1.
2009 BECC Conference Presentation
The Decision to Go Green: Individual vs. Group Influences on Our Likelihood to Build Sustainably
Marcel Harmon, PhD, PE, LEED-AP
Introduction (SLIDE 1)
Introductory remarks. (SLIDE 2) Depending on the source you site, buildings in the United States
account for anywhere from 40 to 50 percent of all carbon dioxide emissions compared to transportation
and industry. (SLIDE 3) Globally, studies place that value anywhere from 30 percent to 50 percent. I
think everyone in this room would agree that the built environment in general consumes a significant
portion of our world’s resources and its collective carbon footprint will have to be reduced to effectively
bring down greenhouse gas emissions to levels proposed by the IPCC and other organizations.
(SLIDE 4) If we use LEED registration and certification as a proxy for sustainability, we can see
that there has been a rapid increase in reducing the building sector’s carbon footprint over the last five
years, and that trend is expected to continue. But will it happen fast enough? (SLIDE 5) Out of the eight
“wedges” of global actions for reducing GHG emissions, one is devoted to building energy efficiency,
represented by the maroon wedge here. Effectively applying each wedge before 2050 would allow
emissions and CO2 levels to stabilize. According to the recently released 2009 Green Building Market
and Impact Report, the current projected penetration rate of LEED certification has the potential to
account for half of this building wedge 2050 target. Unfortunately the slope of the LEED carbon
reduction line shown here is too shallow through 2030 – only accounting for roughly 10% of the wedge
by this date. The rate of LEED adoption (as well as other green certification systems and sustainable
design/construction practices) must be increased in the near term to maximize GHG reductions from
building energy efficiency in order to match or exceed the slope of the building wedge line.
But anyone who’s worked in the building construction industry knows that it’s often a struggle
to convince an owner to incorporate a truly effective sustainable design, construction, and O&M process
into their various projects. Premiums associated with sustainable design/construction (small though
11/19/2009 1

2.
2009 BECC Conference Presentation
they may be), paybacks longer than 3 years, narrow views of the benefits that exclude the occupant, and
fears associated with having personnel (and occupants) capable of operating and maintaining a green
facility, are often enough to kill “green”, or greatly reduce its scope. I’ve touted occupant benefits ‘till
I’m blue in the face with some owners to no avail. Benefits that include performance/productivity
enhancements resulting from daylighting, (SLIDE 6) from indoor air quality improvements, (SLIDE 7) and
from increased local environmental control.
(SLIDE 8) Such occupant factors comprise a large portion of business operating expenses.
Studies have shown that over the span of about 20 years, the ratio of building construction cost to
building operations costs is about 1 to 1.5, but the ratio of construction costs to business operations is
on the order of 1 to 15. So the occupant-related financial benefits of successful green building far
outweigh the energy- and operations-related benefits. But even a life cycle cost analysis taking all of
these factors into account often isn’t enough. Why?
Background/Hypothesis
(SLIDE 9) Human interaction is a complicated, messy process with multiple competing interests
and benefits that occur at the various levels of individual and group interaction involved in any given
situation. This, along with the hierarchy of variables involved in our consumption, conservation, and self-
preservation habits can elevate short-term considerations above long-term considerations.
(SLIDE 10) Enter the studies by researchers affiliated with the Center for Research on
Environmental Decisions (CRED) – their research has demonstrated that the long term benefits that
result from green, sustainable design are given more weight by groups as opposed to individuals.
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
11/19/2009 2

3.
2009 BECC Conference Presentation
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.
(SLIDE 11) This is not meant as an insult, but you all have Stone Age brains. Our “stone-age”
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 (their world was “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 (timeline around the room
explanation). 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 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. 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.
However, 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
(households, companies, community boards, 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.
(SLIDE 12) This fits well within a branch of evolutionary theory known as multi-level selection, or
MLS. MLS provides a framework in which natural selection and other evolutionary forces operate at all
11/19/2009 3

