Page | 1

Boston Architectural College

Performance in Sustainable Community Developments: Closing the Gap between Perception and Reality

Author: Marcella Whitfield

Presented to the Faculty of the School of Design Studies In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

For the Degree of Master of Design Studies

Graduating Class of May 31, 2014

Final Review on May 8, 2014

Approved By Supervising Committee:

Richard Strong - Instructor

Shaun O’Rourke - Director of Sustainable Design

Page | 2

Abstract

As our scope has naturally evolved and widened beyond designing individual sustainable buildings into

looking holistically at a system of sustainable buildings that collectively form a sustainable urban

neighborhood, efforts have focused on creating several different theoretical frameworks to guide

sustainable neighborhood design. Designing the community aligned with a sustainable development

framework should, in theory, lead to sustainable performance in a number of key performance

indicators. However, perception is reality for stakeholders, swept up in the enthusiasm and pace of the

sustainable movement. Stakeholders readily accept the green designs will inherently perform

sustainably. In 2008, a study by the New Buildings Institute (NBI) revealed that only 11% Leadership in

Energy and Environmental Design for New Construction (LEED-NC) rated buildings studied were

performing to their modeled energy use intensity (EUI = Annual Energy consumption per square foot.)

(Turner and Frankel 2008, 1-42) This study led many to question the effectiveness of the LEED

certification process to create high performance buildings. The realization that design intent, modeling

and certification did not guarantee sustainable performance, spurred interest in monitoring of key

performance indicators in buildings. The best sustainable designs can deliver unsustainable

performance post occupancy for a number of reasons. Despite this disconnect, few developments

touted as sustainable are actually measuring their sustainable performance to verify performance or

substantiate these claims. As seen with individual sustainable buildings, the development industry

claims sustainable neighborhoods perform as designed and consumers do not ask for proof. This

research analyzes current sustainable urban developments in the occupancy stage to determine if

monitoring is occurring. The study will also reveal what is monitored, how it is monitored, and seek

underlying motivations for monitoring sustainable performance indicators. The study examines current

barriers to monitoring development community performance and concludes with suggested methods to

effectively overcome those barriers and motivate stakeholders towards post occupancy monitoring and

reporting in sustainable developments.

Page | 3

Biographical Note

Marcella Whitfield, CEM, LEED AP

Marcella Whitfield is a senior associate and sustainable consultant with ICF International. Mrs. Whitfield

has four years of consulting experience involving institutional sustainability, demand side management,

energy efficiency and life-cycle analysis (LCA). She currently provides technical support to various utility

demand side management programs throughout the United States, facilitating and implementing energy

saving measures for commercial and industrial utility customers.

Prior to joining ICF, Mrs. Whitfield had extensive experience consulting for the US Department of

Defense (DOD) as a Resource Efficiency Manager. She provided guidance regarding their overall energy

management strategy and reduction efforts on a base and command level. Her efforts on these

installations have allowed these installations to implement many initiatives that allowed the DOD to

meet its critical energy efficiency goals, as exceeding the water efficiency goals and renewable energy

on-site generation, as well as plan for future projects and critical resource shortages. Her DOD

experience also stems from 6 years of active duty service in the United States Air Force as a Civil

Engineer, project manager, deployment operations officer, and Energy Manager. She still serves as an

Engineering Officer in the United States Air Force Reserves, assisting the Air Force Energy Analysis Task

Force with a focus on strategic energy projects throughout the Air Force.

Mrs. Whitfield holds a Bachelor of Science, Undergraduate Degree in Civil Engineering from Tulane

University and will complete her Masters of Sustainable Design from Boston Architectural College in

2014. She is also a Certified Energy Manager, Association of Energy Engineers (AEE), and a Leadership in

Energy and Environmental Design Accredited Professional (LEED® AP), US Green Building Council. As a

professional, she is actively involved with the Association of Energy Engineers, Urban Land Institute,

Society of American Military Engineers, and former chair of the Steering Committee of the U.S. Green

Buildings Council (USGBC), Lowcountry Chapter.

Page | 4

Table of Contents

Abstract .........................................................................................................................................................2

Biographical Note ..........................................................................................................................................3

Table of Figures .............................................................................................................................................5

Scope of Research .........................................................................................................................................6

Glossary .........................................................................................................................................................8

Evolution of Sustainability in the Built Environment ....................................................................................9

The Role of Measurement in Evaluating Success ....................................................................................... 13

Why is Measurement Important? .......................................................................................................... 16

Evaluating Sustainable Development Strategy with Monitoring ........................................................... 19

Current Monitoring Trends in Sustainable Communities – Research Methodology ................................. 24

Community Profiles of Neighborhoods Analyzed .................................................................................. 28

Current Monitoring Trends in Sustainable Communities – Research Data................................................ 46

Survey Responses - ................................................................................................................................. 46

Current Monitoring Trends in Sustainable Community Developments – Review of Data ......................... 47

Which Communities Monitor Sustainable Performance? ...................................................................... 47

Why are they Monitoring and Who is Responsible? .............................................................................. 49

What do the Communities Monitor? ..................................................................................................... 52

How are they Monitoring Sustainable Performance? ............................................................................ 55

