Fact Pack
Environmental and Economic Impacts of Traditional Building
The design and construction of buildings has a significant impact
on the environment and the economy. Traditional buildings consume
or are responsible for:
- 45% of the world’s total energy use;
- 50% of all materials and resources;
- 50% of wood use in North America;
- 35% of the world’s CO2 emissions;
- 80% of potable water use;
- 25% of freshwater withdrawal (including power plants)
- 40% of municipal solid waste destined for local landfills; and
- 50% of ozone-depleting CFCs still in use.(1)(2)
Structures also affect watersheds, habitat, air quality, and community
transportation patterns.(1) A typical
1,700-square-foot wood frame home requires the equivalent of clear-cutting
one acre of forest.(3)
Another human and environmental value often overlooked is clean
water resources. Although 70% of the earth’s surface is made
up of water, only 3% is freshwater. In turn, only 1% of that is
available for human use because the remaining 2% is severely polluted
or trapped in polar ice caps.(4) With
an ever-growing population, it is clear that the availability of
safe, clean water is limited. California has already experienced
mandatory water rationing.(5) In the
U.S., we use more water on average per person than anywhere else
in the world; we use triple the European average and nearly seven
times the per capita average of the rest of the world.(4)
In the U.S., nonresidential water use accounts for 53% of our total
water use, of which 70% is devoted to commercial, institutional,
and industrial buildings.(6) Clearly,
ensuring that future construction is designed for water conservation
would greatly reduce our demand on diminishing water supplies.
Green buildings can save money by increasing worker productivity
as well. A report by the U.S. Department of Energy and the Rocky
Mountain Institute documents eight case studies, in which efficient
lighting, heating, and cooling measurably increased worker productivity,
decreased absenteeism, and/or improved the quality of work performed.(7)
Workers’ salaries constitute the highest annual operating
expense of commercial space in relation to dollars per square foot,
followed by rent. In comparison, operation, maintenance, and energy
costs are a much smaller percentage of operating costs (less than
one-tenth). A one percent savings in salaries – or a one percent
productivity gain – of $2 per square foot per year well exceeds
operation, maintenance, and energy costs.(8)
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimates that direct
health care costs associated with sick buildings are $30 billion
annually. Another $100 billion in indirect costs – in the
form of sick leave and productivity losses – are also attributed
to poor indoor air quality.(9)
Benefits of Green Buildings
Green buildings save money because they conserve resources and
enhance efficiency by:
- Maximizing energy conservation and efficiency by optimizing
building orientation and integrating natural daylight and ventilation;
- Using natural insulation such as roof gardens;
- Using technology such as solar panels, fuel cells, and photovoltaics;
and
- Conserving water and reducing runoff using solar water heating,
contour landscaping, and water-conserving or water-recycling appliances.(10)
Green buildings reduce the environmental impact of the building
industry by:
- Using materials that are selected based on their life-cycle
environmental impacts;
- Making use of renewable energy resources;
- Minimizing the use of mined rare metals and persistent synthetic
compounds;
- Applying reduce, reuse, and recycle to materials in all phases
of construction and demolition; and
- Reducing harmful waste products produced during construction.(10)
Green buildings enhance occupant safety, health, and comfort by:
- Reducing or eliminating toxic and harmful materials and finishes;
- Applying maintenance and operational practices that reduce or
eliminate harmful effects on people and the natural environment;
and
- Employing personal, local control over temperature, air flow,
and lighting.(10)
Training Architects in Green Design
Research indicates that the initial design and construction costs
of building green over conventional building has dropped significantly
in recent years, and is expected to continue to decline as designers
and builders gain experience and training in this relatively new
field. In Oregon, the premium cost for a Leadership in Energy and
Environmental Design (LEED)-certified green building dropped as
local designers became more familiar with sustainable design elements
– a building erected in 1995 had a 2% cost over a comparative
conventional building; in 1997, 1%; and, in 2000, a 0% premium was
achieved.(5)
Architects educated in green design better serve their clients
by designing buildings that cost less to occupy and maintain. In
several state studies, training has been found to be a key factor
in improving compliance with energy efficiency standards.
Since most of the features that make a building sustainable are
incorporated in the design phase, architects can play a pivotal
role in determining how green a building is. Factors that determine
a building’s performance, such as site selection; orientation;
foundation, walls, and roof; heating, cooling, and ventilation;
and lighting, are either directly or indirectly influenced by the
design decisions of the architect.
Site Selection
Although site selection is usually based on price, a poor decision
can preclude several sustainable features. Making the most out of
what the site has to offer can be the difference between a high
performance building and a traditional one.
