Summary of Findings

BREAKING THROUGH THE BARRIERS TO SUSTAINABLE BUILDING-
Insights from Building Professionals on Government Initiatives to Promote Environmentally Sound Practices

Miriam Landman
M.A., Urban and Environmental Policy, Tufts University
Summer 1999

Advisor: Ann Rappaport (Engineer; Professor)
Reader: Christine Cousineau (Planner/Architect; Lecturer)

As Gail Vittori of the Center for Maximum Potential Building Systems has said, sustainable building is no longer "on the fringe."¹ But while many people may have heard of the idea now, sustainable building practices are by no means pervasive. Of the 19 questionnaire respondents who were able to estimate what percentage of people in their building professions routinely incorporate sustainable elements into their projects, twelve (more than 60%) estimated that only 5-10% of their peers are routinely using sustainable building practices.

Presumably more than 5-10% of building professionals care somewhat about environmental issues, since polls show that about three-quarters of Americans claim to be concerned about environmental issues.² So what accounts for the gap between personal concern and professional application? In the questionnaire, I listed twelve different reasons that I had formulated through my research and my discussions with building professionals. Some of the twelve factors are clearly similar and almost all are probably related. While ten of the twelve are considered by the majority of respondents to be barriers to the increased adoption of sustainable building practices, the group certainly indicated that some of these factors are bigger barriers than others.

Though I gave respondents the opportunity to list any barriers that were not included in my list of twelve, their responses all related in one way or another to those listed.

According to the questionnaire respondents, the top four "major" barriers are: the lack of expressed interest from clients (owners/developers), the lack of training and education in sustainable design/construction, the failure of service fee structures to account for the recovery of long-term savings, and the higher cost of sustainable building options. Respondents indicated that the first two factors are particularly significant; all agreed that they are barriers, and the majority consider them to be major barriers. Approximately half of respondents feel that the other two are major barriers.
(See the following table.)

Questionnaire Respondents' Ranking of 12 Barriers to More Widespread Sustainable Building Practice

BARRIERS

% of respondents who consider it a "major" barrier

% of respondents who consider it a barrier
("major" or "minor")

1. lack of expressed interest from clients (owners/developers)	84	100
2. lack of training/education in sustainable design/construction	64	100
3. recovery of long-term savings not reflected in service fee structure	52	76
4. sustainable building options too expensive	48	96
5. lack of technical understanding on the part of subcontractors	36	80
6. lack of technical understanding on the part of project team members	32	84
7. lack of interest from project team members	32	76
8. "green" products not available in my area	32	68
9. insurance/liability problems with offering warranty on non-standard materials or methods	24	60
10. lack of technical understanding on the part of the Clerk of the Works	24	44
11. difficult to obtain financing from banks for sustainable projects	16	68
12. not sure where to find information on sustainable building methods	12	44

All barriers identified in my questionnaire to the increased adoption of sustainable building practices in the building professions could be characterized as educational or economic factors (or both). Similarly, the types of government programs and policies that questionnaire respondents reported as having contributed to their sustainable building work were mostly programs with economic or educational strategies (refer to the thesis for specific examples). And, when respondents were asked whether they thought educational programs, economic incentives, government regulations, and/or voluntary guidelines would make it easier for them to incorporate sustainable strategies into their projects, educational and economic approaches were, again, the top choices.

According to my findings, educating all segments of society about the need for sustainable building and, secondarily, training building professionals in sustainable building concepts and methods, are the most essential ways of encouraging the more widespread adoption of sustainable building practices. Such education could create a greater demand for sustainable building products and services, which would boost these markets, thereby spurring more innovation and bringing prices down. Clearly, educational and economic approaches go hand in hand. Economic incentives will also be necessary, to boost the interest of those people who will not be compelled by the environmental reasoning behind sustainable building, and also to even the playing field for those who are compelled.