What are the issues realized with monitoring practices/methods? ...................................................... 57

What are the lessons learned from monitoring? ................................................................................... 59

Barriers to Measuring and Monitoring Performance ................................................................................. 61

Encouraging Trends in Voluntary Monitoring and Reporting .................................................................... 68

Conclusion .................................................................................................................................................. 72

What’s happening now? ......................................................................................................................... 72

What Should Happen Next? The Path Forward ..................................................................................... 74

Appendix A: Survey Responses ................................................................................................................... 79

Appendix B: Ideas and Personal Future Research Efforts ........................................................................ 114

Appendix C: Bibliography ......................................................................................................................... 115

Appendix D: Community Contacts ........................................................................................................... 119

Page | 5

Table of Figures

Table 1: List of Communities Contacted for Survey Responses ................................................................. 27

Table 2: Monitoring Practices and Frameworks of Sustainable Communities - Under Construction ........ 47

Table 4: Motivation and Responsible Party for Monitoring Post Occupancy in SD Communities ............. 49

Table 5: Motivation and Responsible Party for Monitoring Post Occupancy in Completed Communities 49

Table 6: Sustainable Indicators monitored by Completed Communities................................................... 52

Table 7: Sustainable Indicators that Communities in Construction are planning to monitor.................... 52

Table 8: Methodology Used to Monitor Sustainable Performance Post Occupancy ................................. 55

Table 9: Issues reported while monitoring sustainable communities post occupancy ............................. 57

Table 10: Lessons Learned by Communities monitoring sustainable performance post occupancy ........ 59

Table 11: Carbon Buzz Survey on relevance of reporting carbon emissions ............................................. 71

Table 12: Carbon Buzz Survey on Motivation to report carbon emissions ................................................ 71

Thanks

I would like to thank my advisor Richard Strong at the Center for Sustainable Building Research (University of

Minnesota), as well as the contributors that responded to my early requests for information about sustainable

development. Without their responses, the research would not have been possible and we might not be one step

closer to realizing the importance of monitoring our endeavors in sustainable community developments.

Page | 6

Scope of Research

Sustainable Developments (SD) can encompass a large variety and range of development types. The

research in this paper was limited to actual new or retrofit urban developments of the district to

neighborhood size in urban settings that are characterized as sustainable. As such, city-scale efforts

where municipal governments are assessing their sustainability as a holistic city are not relevant to this

research. Most of the SD sites researched consist of both residential and commercial/industrial building

types, along with the components that comprise a functioning neighborhood (infrastructure, utilities,

transportation, etc.) Due to the low number of SD developments that presently meet these criteria,

developments that are not yet completed are also included if monitoring is proposed or required in their

future occupancy stage.

The analysis does not assess the actual performance of any one community, only whether a community

is monitoring. To that extent, the research does not evaluate which SD communities included in this

research are the most sustainable, as the definition of a “sustainable development” has different

meaning and relevance for different audiences. The analysis also does not assess whether the

communities that are monitoring performance are meeting their own goals. This research does not

evaluate individual key performance indicators (KPI’s), or frameworks of KPI’s, to ascertain which

indicators are appropriate or effective in measuring the sustainability of a neighborhood development.

The attempt to determine which KPI’s can define and assess SD with a universal framework is the focus

of other current research efforts. This research concentrated on the long-term monitoring efforts of SD

communities exclusively in their occupancy stage and did not analyze any efforts to characterize the

sustainability of the SD community construction process.

Page | 7

The intent of the research is to identify and analyze current monitoring efforts present in occupied SD

communities.

The research focuses on:

1. Is the community monitoring their sustainable performance in the post occupancy stage?

2. What is the community monitoring post occupancy?

3. How is the community monitoring their performance post occupancy?

4. Why is the community monitoring their performance post occupancy?

Page | 8

Glossary

Sustainability Indicator: provides information on the state/condition of something, can be qualitative or

quantitative; can be a measure of progress/evaluation

Example of Sustainability Indicators: Primary Energy Consumption per capita, employment rate,

greenhouse gas emissions by sector, area of undeveloped land

Benchmark: point of reference for the indicator to measure and track progress against

Example of a benchmark: Conventional community developments, current building code or

initial values of a community

Sustainable Development Framework: Combines targets/goals and the indicators that will measure and

track progress of these targets/goals under one methodology/approach to define sustainable

development and provide a way to urban sustainability comprehensively and provide standardized

approach to implement and measure sustainability in a development

Example of Sustainable frameworks: Agenda 21, Natural Step, Millennium Development Goals,

Cities for Climate Protection Campaign; International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives

(ICLEI)

Building Code: mandatory minimum requirements for what and how to build/design

Rating System: Assessment tool used to evaluates design against desired outcomes via metrics within a

framework, allows comparison between rated projects

Example of Rating Systems: Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED),

Comprehensive Assessment System for Building Environment Efficiency (CASBEE), Energy Star,

Green Building Index, Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method

(BREEAM)

Page | 9

Evolution of Sustainability in the Built Environment

As the world begins to fully realize the finite nature of the planet’s resources and boundaries, alongside

the explosion in population and consumption, there is an impressive surge of interest surrounding

resource efficiency and low impact systems and processes. It was only a matter of time before the

design community focused on the built environment, the man-made setting for daily human activity.