4.
2009 BECC Conference Presentation
levels simultaneously – genes, cells, organisms/individuals, and groups of organisms/individuals.
Sometimes environmental and social/cultural conditions are right for the evolutionary forces to be
stronger at the level of the individual; sometimes these forces are stronger at the group level, resulting
in highly cohesive groups. Uniformity among group members, high levels of cooperation, and functional
integration become the hallmarks of successful groups.
(SLIDE 13) Within MLS the two sides of human behavior known as selfishness and pro-social
behavior each become advantageous at different levels of interaction. While “selfish acts”, such as a city
official accepting a bribe to ignore aspects of the building code for a particular project, or a CEO deciding
to avoid the extra cost of installing an intelligent lighting control system, will benefit individuals or small
groups competing within larger groups, pro-social behaviors, such as the pursuit of LEED Platinum or
dying for one’s country, will benefit larger groups encompassing these individuals and smaller groups.
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.
(SLIDE 14) The selective advantage that cooperation and prosocial behavior offered our
hunter/gatherer ancestors fostered the development of a species of very social creatures who in general
love to congregate. Other CRED studies have demonstrated how easy it is to get even random
individuals to work together. In one test subjects were given a blue star and told they were on the “blue-
star team”; this alone increased group participation from 35 percent to 50 percent. Just seating them
together at a table increased participation rates to 75 percent. This ability to function easily and well
within groups is a core component of what it is to be human, and may offer some insights in promoting
sustainable behaviors.
11/19/2009 4

5.
2009 BECC Conference Presentation
So going back 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 this essentially became the hypothesis to test:
(SLIDE 15) 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.
Methodology/Study Structure
To test this, I decided to compare a dataset 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. By certified, I’m referring to any recognized formal means of
sustainable design & construction verification. LEED is typically what comes to mind here, but there are
others, such as Energy Star, Green Globes, Green Star, etc. Data collection has been primarily through
surveys to members of project design teams as well as building owners, with subsequent follow up for
clarification where respondents indicate a willingness to be contacted. In addition, further background
research on a project-by-project basis will occur as a means of randomly “checking” the answers
submitted, as well as to further clarify project contextual information related to the decision makers.
• Funding sources for the project
• The number of people involved or influencing the final decision process.
11/19/2009 5

6.
2009 BECC Conference Presentation
• The demographic background of the individuals and/or group(s) involved in making the final
decision
• The reasons that the final decision was based on
• How to gauge the success of the project in terms of sustainability.
• The nature of the local social/cultural rules of interactions, the social/cultural concepts of
sustainability (business, ethnicity, etc.) that facilitated the interactions involved in the final
decision making process.
(SLIDE 16) I have divided the research into two phases. Phase 1, which I am currently finishing,
has consisted of 1) developing the survey tool, 2) distributing it internally and externally via a few email
lists (Space-and-Place listserv, Anthrodesign, Epic-Global-Impact, and the BigGreen listserv) for review as
well as to actually collect preliminary data (primarily M.E. Group projects), and 3) analyzing the review
comments and data with the goal of evaluating/fine-tuning the survey tool and the research process in
general. Phase 2 will consist of a much wider distribution of the survey tool to M.E. Group clients,
partners, and contacts, multiple email lists, and social networking sites. I am considering using the
preliminary Phase 1 findings for funding requests, perhaps partnering with a university and/or other
private partner to assist with the follow-ups, random checks, and data analyses.
(SLIDE 17) The survey itself currently consists of 30 questions, subdivided into 3 sections.
Section 1 provides the “book-keeping” information on the project itself, such as project name, facility
type, funding sources, etc. Section 2 provides the information on the sustainable nature of the project –
the types of sustainable elements that were incorporated into the project regardless of whether
certification was pursued. It also provides the information on the type and version of certification
system used (i.e., LEED NC, version 2.2) and the level of certification achieved (i.e., certified, silver, gold,
platinum). Section 3 seeks to understand the quantity of people involved in the final decision and the
number of people inside and outside the organization influencing this decision. In addition, it seeks to
11/19/2009 6

