Construction Industry. Proceedings from the 2012 ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings, pp 7-75 - 7-87, http://www.aceee.org/files/proceedings/2012/start.htm. 

Lee, J., H. Zhang and E. Arens (2013) Typical Clothing Ensemble Insulation Levels for Sixteen Body Parts. Indoor Environmental Quality (IEQ), Center for the Built Environment, Center for Environmental Design Research, UC Berkeley, http://escholarship.org/uc/item/18f0r375.

Lee, K. H. and S. Schiavon (2013) Influence of Two Dynamic Predictive Clothing Insulation Models on Building Energy Performance. Indoor Environmental Quality (IEQ), Center for the Built Environment, Center for Environmental Design Research, UC Berkeley, http://escholarship.org/uc/item/8sx4w8mn.

Schiavon, S. and K. H. Lee (2012) Dynamic Predictive Clothing Insulation Models Based on Outdoor Air and Indoor Operative Temperatures. Indoor Environmental Quality (IEQ), Center for the Built Environment, Center for Environmental, Design Research, UC Berkeley, http://escholarship.org/uc/item/3338m9qf. 

Schiavon, S. and K. H. Lee (2013) Influence Of Three Dynamic Predictive Clothing Insulation Models On Building Energy Use, HVAC Sizing And Thermal Comfort. HVAC Systems, Center for the Built Environment, Center for Environmental Design Research, UC Berkeley http://escholarship.org/uc/item/3sx6n876.

Windows With Unintended Views - The Need to Engage Key Stakeholders Using Multiple Methods

Not only do designers need to engage as many different stakeholder groups as possible to give them a voice, but they need to do it using multiple methods – interviews, observations and surveys (after occupancy as well as before). This typically results in insights that wouldn’t have been gained from using only one or two methods, including insights into unintended consequences. And one-on-one interviews in context often jog memories about issues as well as provide opportunities for occupants to share thoughts they might not in a group.

In this New Mexico elementary school, teachers had mixed feelings regarding the small, low windows in the classrooms, and its likely that many of the following concerns were weighed during the planning/design process. Some found the windows distracting to class activities, while others felt that a view to the outside was important for students. One teacher felt that the outside view of playground activities and the valley below important as the views provided a number of learning opportunities. Others liked the light from the smaller windows, and the fact that blinds allowed the teachers to control the views.  Several teachers commented that the vertical blinds didn't work well.

However, it is likely that the following unintended consequence wasn’t addressed during the planning/design phases, and the only way to learn about it was by engaging the teachers in a post occupancy evaluation or ethnographic exercise of some type. While out on the playground, one teacher related that the size and placement of the windows was unfortunate, as they framed adult bodies in an unflattering way that generated rude comments from older students inside the classrooms.  As a result, staff, particularly female staff, felt that they had to be particularly aware of body placement in their classrooms as well when they were outside near the building. This distracted from the learning process in a number of ways (including providing an avenue for the expression of disrespectful behavior among some students), and it was suggested that slightly larger windows would have solved the problem. 

Great Expectations - Utility Cost Savings Don't Always Mirror Energy Savings

The following is a lessons learned taken from the renovation of elementary school in rural New Mexico. It was part the findings from a post occupancy evaluation (POE) conducted by M.E. GROUP for the New Mexico Public School Facilities Authority. The format it's presented in comes from the Garrison Institute's September 2013 Climate, Buildings and Behavior Symposium.

Intended Goal/Desired Outcome: Incorporate several high performance design strategies in the renovation of a rural New Mexico elementary school to create a school facility that reduces energy and water consumption and utility costs relative to the original school, as well as improves the teaching/learning environment.

Less than Ideal Actual Outcome:  There was a 22.6% decrease in the total annual energy consumed comparing the average of the post renovation school years with the pre renovation year as indicated by the blue line in the figure on the left. However there was a corresponding 168% increase in annual energy costs, as indicated by the blue line in the figure on the right. This decrease in energy consumption is impressive, as the pre-renovation cooling systems consisted of undersized evaporative coolers which consumes significantly less electrical energy than the post-renovation all electric geothermal ground coupled water source heat pump system. And from what was learned, this evaporative cooling system was poorly performing relative to occupant comfort. But the reduction in gas load from pre to post-renovation (green line in the figure on the left) is greater than the corresponding increase in electrical load (red line on the left). The elimination of the old gas heating system and transition to all electric water heaters everywhere but the kitchen, combined with the more energy efficient lighting system incorporating daylight harvesting (despite its problems), the improved roof insulation and the white TPO roof likely account for the overall decrease in energy consumption post-renovation. Plus there may have been a transition to more efficient kitchen equipment as well as potential scheduling changes (possibly less use after hours and over the summer post renovation – though there was conflicting information on this).