Research has uncovered destructive impacts and patterns of consumption are typical of modern day

built environment construction and operation, with 40-50% of the world’s primary energy associated

with buildings and another 20% attributed to transportation. (United Nations Environment Program

2009, 6) Concerned design and development are beginning to re-imagine a built environment that

utilizes resources more efficiently throughout its lifecycle and has lower negative impacts on the planet.

“Green Building” emerged as a philosophy of designing and constructing the built environment and

services towards the goal of zero net negative impacts on the environment. Common goals of green

building design include water, energy and resource efficiency, as well as lower negative impacts on and

off site when compared to traditional building design. This is a step in the direction of Sustainable

Design, which ultimately aims for no net negative impact on environmental health, in addition to

economic and social health. The Brundtland Commission1 defined sustainability as “meeting the needs

current generations without impairing the ability of future generations to meet their needs.” (United

Nations Environmental Programme 1987) The reality is that sustainable design and development today

is still an attempt at achieving the Brundtland definition of sustainability. We are just beginning to

explore holistic strategies to lower the negative impact of our built environment. Advances in

technology and more effective solutions will be needed in order to realize this goal. One of the

paramount concerns regarding these efforts is closing the loop by measuring the impacts of these green

1 The Brundtland Commission of the United Nations published a report on March 20, 1987. The report, which included Agenda 21, helped to

shape the international agenda and attitude towards economic, social and environmental development.

Page | 10

building systems. Measurement not only allows the design community to understand the extent of a

design’s impact, but also the effectiveness of new sustainable strategies. Ultimately it gives the design

community the opportunity to improve and refine current sustainable strategies to be more effective.

Initially, individual buildings were the focus of the green building movement. Goals and objectives were

paired with strategies in various frameworks to guide green building design. Prescriptive and

Performance Rating Systems were developed based on frameworks of selected criteria to offer

guidelines and metrics to assess the impact of a proposed design. Voluntary Rating systems, such as

LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) and BREAM (Building Research Establishment

Environmental Assessment Method), were crucial in promoting and spreading acceptance and

awareness of green building strategies and methodologies. In the LEED Building Design and Construction

(BC&C): New Construction (NC) rating system, a new building is certified LEED based on its design intent

and anticipated performance, prior to occupancy. The sum of points, accumulated through a checklist of

required and optional measures, determines the level of rating of each building. Over time, it became

obvious that green building guidelines might transform into standards and eventual adoption into

building codes, elevating minimum building codes and standard compliance to higher environmental

performance. As this occurs, new versions of LEED are released to raise the bar (benchmarks) higher,

further encouraging buildings that perform above and beyond accepted standards and code compliance

and driving direction towards resource efficiency.

Green building has broadened its scope and goals beyond a singular building to encompass various

components and infrastructure forming a community that holistically attempts to create a sustainable

“Sustainable communities are places where people want to live and work, now and in

the future. They meet the diverse needs of existing and future residents, are sensitive to

their environment, and contribute to a high quality of life. They are safe and inclusive,

well planned, built and run, and offer equality of opportunity and good services for all."

(Sustainable Communities Plan of United Kingdom 2003, 4)

Page | 11

neighborhood development. Similar to green building design goals, a sustainable neighborhood

development aims to reduce the net negative impacts a community has on social, environmental and

economic health. A sustainable neighborhood, however, is more complex than just assembling a

collection of green buildings to form a neighborhood. A community consisting of entirely green buildings

where everyone lived on large lots and made long daily commutes to work in inefficient automobiles

does not equate to a sustainable neighborhood. Sustainable communities consider infrastructure and

community services, as well as the lifestyle, quality of life and actions of its residents. A Sustainable

neighborhood development (SD) or community is still being defined, as the definition of a “sustainable

development” has different meaning and relevance for different audiences. Organizations around the

world are trying to refine their definition of sustainable community and the qualities, criteria or target

objectives (indicators) that would result in that definition of a sustainable community. In 2011, a global

census estimated 178 “eco-city” or sustainable neighborhood initiatives under development,

highlighting an increase in popularity throughout the world. (Joss et al. 2011, 1) As seen with the

increased adoption of green building, different approaches and strategies towards the creation of

sustainable communities have emerged, each utilizing a different theory on how to create a community

approaching no net negative impact (if possible.) Since the concept and development of a sustainable

community or neighborhood is not well established or based on a universally accepted definition,

framework initiatives tend to be broad sweeping, generic and easily accessible to ensure they can be

applied to many types of communities. These initiatives include Eco2 Cities (World Bank), International

Ecocity Framework, BioRegional’s One Planet Communities, and US Green Building Council’s Leadership

in Energy and Environmental Design for Neighborhood Development (LEED-ND) rating system. Just as

seen with green building rating systems, in order to increase accessibility of the newer sustainable

community approaches, many of these scalable generic rating systems or frameworks have either a

prescriptive or performance based approach. Prescriptive rating systems have checklist of required

qualities/objectives that need to be accomplished or included in the design to merit a particular rating.