The problems with conventional building are known, the means and benefits of sustainable building have been identified, a vision and examples of better built environments exist, goals have been set, guidelines have been created. Finding information about sustainable building concepts and methods is not a significant barrier, according to my findings. And now, the remaining barriers are better understood. Governments and building professionals have all the ingredients they need to promote sustainable building practices. And some governmental and non-governmental groups have started promoting such practices. Yet respondents estimate that only 5-10% of building professionals routinely incorporate sustainable elements into their building projects. Clearly, existing programs should evaluated, and the most effective ones should be expanded and replicated. Taking advantage of the existing knowledge base requires more collaboration-between agencies, between levels of government, and between sectors.

While respondents most often cited federal (particularly Department of Energy and Environmental Protection Agency) programs as being helpful, the federal government could still do a better job of coordinating its agencies' scattered activities and of supporting new state and local sustainable building policy efforts. The state level is where code changes will need to take place, and the local level is where much-needed changes in land use development patterns can be effected.

Sustainable building programs should also more strategically address the key barriers to their goal. The following recommendations for government action are presented within the three categories of: Boosting Client Demand, Expanding Professional Training and Education Opportunities, and Reducing Costs and Cost Misperceptions, because these goals address the primary barriers that respondents identified. Non-regulatory government actions typically include providing technical assistance, research data, incentives, financing information, and funding. Some of the initiatives listed here have been or are still being carried out by government entities; the recommendation in such cases is that these initiatives be continued or expanded, because respondents feel that these have been effective.

Despite existing educational initiatives, respondents feel that significant educational barriers remain-particularly concerning the low levels of client demand for sustainable building. The fact that clients often reject sustainable designs even when architects take the initiative to present such designs to them³ indicates that demand is not necessarily being unmet by supply, but that more demand needs to be created.

Because private "clients" are not only developers, but can also be institutions, property owners, business owners, and home owners, the target group for sustainable building education is quite diffuse; it is essentially the general public. Expressing a common sentiment among respondents, one noted: "If the public is well informed, they will demand environmentally responsible buildings and spaces."

So, how could government agencies better address the need to educate not only building professionals (see next section) but also consumers about the need for and benefits of sustainable building? One thing that consumers could be better educated about is the advent of cleaner or more efficient building technologies; Donald Aitken writes:

The federal government has historically emphasized strategies that attempt to "push" technologies out of the laboratories into the hands of industry who will commercialize and "sell" the new technologies. ...the federal government must also adopt a "pull strategy," whereby consumers are educated on the availability and desirability of [building] technologies so that they begin to demand them.⁴

As a questionnaire respondent wrote: "Education is the key; how is the problem." Some of the elements of a public education campaign for boosting consumer demand for sustainable buildings have been discussed in this thesis. They include the following:

As the barrier rankings suggest, there is also still a need to educate and train building professionals in sustainable practices. In fact, according to one respondent: "There should be ongoing education and training for construction industry professionals at all levels, in all fields of the industry." In addition to those commonly thought of as building professionals-architects, engineers, and contractors-realtors, appraisers, developers, and lenders also need to be educated about sustainable building.

While building professionals are looking to their clients for the demand for sustainable buildings, many also accept the responsibility of educating themselves, their peers, and their clients about why and how to build sustainably. Building professionals have significant influence over the decisions their clients make, because they present clients with the options. For example, clients usually look to architects for advice on what materials to specify. Architects should be prepared to explain not only the cost but also the quality (including environmental quality) advantages of different materials. Architecture deemed to be of high "quality" should not encompass architecture that compromises the health and well-being of current and future generations. To knowingly compromise these things is irresponsible. My assumption is that if more professionals learn just how severely conventional building harms people and the planet, they will want to be responsible and will change their practices.

How can government agencies help to better educate and train building professionals in sustainable practices? All of the general educational strategies listed in the previous section can also be applied to the building industry. The following are a few strategies that could be used to target the building industry, more specifically:

Despite some existing economic initiatives by government, respondents feel that significant economic barriers remain-particularly in terms of first cost problems and perceptions, as well as the lack of accounting for and recovery of long-term savings. It is important to keep in mind that any added costs for sustainable projects are primarily a concern for clients (rather than building professionals), since clients ultimately pay for the project. Therefore, as with educational programs, economic incentives must be aimed directly at potential clients: the general public. In addition to providing incentives and outright funding to lower project costs, the government should help counter commonly held misperceptions or exaggerations of the increased cost of sustainable practices, and should help institutionalize new accounting procedures that properly measure all building costs and longer-term returns on investment.