7.
2009 BECC Conference Presentation
determine the respondents understanding of why sustainable elements and/or certification was or was
not pursued. For those that are interested in viewing the survey, it is at the following address; and I
would welcome additional comments before implementing phase 2.
Initial Results/Discussion
(SLIDE 18) Currently I have 26 projects entered into the database via this survey tool – not
enough to reach definitive conclusions, but their analysis is nevertheless interesting and has provided
some insights into the remaining process. I’ve initially looked at the correlation between the number of
people involved in the decision process (directly and via influence) and both a) the number of
sustainable elements incorporated and b) the level of certification sought. Specifically I ran a Kendall’s
Tau-B correlation test and the table here shows the resulting rank correlation coefficients for each
comparison. The coefficient can range from -1 to 1, with -1 indicating perfect disagreement or negative
correlation between the two variables, 1 indicating perfect agreement and 0 indicating complete
independence between the two variables (no correlation).
To quickly clarify the variables involved, the sustainability indicator is simply the sum of the
number of sustainable elements incorporated into each project and the certification indicator
represents the survey responses weighted by the certification level achieved. In the survey, the people
involved were subdivided into 1) the number directly involved in the decision, 2) the number within the
organization who influenced the decision makers (such as employees), and 3) the number outside the
organization who influenced the decision makers (such as tenants, customers, etc.). The other two
columns represent combining the number estimates for a) all those within the organization and b) all of
the people involved.
Several things are worth noting. All coefficients are positive, indicating at least some agreement
in all of the variable comparisons. So as the number of people involved per project increases within this
dataset, so does the degree of sustainability and certification. In addition, notice that the agreements
11/19/2009 7

8.
2009 BECC Conference Presentation
are stronger for the certification indicator than for the sustainability indicator. This is not surprising as
achieving certification is a prosocial formal process that typically requires some additional resources for
the certification paperwork, commissioning, and generally incorporating a broader suite of sustainable
elements. In contrast, the sustainability indicator simply tells us whether or not individual sustainable
elements were incorporated into design and construction, not necessarily as part of a focused prosocial
sustainable effort. Even in an environment where short term, local considerations rule, individual
sustainable elements will make into a design here and there because of the short term benefits they
may also offer.
And finally note that the coefficients indicate increasing agreement going from the individual
decision makers, to those within the organization influencing the decision makers, to those influencing
externally. Now this may partially be an artifact of the number ranges that I’m using in the survey to
choose from for the number of people questions - organizational decision making bodies typically
consist of smaller numbers of people, and therefore the ranges that I’m using in the survey may not be
fine enough to detect the increases in the decision makers that may be occurring. Regardless, though,
we’re still talking about small numbers of people even if there is an increase, so I think most of the
answer lies in the previous MLS and CRED decision making discussions.
Now all else being equal, individuals and small numbers of people are more likely to make
cost/benefit decisions within a short term, local framework. Hence the lower agreement values for this
column. But when we move to the level of the organization, there is an increase in the level of
agreement, though its still below 0.5, likely reflecting a highly contextual mix of short term, local and
long term, global considerations at play. But the biggest jump in agreement occurs going from within the
organization to outside the organization. Here we approach both numbers of people and geographic
areas that potentially move us substantially beyond short term, localized costs/benefits. (SLIDE 19)
Assuming that the Phase 2 efforts confirm these results, this would suggest that by somehow creating
11/19/2009 8

9.
2009 BECC Conference Presentation
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.
Conclusion
(SLIDE 20) Now obviously with such a small dataset this analysis has been more of an intellectual
exercise to help lay the groundwork for the Phase 2 portion of the research. Research that will continue
to illuminate the nature of group vs. individual influences on sustainable decision making in the building
construction industry, as well as how contextual social/cultural norms impact the nature of these group
vs. individual influences. And 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. And even the Phase 1 research will provide some
insight into facilitating policies, messages, and procedures that increase the rate of effective sustainable
design/construction. Having owners reach out to employees, clients, tenants, etc., to solicit direct input
being a case in point. Now I try to avoid bad puns whenever possible, but this is going to require a
“group” effort to move forward. It will be a challenge, but on the bright side its one that we’re highly
adapted for in order to meet.
11/19/2009 9