Page | 12

Performance based frameworks include quantitative metrics or indicators to measure design intent or

targets against a selected benchmark. This gives the designers and developers a gauge to measure the

extent of their sustainability in the design stage. However, this method is still only an estimate on the

predicted performance, since model accuracy can only be determined by how the building is used after

occupancy. Modeling should be verified by evaluating the actual performance of these communities

post occupancy to see how realistic the models are. Until accurate measurement of critical indicators

occurs, there is way to know for sure if these frameworks are effective in achieving sustainable

communities.

“Given the wide and increasing recognition that human development urgently needs to

take a more sustainable path, it is imperative that systems exist to identify related goals

and measure, assess, monitor and audit progress towards their achievement.”

(Mitchell et al. 1995, 9)

Page | 13

The Role of Measurement in Evaluating Success

To date, the world is still trying to determine and theorize the best way to design and construct a

sustainable development or community. New frameworks and rating systems have fueled a powerful

momentum towards the intent of sustainability. Yet, municipalities, design professionals and developers

are “flying blind” as many sustainable development frameworks are being developed and implemented

with little feedback on the effectiveness of earlier frameworks. Do those frameworks really achieve

sustainable developments? We’ll never know if we don’t measure the performance of the pilots and

initial frameworks. In theory, it’s all working, yet no one knows for sure if it is, without measuring the

performance. Additionally, while developers may claim a development is sustainable; many developers

don’t have the proof to validate these claims; to show that their development is performing more

sustainably than conventional developments. How can the design community find the way forward if no

one is assessing whether these frameworks are working?

In the manufacturing world, when companies are trying to develop or improve a process of product,

they utilize a continuous improvement plan such as the Plan, Do, Check, Adjust (PDCA) method. PCDA,

or the Shewhart cycle, is a performance based management system made popular by Dr. W. Edwards

Deming, who emphasized the need to evaluate the results of an implemented plan and make corrective

actions to improve the final result in the next iteration.

Figure 1 Shewhart Cycle, Source: www.gdrc.org

Page | 14

Evaluation of results is employed as a tool to:

- Identify best practices and expand their usage elsewhere

- Discover effectiveness of strategy

- Measure progress from a benchmark towards a goal or target

- Recognize opportunities to improve

- Compare performance to outside organizations

Today there is a great need to evaluate the performance of various sustainable development

frameworks to discover which strategies are effective or successful, and make the changes necessary to

improve the resulting development. “The globally accepted standard for gauging sustainable

development progress is the indicator system.” (Birch, et al 2011, 7) Indicators can be used to evaluate a

sustainable development before and after construction. Indicators measure the progress of specific

criteria against a benchmark, towards a target of that development. This will entail collecting data and

reporting the data as a common indicator (metric) to allow for comparison against a benchmark to

evaluate progress. Measuring performance will allow the development community and stakeholders to

discover:

- Which strategies are effective at meeting specific targets?

- Are we improving? (Is there progress in the right direction?)

- How far is this development from its goals? Which goals need more attention?

- How does this development/framework compare to others? Is this framework more effective?

- How can we adjust/refine future frameworks to perform better?

- How can we use this feedback to improve (behavior or technical) our community?

The initial intent of this research was to compare the performance of various indicators throughout

developments and communities that were touted as sustainable to identify best practices and

Page | 15

methodologies or frameworks; to highlight effective and successful frameworks. Early research revealed

very little performance data from sustainable communities was available to enable this type of

comparison. Instead, most developments cited attributes based on design intent rather than actual

performance. It became apparent that this type of comparison was impossible without more

developments monitoring and reporting post occupancy performance.

Page | 16

Why is Measurement Important?

The reality is that it’s far easier to claim a community (or building) is sustainable than it is to

demonstrate or prove it, and there has been minimal demand historically for validation of sustainable

claims in community development. “Perception is reality” when it comes to the development industry.

When most buyers purchase an “energy efficient” building, how many ask to see the energy bills? Most

buyers instead accept that Energy Star appliances, efficient HVAC and extra insulation equate to a more

energy efficient building. Specific events in recent years may have stakeholders questioning these types

of green or sustainable claims. The US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is becoming more

aware of false product claims and holds companies accountable if they trade on the stock exchange.

They must be able to substantiate their claims, including claims of efficiency or sustainability.

USGBC touts LEED as “the most widely recognized and widely used green building program across the

globe…transforming buildings and communities in 50 states and 135 countries…guiding design,

construction and maintenance of nearly 50,000 projects worldwide (9.3 billion square feet)” With that

level of prominence and market penetration, LEED’s reputation suffered significantly in 2008 after New

Building Institute (NBI) published its study on the actual energy performance of 121 LEED certified

buildings post occupancy, the largest study to date of LEED-NC buildings. The study revealed that while

48% of LEED-NC buildings included in the study were exceeding their predicted energy targets, 42%

were failing to meet their modeled energy targets (Coleman 2008, 21) This research highlighted the fact

that LEED certification (like many other rating systems) is based on good intentions and best predictions.

