By: Josie Plaut
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 a 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 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 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 primarily designed to 1) increase energy and water efficiency, 2) to encourage responsible site selection and development, 3) reduce impacts related to materials and 3) 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 they 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.