10.
The Decision to Go Green:
Individual vs. Group Influences on Our
Likelihood to Build Sustainably
Marcel Harmon, Ph.D., P.E., LEED‐AP

11.
Built Environment’s Impact
48%
Buildings
27%
Industry
25% Transportation
U.S. Energy Consumption & GHG
Emissions By Sector
Source: Architecture 2030 & US Energy Information Administration

12.
Buildings in the U.S.,
• Consume 71% of the electricity produced.
• Consume 12% of the total water used.
• Produce 65% of the waste generated.
Buildings worldwide,
• Consume 40% of the total materials & energy used.
• Consume 17% of the total water used.
• Consume 25% of the total wood harvested.
Source: US Green Building Council (USGBC)

13.
LEED Registered Vs. Certified Floor Area
Source: GreenerBuildings and JohnsonDiversey Webinar, 11/05/09

14.
LEED & Building Carbon “Wedge”
Source: GreenerBuildings and JohnsonDiversey Webinar, 11/05/09

15.
Performance/Productivity
Compared to little or no daylighting,
classrooms with large amounts of daylighting
have been found to increase the rate of
student learning by:
20% in math
26% in reading
- Heschong Mahone Group. 1999. Daylighting
in Schools: An Investigation into the
Relationship Between Daylight and Human
Performance. Report submitted to Pacific Gas
and Electric. http://www.h‐m‐g.com.

16.
Performance/Productivity
IAQ Improvements:
save up to $58 billion in lost sick time
save additional $200 billion in worker
performance.
- Fisk, W. G. 2000, Health and Productivity Gains from
Better Indoor Environments and Their Relationship
with Building Energy Efficiency. Annual Review of
Energy and Environment 25(1):537‐566. Later
updated for 2002 dollars.

17.
Performance/Productivity
Increased tenant environmental control have
been found to provide average measured
workforce productivity gains of:
7.1% with lighting control,
1.8% with ventilation control, and
1.2% with thermal control.
- Kats, G., L. Alevantis, A. Berman, E. Mills, and J. Perlman,
2003. The Costs and Financial Benefits of Green Building: A
Report to California’s Sustainable Building Task Force.

18.
Sustainable Building Benefits
Over 20 – 25 years, for a 16
typical service business: 14
Ratio of amortized 12
10
construction cost to
8
building operating costs to
6
staff salaries/business 4
operating costs = 2
1:1.5:15 0
Construction Bldg Business
- Commission for Architecture and the Built Operations Operations
Environment and the British Council for Relative Cost
Offices, London, UK, 2005.

19.
Human Interaction

20.
Decision Making Systems
Analytical vs. Emotional

21.
Stone‐Age Minds
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 GHG
emissions

22.
Multi‐Level Selection (MLS)
Group
Evolutionary forces act at
Individual
all levels simultaneously,
and may be stronger at a
Cell
specific level at any given
time
Gene

23.
Prosocial Vs. Selfish Behaviors
Prosocial
Selfishness
Behavior
Individuals & Larger
Small Groups Groups
Within Between
Group Group
Selection Selection
Short Term & Long Term &
Local Global

24.
Working Together

25.
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.

26.
Research Phases
Phase 1
• Developing the survey tool;
• Distributing it internally and externally for review comments and
preliminary data;
• Analyzing the review comments and data to evaluate/fine tune
survey tool and research process
Phase 2
• Possible partnering and funding requests;
• Wider distribution of final survey tool;
• Follow up and background research
• Data analysis, interpretation, and conclusions

27.
Survey
http://www.formspring.com/forms/megroup‐project_sustainability_survey

28.
Kendall Tau‐B Rank
Correlation Coefficients
Increasing Numbers of People
Increasing Agreement
Internal People External People
People Making Combined Combined
Influencing Final Influencing Final
Final Decision (1) 1 + 2 1 + 2 +3
Decision (2) Decision (3)
Sustainability
0.158 0.232 0.174 0.499 0.476
Indicator
Certification
0.369 0.472 0.397 0.651 0.605
Indicator
Generally Increasing Agreement

29.
Reaching Out to Employees,
Customers, Tenants, Etc.

30.
Group Effort