Due to its process of certification prior to operation and occupancy, LEED-NC has been criticized for

rating buildings based on design intent and modeled (predicted) performance, versus actual

performance beyond construction. This is similar to claiming a car is fuel efficient without taking into

account driving habits of its owner that could render its actual fuel performance inefficient. Building

model accuracy can be drastically off target depending on occupant behavior and building operation. To

Page | 17

paraphrase a popular proverb, “The road to failure is often paved with good intentions.” Likewise, LEED

BC&C-NC certification only requires sustainable design, not sustainable performance. Even though the

NBI study examined energy use, it tarnished LEED’s credibility and led many to question the

effectiveness of the LEED-NC rating. Design professionals realized that certification does not guarantee a

building will perform sustainably.

The United States Green Building Council (USGBC), the organization that administers LEED certification,

admitted in 2007, "Buildings have a poor track record for performing as predicted during design. Most

buildings do not perform as well as design metrics indicate." To combat this disconnect and mend its

reputation as an accurate rating system, the USGBC began requiring operational performance data on a

recurring basis, as a precondition for LEED BD&C-NC building certifications. The requirements for the

most recent version of LEED BD&C-NC version 4 are listed below:

In the press conference announcing the change to monitor performance for all future LEED BD&C-NC

certified buildings, Scot Horst, Senior Vice President of USGBC, indicated that “ongoing monitoring and

reporting of data is the single best way to drive higher building performance because it will bring to light

external issues, such as occupant behavior or unanticipated building usage patterns, all key factors that

LEED BD&C-NC, Version 4: EAp3

The building is required to “Commit to sharing with USGBC the resulting energy consumption

data…for a five-year period beginning on the date the project accepts LEED certification or typical

occupancy, whichever comes first. At a minimum, energy consumption must be tracked at one-

month intervals. This commitment must carry forward for five years or until the building changes

ownership or lessee.”

LEED BD&C-NC, Version 4: WEp3

The building is required to “Commit to sharing with USGBC the resulting whole-project water

usage data for a five-year period beginning on the date the project accepts LEED certification or

typical occupancy, whichever comes first. This commitment must carry forward for five years or

until the building changes ownership or lessee.”

Page | 18

influence performance.” USGBC’s VP of LEED technical development also touted that “Building

performance will guide LEED’s evolution. This data will show us what strategies work – and which don’t -

- so we can evolve the credits and prerequisites informed by lessons learned.” (Katz 2009, 1) Essentially,

by monitoring the reported performance and operation of the certified building for “at least 5 years,”

USGBC is hoping to assess its own effectiveness as a rating system and evolve LEED so that certified

buildings will operate more in line with their design intent and modeled performance. A building can no

longer claim to be LEED BD&C-NC (beyond version 3) if it’s not reporting the performance on a recurring

basis for at least 5 years.

From an outside perspective, the credibility of LEED rating systems has improved some since LEED

BD&C-NC certified buildings are required to report their performance for 5 years. There is still the issue

that LEED BD&C-NC buildings can perform worse than they were designed to perform and maintain their

rating, as long as they are reporting that poor performance. The USGBC LEED BD&C rating system falls

short in that it still has no requirements for actual high performance (lower consumption), only that it is

designed to be high performance and that it reports the resulting performance. The rating system is only

for building design and construction phases and does not require sustainable performance post

occupancy. LEED BD&C-NC is not alone with this type of design rating system; CASBEE and Green Globes

both have no high performance operational requirements. Future versions of LEED Rating systems for

newly designed buildings may address this shortcoming and increase the credibility of the certification

by requiring annual or recurring verification of high performance, as seen in rating systems Energy Star

and LEED Existing Buildings, Operations and Maintenance (EBOM). Both of these ratings are for existing

buildings and require annual recertification based on performance. BREEAM bridges the gap between

two distinct rating systems by requiring BREEAM certified buildings apply for a separate rating system

for existing buildings (BREEAM In-Use) in order to keep their certification at their current level.

(Penalties for not applying include de-certification down one level!)

Page | 19

Evaluating Sustainable Development Strategy with Monitoring

Beddington Zero Energy Development (also known as BedZED) is a shining example of a mixed use,

large scale sustainable community that has made monitoring performance integral to its vision of

creating a carbon-neutral development. BedZED was developed through a partnership with

BioRegional Development Group, Bill Dunster Architects and the Peabody Trust Housing

Organization. The London based development sought to minimize ecological impact by aiming for

these targets:

- 33% reduction in potable water consumption compared to the UK average

- 33% reduction in hot water consumption compared to the UK average

- 33% reduction in electricity consumption compared to the UK average

- 90% reduction in space heating needs compared to the UK average

- 50% reduction in private fossil fuel car mileage compared to UK average

- Generate enough electricity and hot water on site for entire site.

- Use materials and methods that lower embodied impact during construction

With these targets in place, the developers felt that “Monitoring progress towards achieving targets is

vital in order to assess the effectiveness of the development, identify areas for further improvement and

highlight lessons learned that can be applied to future developments.” (BioRegional 2009, 9) BedZED

was completed in 2002 and monitored multiple areas for performance in 2003, 2004 2005 and 2007.

Residential Surveys were utilized to collect data on quality of life, food, travel and transport, shelter and

thermal comfort, goods and services, waste and community and amenities. Data loggers, metering

devices, census and waste audits were also utilized to monitor performance. The results of the

monitoring are easily accessible to the general public and posted reports are available online.