What went wrong or appears to have gone wrong? This seeming contradiction in decreased energy consumption but increased utility costs (shown in the figure on the right) is likely due to shifting the school’s load from primarily gas to primarily electric, as the school's average electric utility rate for the 2011-2012 school year was slightly more than twice the average gas utility rate.  A decrease in electric rates from pre-renovation to post-renovation likely explain why the increase in utility costs weren’t more than the 168% increase that did occur (as well as the addition of the PV system to a small degree).

There was also an increase in the estimated annual green house gas (GHG) emissions produced by the school’s energy consumption over this period, as indicated by the green line, going from 306,931 lbs to an average of 533,273.5 lbs. As with the energy costs, this is likely due largely to the shift from a gas heating / evaporative cooling (electric) HVAC system to an electric only HVAC system. Electricity generation in New Mexico is mostly via coal fired power plants and burning coal releases more CO2 and SO2 than burning natural gas. However this analysis is based on limited years of utility data before and after renovation.

What systematic challenges or issues does this example elucidate? In the effort to reduce energy and water consumption through high performance, sustainable design, utility costs are sometimes left out of the analysis and GHG emissions are rarely considered at all. However, there are often significant cost differences between different fuel sources (as this example shows). Saving significant energy does not automatically translate into significant utility cost savings if there is a change in the ratio of fuel sources used. And this can have a significant impact on owner operational budgets, particularly small, rural school districts. And as climate change, mitigation and adaption inevitably become  more of the public discussion, a facility’s greenhouse gas emissions will become a formal part of a project’s life cycle cost analysis (LCCA), energy analysis and energy model.

What are the lessons learned? Two basic lessons:

• In addition to first cost, maintenance costs, energy consumption and occupant comfort/controllability, the following should also be considered in the selection/specification of major systems and equipment: differences in operational (i.e., utility) costs and green house gas emissions of electric vs. natural gas systems/equipment (and how that may change over the next 20+ years).
• Utility rates/rate structures have a significant impact on utility costs. Coordinate what these will be with the local utilities as opposed to using national/regional averages and forecast near term changes in these rates if possible.

The Curious Incident of the Solatube in the Daytime; or The Good, the Bad and the Noisy - Another Reason to Commission Systems and Engage Key Stakeholders

The following is a lessons learned taken from the renovation of elementary school in rural New Mexico. It was part the findings from a post occupancy evaluation (POE) conducted by M.E. GROUP for the New Mexico Public School Facilities Authority. The format it's presented in comes from the Garrison Institute's September 2013 Climate, Buildings and Behavior Symposium.

Intended Goal/Desired Outcome: Remodel existing classrooms in a New Mexico elementary school to successfully bring in large amounts of good quality daylight through Solatubes in order to a) increase the quality of the educational environment and b) reduce the facility’s energy consumption with the further addition of daylight harvesting to those classrooms.

Less than Ideal Actual Outcome: At least one Solatube per classroom ended up having operational issues that were still occurring over a year after occupancy. Damper actuators were constantly opening/closing (independently of the other Solatubes) or becoming stuck in the closed or open position. This created distracting noises as well as constant changes in light levels. In addition to the general distraction resulting from the constantly changing light levels at these Solatubes, when they were located adjacent to smart boards or projection screens, viewing difficulty increased. Add in the general sound distractions and decreased audibility for those students near the malfunctioning Solatubes, the potential negative impact on student learning was significant in those classrooms. 

Low SES (socioeconomic status) students are also disproportionately impacted by facility problems impacting comfort and health, such as these, for a variety of reasons in part related to having on average less support outside of the school. And this school has a large percentage of low SES students, making it doubly important to rectify these issues and in general avoid them to begin with.

The post occupancy evaluation of the school and subsequent analysis led to the manufacturer getting involved again. It was subsequently concluded that the motors in these malfunctioning Solatubes were defective, and new motors were sent out. However, if this does not end up being the fix for all of the Solatubes, other potential causes might involve:

• Internal electronics damaged from lightning strikes.
• Low voltage wire runs in excess of manufacturer recommendations.
• Dimmer fins binding on the tube and stuck (an issue that sometimes occurs during construction). This will over-tax the motor.  
• Dimmers may need to be reset/synced, requiring coordination with the manufacturer representative.
• The 0-10V daylight dimmer system was previously discontinued due to lack of satisfaction. If this is what was used on the Solatubes at this school, the circuit boards may need to be replaced with the standard 5V dimmer solution, requiring coordination with the Solatube representative.
• The custodian thinks that teachers may be inadvertently over-riding and overwriting some of the settings.

