By: Josie Plaut
Associate Director
The Center for the Built Environment (CBE) at UC Berkley
recently released a study in May 2014 suggesting that there is no difference in
occupant satisfaction for LEED and non-LEED buildings. Unfortunately, results like these can be
easily taken at face value and are often misinterpreted by general
audiences.
Upon further investigation and consideration of the study, there
are a couple of important questions that should be raised about the construct,
and ultimately the results, of the study.
Of the 15 IEQ
parameters that the study assessed, only three are substantively addressed in
the 2009 LEED for New Construction and Commercial Interiors credits: amount
of light, air quality, and temperature. The
additional parameters center on cleanliness, maintenance, spatial design, and
aesthetic, among others.
Light, air quality, and temperature are primarily addressed
as credits in LEED, and not as prerequisites.
The CBE study does not indicate if the credits related to these
attributes were achieved in the buildings evaluated in the study. The study also included some buildings
certified under the Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance rating
system, which would include some additional parameters (e.g. building
maintenance, workspace cleanliness), but even these attributes are a bit of a
stretch.
Of the three areas that could arguably be addressed by LEED,
responses were somewhat unfavorable related to amount of light in LEED buildings
(likely related to energy conservation efforts), favorable for air quality
(potentially due to ventilation and healthy materials credits that are included in LEED), and mostly
neutral on temperature (which makes sense because thermal comfort is a key focus
for any mechanical engineer who wants to cover his/her back on callbacks from
unhappy owners).
So the first question is, “Is LEED even designed to affect occupant satisfaction?” I would
argue that it is not. LEED is primarily
designed to 1) increase energy and water efficiency, 2) to encourage
responsible site selection and development, 3) reduce impacts related to
materials and 4) to create healthier
buildings for occupants. Healthier is
not the same as satisfied, as the two often include different factors, design
solutions, and metrics for success.
A second point about methodology is that the researchers were primarily
comparing Class A offices and institutional buildings to other Class A offices
and institutional buildings. One would argue
that Class A design, is, well, Class A
design. That means that the starting
point is already a pretty nice building, with decent designers and good
mechanical systems. Our experience on
over 50 LEED projects would suggest that the pursuit of LEED generally doesn’t
have much effect on decisions around furnishings, finishes, office layouts,
etc. These types of design decisions are often dictated by programming and
budget, and to a much lesser extent by LEED.
At the end of the day, I’m more concerned that the headlines
and blog posts on this study will give people the wrong idea. LEED really isn’t designed to affect the 15
IEQ factors that were measured in the CBE study. LEED
is, however, a great tool for adding focus and accountability for project
teams to track and meet a whole host of relevant green building
strategies. Good design should not start
with LEED; but through good design, prestigious certifications – and more
importantly highly effective buildings - naturally follow.
A complete copy of the article published in Building and
Environment can be found here.