Page | 20

The following indicators were measured in at least one of the assessments at BedZED:

- Energy:

o Electricity Consumption in Home (kWh/person/day, kWh/dwelling/year, kWh/m2/year)

o Hot Water Consumption in Home (kWh/person/day, kWh/dwelling/year, kWh/m2/year)

o Space Heating Demand in Home (kWh/person/day, kWh/dwelling/year, kWh/m2/year)

o Thermal Comfort and Air Quality in Home (Temperature, Humidity, Survey Results)

o Renewable Energy

Electricity Generated from Biomass CHP (not operating, no longer measured)

Electricity Generated from Photovoltaic Panels

Net Grid Electricity Consumed (kWh imported, kWh exported)

- Water:

o Water Consumption in Home (liters/person/day)

o On Site Water Treatment (not operating, no longer measured)

- Transportation:

o Car Ownership and Type (cars/dwelling, Fuel Type)

o Private Car Mileage (miles/person/year)

o Travel to Work (mode and miles)

o Car Club Participation

o Bicycle Ownership and Storage

o Air Travel (km/year)

o Travel Mode for Food Shopping

- Food

o Produce Raised On Site

o Organic Food (Choice and Consumption weight/year/dwelling)

Page | 21

- Waste

o Waste Stream (recycling, compost, landfill - weight/dwelling/week)

- Quality of Life

o Community Facilities (opinion of facility, Frequency of use)

o Satisfaction, Likes and Dislikes

- Construction Materials and Methods

o Locally Sourced, Reclaimed, Recycled, Low Embodied Carbon Material Selection

- Ecological Footprint (planet equivalents) and CO2 Emissions of Residents (taken from housing,

transport, food, consumer items, private services, public services, capital investment)

BedZED’s encouraging results revealed what was possible, and better yet what could be improved. The

lessons learned are shared openly with the public so that they could be applied to future developments.

Monitoring data revealed that BedZED did not realize some of its goals. Despite the failure to meet some

of their goals, BedZED took advantage of the situation to learn from their results, analyze their

operations and continue improving towards their ultimate goals. Instead of hiding the results, the data

and resulting lessons learned from monitoring “helped drive UK government’s legislation for all new

homes to be built to zero carbon standards by 2016.” Though there is no monitoring of BedZED

currently, there is still a drive to continuously improve towards the original goals.

BedZED also became the prototype for One Planet Living (OPL) sustainable community development

framework. The data and lessons learned from BedZED guided the

development of the OPL framework for replication worldwide. OPL has

expanded upon the initial targets of BedZED to create the Ten OPL

Principles including: zero carbon, zero waste, sustainable transport,

sustainable materials, local/sustainable food, sustainable water, land

use and wildlife, culture and heritage, equity and local economy and,

Figure 2: Ten OPL Principles, Source: oneplanetcommunities.org

Page | 22

health and happiness. The name One Planet Living stems from the desire to reduce ecological footprint

to the point where we would only need one planet to support everyone alive on earth. This is a

deviation from today’s reality in that we would need 5 planets to support life if we all consumed as

much as the average North American. This figure increases as the world’s population rises. Performance

monitoring is required until 2020 in all OPL endorsed communities. A portion of the monitoring data is

used to calculate the community’s ecological footprint or equivalent planet consumption to gauge its

progress towards one planet living. At BedZED, the equivalent planet consumption resulted in 1.7

equivalent planets. In other words, if everyone on the planet lived like the residents of BedZED, we

would need 1.7 planets to support us. As a prototype for OPL communities, BedZED strives to improve

its performance and still aims for 1 planet consumption.

The truly transformative premise behind the OPL framework is that monitoring encourages continuous

improvement towards the optimal target of one planet. Communities are filled with changing,

integrated pieces that affect the impact a community has. Long term monitoring (hopefully beyond

2020) fuels future improvements, refines operations and behaviors, and captures the inherent dynamic

nature of communities. This is a critical departure from current frameworks discussed earlier. OPL’s

Monitoring and Reporting requirements also have the following benefits for the community:

- Highlights the success of the projects to stakeholders

- Feedback indicates issues and problems; Allows management to correct issues or make

adjustments to better align with targets

- Allows comparison to other communities

- Creates best practices and lessons learned for other communities

- Published results may encourage more efficient and sustainable occupant behavior or reinforce

the already efficient behaviors

Page | 23

OPL Endorsement comes with demanding requirements. It requires sustainable design and planning

according to its ten principles (listed above), in addition to monitoring, evaluation, reporting and

progress towards stringent sustainable targets in each of the ten principles. Communities must create a

One Planet Action Plan and BioRegional must approve this plan. The Action Plan details each

community’s strategy to reach stringent One Planet Community 2020 targets based on the ten

principles. Communities must also commit to independent monitoring of performance until 2020, which

entails developer involvement past completion of construction. The monitoring of performance through

indicators and benchmarks informs OPL’s required Annual Review for each community. This technical

guidance evaluates the success of plan implementation and publicly reports progress towards targets,

lessons learned and areas for improvement. OPL endorsed communities must also show progress

towards the 2020 targets to maintain endorsement. (Repeated failure to show progress towards targets

and dismissal of attempts to get the community back on track would lead to endorsement removal as a

last resort.) Current Endorsed OPL Communities include Grow Community (USA), One Brighton (UK),

Mata de Sesimbra (Portugal), Sonoma Mountain Village (USA), North West Bicester Eco Town Phase

1(UK), Hollerich Village (Luxembourg), Westwyck Ecovillage (Australia). (It appears that only One

Brighton has reached completion.) BedZED and the OPL communities provide an excellent case study on

the benefits of sustainable community monitoring post occupancy and why more communities should

implement long term performance monitoring.