What went wrong or appears to have gone wrong? Two things primarily:

• The lighting control system was not included in the commissioning of the building’s systems, something that should have been considered more during planning/design and worked into the overall budget if possible. This likely would have uncovered at least some of the defective motors prior to occupancy, and possibly some of the other issues as well.
• The maintenance of the lighting control system fell through the cracks primarily because it ended up being too complicated for the district to work with, and this was not adequately accounted for during planning/design. The integration of the manual wall controls, photocells, occupancy sensors and solar tube controllers is complex and the local electricians have trouble working on the whole system. The school custodian and district O&M personnel didn’t really understand the system that well (including the Solatubes) and neither did the teachers.
• As a result of the perceived lack of personal environmental control and frustration created among the teachers/staff in the affected spaces, this further negatively impacts their productivity/performance and general teaching effectiveness.

What systematic challenges or issues does this example elucidate? Because of the general lack of local expertise, high tech systems, such as the ground source heat pump (GSHP) system, Solatubes/lighting control system and PV system used at this school typically require importing installation, operational and maintenance expertise from metropolitan areas of the state, increasing the cost and time required to maintain them. As a result, for this particularly rural New Mexico school, they must bring people in from Albuquerque or El Paso to help maintain these systems; at a minimum for small things they often have to get on the phone. It’s frustrating for these smaller, rural districts.

Often such systems in these contexts end up operating below design expectations long term, negatively impacting occupant productivity/performance and health, saving no energy, or worse, using more energy than had the system not been included. At some point they often end up being disabled. This gives high performance, sustainability, green, and/or associated certification systems a bad name – with the teachers/staff and students, as well as the community at large. And they’re less likely to incorporate such elements or similar elements in future projects.

What are the lessons learned? Two basic lessons:

• Commissioning, commissioning, commissioning: Commissioning, including enhanced commissioning, of all the building’s major systems will typically pay for itself multiple times over. This is certainly the case if productivity and O&M cost impacts are estimated quantitatively and included in any LCCA performed. It is important that the designers and contractors (if involved early on) communicate this clearly to the owner. 
• Engagement, engagement, engagement: It is imperative that the O&M tasks and costs associated with the operation and maintenance of high tech systems be thought out ahead of time during programming/early design, particularly relative to an owner’s (and community’s) capabilities to determine if the owner lacks the needed expertise and resources. If so, then either a) a path is developed to provide the owner with the necessary expertise and resources through training, systems manuals, a formal building operating plan, maintenance contracts, adequate warranty periods, devoted percentages of operating budgets, etc., or b) alternative design strategies need to be considered that meet owner expertise and resources, save the intended amount of energy and provide high quality environments (learning environments in this case). The school, district and community must be engaged through charrettes, focus groups, surveys, interviews and observations to help determine if a) or b) is the best fit with the district’s and community’s values and goals (short and long term). The process will also likely involve “syncing” the values/goals of these various key stakeholder groups.

Ghost in the Machine - Another Reason to Use Vacancy Sensors, Commission Systems & Engage Key Stakeholders

The following is a lessons learned taken from the renovation of elementary school in rural New Mexico. It was part the findings from a post occupancy evaluation (POE) conducted by M.E. GROUP for the New Mexico Public School Facilities Authority. The format it's presented in comes from the Garrison Institute's September 2013 Climate, Buildings and Behavior Symposium.

Intended Goal/Desired Outcome: Reduce the energy consumed by the lighting system and increase lamp life in a renovated elementary school through installing occupancy sensors to automatically turn on and shut off lights as part of the lighting control system.

Less than Ideal Actual Outcome: In some of the classrooms and restrooms, there is an occupancy sensor delay in turning the lights on after you enter the space. This confuses the younger students and is annoying to the adults who end up having to walk almost to the center of their classroom for the lights to turn on (if coming in through the door without the control station).

The younger students (particularly K-1) are “confused” by the restroom occupancy sensor control because of the delay in the auto-on when entering; sometimes they have to waive their hands in big motions for sensors to “see” them. The older students tease the younger students by telling them the restrooms are haunted, scaring some of the younger students. Some of these younger students end up avoiding using the restroom or rushing through the process, resulting in:

• concentration/performance issues in the classroom (from holding longer than they should as well as the dread of going to the restroom), 
• hygiene issues in the restrooms (from rushing through the process and getting urine and water everywhere) and 
• potential health problems (from consistently holding longer than they should).