Government programs and policies that could address these needs include the following:

Sustainable building practices involve the use of design and construction methods and materials that are resource efficient and that will not compromise the health of the environment or the associated health and well-being of the building's occupants, construction workers, the general public, or future generations. To make such practices mainstream essentially means "fighting the inertia of the status quo with a new paradigm of design," as one questionnaire respondent put it. Lowering the major barriers of client disinterest, lack of education and training for building professionals, and cost concerns about sustainable building will take some time. Though the movement has come a long way in the last decade, major shifts in cultural attitudes happen very gradually. Sustainable business guru John Elkington suggests that it usually takes more than a generation for the ideas of revolutionary movements to take hold and really transform society; so, using the 1987 Brundtland Report as a baseline date, he speculates that the grand paradigm shift implied by the sustainability movement may not be achieved before the year 2020.⁵ I believe that the government efforts discussed in this paper can help speed the process of mainstreaming sustainable practices.

Many building professionals recognize that the sustainability movement is more than a fad, and will even become more than a sub-field in the future. Douglas Durst of The Durst Organization, developer of the 4 Times Square skyscraper, believes that "environmental responsibility is the future of real estate-the choice is not whether, but when. As the public begins to understand that healthier and more productive buildings are possible, they will demand them!"⁶ And architect Peter Nobile has said that one day it will be just as unthinkable to build unsustainably as it is now unthinkable to use lead piping for potable water.⁷ The status quo does change, little by little.

Many people, myself included, believe that it is preferable to try to get the majority of people interested in some part of sustainable building (for now) than to succeed in getting only a handful to go all the way. People become interested in sustainable building for different reasons. The field can attract people who care about public health, occupational health, labor productivity, brownfields redevelopment, open space preservation, climate stabilization, biodiversity, or renewable energy, to name only a few of the issues it touches. The diversity of the movement could be its greatest strength. Perhaps, as different people with different agendas come to realize their stake in the use of sustainable practices, they will gradually realize what they have in common and how their goals are inextricably linked. I hope that occupant health and well-being, public health, land impact, and land use considerations will soon achieve the level of attention that energy efficiency has enjoyed in recent years.

We all have a stake in the sustainability of our built environments. When a critical mass of people in our society recognize this and mainstream building professionals feel the pressure of public demand, sustainable practices will become the industry standard.

¹Gail Vittori, Co-director, Center for Maximum Potential Building Systems; Founder, Austin Green Building Program; Loeb Fellow, Harvard Graduate School of Design. Presentation, hosted by the Sustainability Roundtable and the Citizens' Housing and Planning Association, Boston, MA, January 13, 1999.

²Alex Wilson, et al., Green Development: Integrating Ecology and Real Estate. Rocky Mountain Institute (New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1998); referencing a Roper Starch Worldwide "Green Gauge" poll done for the Times Mirror, 1995.

³Joseph Hittinger, Survey on "Implementing Environmentally Sustainable Design," Architectural Practice Research Project, The Catholic University of America, Washington, D.C., Winter 1999. April 15, 1999. <http://www.acad.cua.edu/aprp/olce/green/main-page.htm> (April 15, 1999).

⁴ Donald Aitken, "Putting It Together: Whole Buildings and Whole Buildings Policy," Renewable Energy Policy Project (REPP) Research Report, no. 5 (September 1998), 15.

⁵ John Elkington, Cannibals with Forks: The triple bottom line of 21st century business. (Stony Creek, CT: New Society Publishers, 1998), 385.

⁶ Wilson, et al. Green Development, testimonials page at the front of the book.

⁷ Peter R. Nobile III, Architect, Shepley Bulfinch Richardson and Abbott, Boston, MA. Questionnaire comments.