Page | 24

Current Monitoring Trends in Sustainable Communities – Research Methodology

As indicated earlier, the initial intent of this research was to compare the performance of various

performance indicators throughout several sustainable community developments. Apart from BedZED,

preliminary research revealed a startling lack of performance data from sustainable communities. This

prompted a redirection of research into the monitoring and reporting trends in the sustainable

community development industry. Internet searches, trade journals, case studies and academic research

papers revealed a number of sustainable communities that could be examined for their monitoring and

reporting practices, or lack thereof. In the beginning, emails and phone calls were made to developers,

community managers and the local municipal planning departments of 25 sustainable community

developments. The emails inquired about a possible point of contact or location where I might find

“data on key performance indicators for sustainable development” if it existed. Responses were limited

initially until a second email accompanied the request for data with more information on the purpose

and intent of the request for information. The second email yielded more responses than the original

email and included the following details:

- Research of publicly available online information had been already been exhausted before trying to

contact them for information to help them understand the questions were not answered by the

available information provided online

- The research was for academic purposes to identify trends in the industry

- The intent of the study was to gain insight into monitoring practices of current sustainable

community developments. The main goal was to “ascertain the motivation to monitor performance

in a sustainable community development and the issues, best practices and lessons learned that can

be gained from their experiences.” Additionally, I made it clear that the intent was “to understand

WHY they monitor and WHAT they monitor and learn from their experiences” and “NOT to research

HOW sustainable communities are performing.”

Page | 25

Emphasis in the second email was put on the intent of the research to avoid any fear of exposure of not

performing as a community, in reference to their goals or being compared to their own benchmarks or

other communities. This may have assured more stakeholders and led to more responses.

The second email also included a survey of ten questions which validated the intent of the research and

standardized the responses so that all contacts were responding to the same question.

The survey questions are below:

1. Does your community monitor (or plan to monitor in the future) the performance of any

sustainable performance indicator annually?

2. How far from completion is your community development? (in terms of % complete)

3. Who is responsible (or will be responsible) for monitoring performance in your community?

(administrative, funding and reporting duties)

4. What is the motivation to monitor sustainable performance? Is it required or voluntary? Help us

understand what drives your monitoring.

5. Is (or will) energy performance monitored? How do you compile this information?

6. What issues have run into trying to monitor Sustainable Performance or accessing data?

7. Can you share the methods used to collect data?

8. How is performance reported? Is it publicly available?

9. How much does it cost to operate the monitoring program and publish the annual report?

10. Are there any lessons learned in monitoring sustainable performance that you would like to share

with others?

Even with these questions, it was clear that not all contacts understood the research was looking for

monitoring from a specific sustainable community development and not their entire city or municipality.

Contacts also revealed a wide range in the level of understanding regarding sustainability and

monitoring of key performance indicators. Of particular note, some municipalities confuse post

Page | 26

occupancy monitoring with project status reports for projects in progress. As seen in the Dockside Green

Community Development, the municipality stated monitoring efforts were reported in the Annual

Report published by the developer VanCity. Dockside Green is still in progress but it has completed

some of the housing units and has occupants in residence. The Dockside Green Annual Report is

primarily a status report of completion and/or compliance; a checklist of what has been accomplished to

date, rather than data figures revealing a measurement of the performance of the community. As an

example, Goal #13 Install Vertical Green Wall is listed as complete in spring 2009. The green wall was

installed in 2009, but it was removed due to lack of plant growth. This indicator not only lacks the ability

to inform us of the performance of the green wall, but it has the ability to misinform readers of the

document. The report is not sharing information about the performance of sustainable indicators in the

community post occupancy, rather it is focused on ensuring items in the developer’s agreement are

accomplished. While this may be the focus of the municipality, it does not inform the municipality of the

development’s sustainable performance, nor does it allow for the community to “set the benchmark as

the future of sustainable harbourfront communities for years to come,” as the developers website

suggests.

It became evident that between the developer, municipality and the management of the community,

not all contacts were aware of all monitoring efforts. Surveys were often redirected to many points of

contact for answers. This may be due to the cross-functional nature of sustainability, involving many

departments of a single municipality, as well as external organizations. Due to this fact, it was

important to try contacting several individuals, rather than rely on the response of one informant.