Low SES (socioeconomic status) students are disproportionately impacted by facility problems impacting comfort and health, such as these, for a variety of reasons, in part related to having on average less support outside of the school. And this rural elementary school has a large percentage of low SES students, making it doubly important to rectify these issues and in general avoid them to begin with.

While it hadn’t happened at this school yet (by the second year of occupancy), we often see the occupancy sensors disabled when such problems aren’t rectified because of the consistent complaints of the occupants. This reduces energy savings, and in the case where manual control isn’t available (i.e., the restrooms in this school), this results in more energy usage than if manual only control had been used, because the lights end up being on all of the time.

What went wrong or appears to have gone wrong? Two things primarily:

• The lighting control system was not included in the commissioning of the building’s systems, something that should have been considered more during planning/design and worked into the overall budget if possible. This likely would have uncovered at least most of the issues mentioned below prior to occupancy. And enhanced commissioning may have avoided most of these problems entirely.
• Potentially occupancy sensor adjustments may be needed to sensitivity, aiming and/or time delay, and in some instances sensors may need to be relocated and/or additional occupancy sensors added. None of these issues had been effectively examined at the time of the evaluation.
• In the restrooms, the ballasts may need to be changed from rapid start to instant start. Instant start ballasts will result in gained energy savings, but frequent on/off operation may shorten the lamp life by approximately 50%. However, changing out to LED downlights would circumvent the rapid start vs. instant start pros/cons.
• In most cases, manual-on/auto-off control is recommended over auto-on/auto-off control (use “vacancy” sensors instead of “occupancy” sensors). This will avoid delayed-on and false-on occurrences, reducing energy consumption, potentially extending lamp life and give some of that control back to the occupant.

• The maintenance of the lighting control system fell through the cracks primarily because it ended up being too complicated for the district to work with, and this was not adequately accounted for during planning/design. The integration of the manual wall controls, photocells, occupancy sensors and solar tube controllers is complex and the local electricians have trouble working on the whole system. The school custodian and district O&M personnel didn’t really understand the system that well (including making occupancy sensor adjustments) and neither did the teachers.
• As a result of the perceived lack of personal environmental control created among the teachers/staff in the affected spaces, this further negatively impacts their productivity/performance and general teaching effectiveness.

What systematic challenges or issues does this example elucidate? Because of the general lack of local expertise, high tech systems, such as the ground source heat pump (GSHP) system, Solatubes/lighting control system and PV system used at this school typically require importing installation, operational and maintenance expertise from metropolitan areas of the state, increasing the cost and time required to maintain them. As a result, for this particularly rural New Mexico school, they must bring people in from Albuquerque or El Paso to help maintain these systems; at a minimum for small things they often have to get on the phone. It’s frustrating for these smaller, rural districts.

Often such systems in these contexts end up operating below design expectations long term, negatively impacting occupant productivity/performance and health, saving no energy, or worse, using more energy than had the system not been included. At some point they often end up being disabled. This gives high performance, sustainability, green, and/or associated certification systems a bad name – with the teachers/staff and students, as well as the community at large. And they’re less likely to incorporate such elements or similar elements in future projects.

What are the lessons learned? Three basic lessons:

• Studies have shown that manual-on/auto-off control (vacancy) is more effective at saving energy compared to auto-on/auto-off control (occupancy) for “occupancy sensors.” Delayed-on and false-on occurrences are reduced, reducing energy consumption, potentially extending lamp life and usually creating less problems and more effective control for the occupants.
• Commissioning, commissioning, commissioning: Commissioning, including enhanced commissioning, of all the building’s major systems will typically pay for itself multiple times over. This is certainly the case if productivity and O&M cost impacts are estimated quantitatively and included in any LCCA performed. It is important that the designers and contractors (if involved early on) communicate this clearly to the owner. 
• Engagement, engagement, engagement: It is imperative that the O&M tasks and costs associated with the operation and maintenance of high tech systems be thought out ahead of time during programming/early design, particularly relative to an owner’s (and community’s) capabilities to determine if the owner lacks the needed expertise and resources. If so, then either a) a path is developed to provide the owner with the necessary expertise and resources through training, systems manuals, a formal building operating plan, maintenance contracts, adequate warranty periods, devoted percentages of operating budgets, etc., or b) alternative design strategies need to be considered that meet owner expertise and resources, save the intended amount of energy and provide high quality environments (learning environments in this case). The school, district and community must be engaged through charrettes, focus groups, surveys, interviews and observations to help determine if a) or b) is the best fit with the district’s and community’s values and goals (short and long term). The process will also likely involve “syncing” the values/goals of these various key stakeholder groups.