Orientation
Proper orientation allows for passive solar gain and daylighting.
In the northern hemisphere, south-facing windows have the greatest
exposure to the sun. West-facing windows need to be carefully designed,
as the low angle of the setting sun can cause overheating.
Foundation, Walls, and Roof
The envelope of the building is a significant determinant of how
much energy is required to heat and cool it. The challenge in designing
the foundation, walls, and roof is to minimize conductive heat loss/gain
while minimizing uncontrolled movement of air into the building.
Heating, Air Conditioning, and Ventilation
Reducing the heat load of the structure allows for the installation
of a smaller heating and cooling system. The importance of high
quality ventilation systems is often overlooked during the design
phase, but is a fundamental consideration in green building.
Lighting
U.S. Department of Energy research found that lighting and appliances
consume 14 percent of the energy used in a residence. Occupants
want living/working spaces that are bright and inviting. Energy-efficient
buildings make use of natural daylight in high traffic areas and
are designed for individual, local control to avoid wasting energy.
Economics of Green Buildings
Financial Benefits of Green
Buildings
Summary of Findings (per square foot)(11) |
Category |
20-Year Net Present Value |
Energy Savings |
$5.80 |
Emissions Savings |
$1.20 |
Water Savings |
$.50 |
Operations and Maintenance Savings |
$8.50 |
Productivity and Health Benefits |
$36.90 to 55.30 |
Subtotal |
$52.90 to 71.30 |
Average Extra Cost of Building
Green |
(-$3.00 to -$5.00) |
Total 20-Year Net Benefit |
$$50 to $65 |
Initial Cost Premiums Compared to Lifetime Costs/Savings
A recent study of 33 green buildings in California found that the
average cost of building green over traditional methods (the “premium”)
was about 2%, which equals about $4 per square foot. The average
energy reduction from the 33 buildings was 30 percent. This alone
provides savings sufficient to pay back the initial 2% premium in
less than 9 years. The same study found that, over a twenty-year
period, the overall net savings for a green building is between
$48.87 - $67.31 per square foot, depending on the LEED rating of
the building. Therefore, an initial investment of only 2% of the
first costs results in savings worth more than ten times the added
premium.(5)
Occupant Productivity
Two studies, conducted by the Heschong Mahone Group in Sacramento,
California, demonstrated that incorporation of natural light had
positive results on a building’s occupants. One study analyzed
test score results for over 21,000 students from three elementary
school districts in California, Colorado, and Washington state.
Results from the Capistrano Unified School District in Orange County,
California, indicated that, in one year, students with the most
daylighting in their classrooms progressed 20% faster on math tests
and 26% on reading tests.(12) Another
study examined sales levels in 108 nearly identical retail stores,
of which some incorporated skylights and others did not; results
showed 40% higher sales in daylight retail environments.(13)
A report by the U.S. Department of Energy and the Rocky Mountain
Institute documents eight case studies, in which efficient lighting,
heating, and cooling measurably increased worker productivity, decreased
absenteeism, and/or improved the quality of work performed.(7)
The Lockheed Building 157 in Sunnyvale, California, was designed
to be a highly energy-efficient facility. Green design elements
added $2 million in design and construction costs to the $50 million,
600,000-square-foot project. The use of daylighting has resulted
in a 75% decrease in electricity costs, at a calculated savings
of $500,000 annually. In addition, Lockheed reports a 15% rise in
production and a 15% decrease in absenteeism.(7)
The West Bend Mutual Insurance Company in West Bend, Wisconsin,
incorporated daylighting and personal, localized controls for lighting
and temperature into its 150,000-square-foot office building. The
costs took only 18 months to recoup, and the company saw a 16% increase
in worker productivity.(7)
Legislation
Federal laws and executive orders mandating energy efficiency standards
in federal buildings have produced dramatic results. The government’s
energy use in standard buildings has dropped 23% per square foot
since 1985, saving $1.4 billion annually.(14)
The Federal Energy Management Program, which works with federal
facilities on greening initiatives, reports that greening initiatives
benefit taxpayers and set an example by:
- Making government work better and cost less;
- Using the federal government’s enormous purchasing power
to stimulate markets for promising U.S. energy and environmental
technologies; and
- Saving taxpayers money through reduced waste disposal and materials
costs and lower utility bills.(15)
States can provide leadership and foster economic growth by passing
legislation that provides incentives for green building or requires
state buildings to meet certain green criteria.
Interest in Green Building
At the end of 1999, the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC), the
founder of LEED standards, had 250 member organizations and companies.
Today that number has grown to more than 4,000 members.(16)(17)
The USGBC receives approximately 35 new applications each month
for LEED certification, and there are more than 5,000 LEED-accredited
professionals nationwide.(18) |
Sources:
(1) Roodman, David Malin and Nicholas Lenssen. “A Building
Revolution: How Ecology and Health Concerns Are Transforming Construction.”
Worldwatch Paper #124. Washington, D.C.: Worldwatch Institute, March
1995. 26 February 2004 <http://www.worldwatch.org/pubs/paper/124.html>.
(2) Personal correspondence with Rob Watson, Natural Resources Defense
Council. 24 March 2004.
(3) “Green Builder Program: A Sustainable Approach.”
U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
Network. Smart Communities Network. 26 February 2004 <http://www.sustainable.doe.gov/success/gdp.shtml#top>.
(4) “Living in a Water-Scarce World.” Sierra Club. 8
September 2004 <http://www.sierraclub.org/population/factsheets/water.pdf>.
(5) Kats, Greg. “The Costs and Financial Benefits of Green
Buildings: A Report to California’s Sustainable Building Task
Force.” October 2003. Capital E. 26 February 2004 <http://www.cap-e.com/ewebeditpro/items/O59F3259.pdf>.
(6) “Commercial, Industrial, and Institutional Water Efficiency.”
Rocky Mountain Institute. 8 September 2004 <http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid276.php>.
(7) Romm, Joseph J. and William D. Browning. “Greening the
Building and the Bottom Line: Increasing Productivity Through Energy-Efficient
Design.” Snowmass, Colorado: Rocky Mountain Institute, December
1994. GreenBiz.com. 26 February 2004 <http://www.getf.org/file/toolmanager/O16F8527.pdf>.
(8) “Sustainability: High Performance Buildings Deliver.”
City of Seattle. Seattle City Light. 26 February 2004 <http://www.seattle.gov/light/conserve/sustainability/studies/cv5_sb.htm>.
(9) Asmus, Peter. “San Francisco Has a Chance to Lead Green
Building Revolution.” Jinn Magazine.
5/12/99. 26 February 2004 <http://www.pacificnews.org/jinn/stories/5.10/990512-green-building.html>.
(10) “Basic Sustainable Design Principles.” National
Center for Appropriate Technology. Affordable Sustainability Technical
Assistance for HOME. 26 February 2004 <http://www.homeasta.org/prinenergy.htm>.
(11) Kats, Gregory H. “Green Building Costs and Financial
Benefits.” Capital E. November 2003. 8 September 2004 <http://www.cap-e.com/ewebeditpro/items/O59F3481.pdf>.
(12) Prepared by the Heschong Mahone Group for the Pacific Gas and
Electric Company. “Daylighting in Schools: An Investigation
into the Relationship Between Daylighting and Human Performance.”
20 August 1999. 26 February 2004 <http://www.h-m-g.com/Daylighting/main.htm>.
(13) Prepared by the Heschong Mahone Group for the Pacific Gas and
Electric Company. “Skylighting and Retail Sales: An Investigation
into the Relationship Between Daylighting and Human Performance.”
20 August 1999. 26 February 2004 <http://www.h-m-g.com/Daylighting/main.htm>.
(14) U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy, Federal Energy Management Program. “The Business Case
for Sustainable Design in Federal Facilities.” August 2003.
26 February 2004 <http://www.eere.energy.gov/femp/pdfs/bcsddoc.pdf>.
(15) Prepared by BuildingGreen, Inc. for the U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Federal
Energy Management Program. “Greening Federal Facilities: An
Energy, Environmental, and Economic Resource Guide
for Federal Facility Managers and Designers.” May 2001. 26
February 2004 <http://www.eere.energy.gov/femp/pdfs/29267-0.pdf>.
(16) Gonchar, Joann. “Green Building Industry Grows by Leaps
and Bounds.” Engineering News Record. 1 January 2003. U.S.
Green Building Council. 26 February 2004 <http://www.usgbc.org/News/usgbcinthenews_details.asp?ID=534>.
(17) “Who We Are.” U.S. Green Building Council. 9 September
2004 <http://www.usgbc.org/AboutUs/whoweare.asp>.
(18) Ohrenschall, Mark. “Spreading the Green Message: Marketing
Vital to Expanding Green Building Beyond the Leading Edge, Paper
Finds.” 18 December 2003. Con.WEB. 26 February 2004 <http://www.newsdata.com/enernet/conweb/conweb96.html#cw96-1>.
|