Google Translate (http://translate.google.com/) was utilized to send the second email in countries with

a native language other than English, though the accuracy of the translation itself was unknown. While

this led to an increase in responses from those countries, the contacts seemed to misunderstand some

of the questions, perhaps due to inaccurate translations. Follow-up emails attempted to explain any

phrases or terms that were lost in translation. Communities that were not yet built out to their

Page | 27

monitoring thresholds were included so that information could be collected on their future monitoring

plans. These communities are clearly marked apart from the communities that are in post occupancy

operations. Attempts to correspond with the contacts were made via email unless an invitation to a

phone interview was offered by the contact. Skype was utilized where possible as a no cost option to

converse internationally between parties.

Surveys were sent out to the following list of communities. Those highlighted in green responded to the

survey. Communities that responded and were either completed or in construction were included in the

data and research conclusions.

Table 1: List of Communities Contacted for Survey Responses

Name Nation City

Linz Solar City Austria Linz

Dockside Green Canada Victoria, British Columbia

Eco-Viikki in Helsinki Finland Helsinki

Vauban Germany Freiburg

Rieselfeld Germany Freiburg

Braamwisch Ecological Settlement Germany Hamburg-Bramfeld

Kronsberg Germany Hannover

Sudstadt Germany Munich

Eco City Tubingen (Tuebingen) Germany Tubingen-Derendinden

Eva Lanxmeer Netherlands Culumborg

Bo01 in Malmo Western Harbour Sweden Malmo

Ekostaden Augustenbourg Sweden Malmo

Hammarby Sjostad Sweden Stockholm

One Brighton UK Brighton, East Sussex

BedZED UK Wallington, Sutton

Grow Community USA Bainbridge, WA

Village Homes USA Davis, CA

Babcock Ranch USA Fort Myers, FL

Prairie Crossing USA Grayslake, IL

Fields of St Croix USA Lake Elmo, MN

The Brewery USA Milwaukee, MN

Sonoma Mountain Village USA Rohnert Park, CA

Civita USA San Diego, CA

Excelsior & Grand USA St Louis, MN

Renaissance Place at Grand HOPE VI USA St Louis, MN

Page | 28

Community Profiles of Neighborhoods Analyzed

Each of the 16 communities is described briefly below to give the reader some background on the

objectives of the development and pertinent information relevant to this research. If the community has

utilized a framework to guide their design and construction, it will also be listed. Awards were listed

where applicable to showcase any developments that have had significant recognition for their

achievements.

Page | 29

BedZED

BedZED (AKA Beddington Zero (fossil) Energy Development), the prototype for One Planet Living

Community Framework, is one of UK’s largest mixed use sustainable communities. BedZED was

developed by BioRegional, in concert with Peabody Trust, to create large scale carbon neutral (or zero

fossil energy) community. The mixed tenure community, completed in 2002, includes 2,500 square

meters of commercial space, 220 residents living in 100 homes and apartments. The goals of the

projects were to have no net use of fossil fuels on site. To further that goal, additional goals were 50%

reduction in transportation energy, 60% reduction in household energy consumption, 90% reduction in

energy used to heat households, 30% lower water consumption, reduction in waste generated and

increased biodiversity in the area. Features of the community included Passive design, on-site sewage

treatment, on site renewable energy, low impact construction and a green transport plan. The result

was very successful at lowering emissions compared to average Sutton homes, though extensive

monitoring revealed the community did not quite reach its 1 planet goal of emissions.

Framework: OPL Prototype

Awards

- 2001 - Housing Design Award for sustainability, from the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA)

- 2001 - Evening Standard New Homes Awards – BedZED won the London Lifestyle award.

- 2001 - UK Solar Awards, run by Energy 21, for BedZED

o "Perhaps the most influential of all housing projects this century."

- 2002 - World Habitat Awards finalist

- 2003 - Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Award for sustainable communities finalist

- 2003 - Stirling Prize – BedZED was short listed

- 2002 - Energy Globe Award

o International award recognizing foremost example of sustainable energy in building/housing

Page | 30

Bo01 in Malmo West Harbour

Bo01: The “City of Tomorrow” in Malmo’s West Harbour was designed to be a leading international

example of environmental adaptation and social sustainability in a dense urban setting for 1000 people.

The project began as an ecological housing demonstration for the first European Housing Exposition and

development continued after 2001. A Quality Programme was created and included in the contract to

ensure high environmental and social standards. The aims of the programme were quality of life, soil

decontamination, zero energy balance, cradle to cradle waste management, sustainable transportation

planning, increased biodiversity, no toxic substances used, innovative stormwater management and

diversity in types of housing. The programme spelled out targets, rather than specifications, which led

more freedom for developers to realize targets. Bo01 is monitored extensively with IT solutions for

reading meters, controlling ventilation and energy, etc. MiljoTV (http://www.malmo.se/miljo), an

environmental communication tool is used by residents. The city of Malmo adopted Environmental

Construction Program SYD in 2009, after Bo01’s completion, which requires to report performance

online at www.miljobyggprogramsyd.se at project planning stage, project completion (within 1 year)

and again 2 years after completion of the project. Performance is reported in Energy, Moisture Control,

Indoor Environment, Urban Biodiversity, Acoustics and Traffic. The municipality environmental

construction manager evaluates each project today based on reported information in the website and

operational reports.

Framework: Environmental Construction Program SYD

Awards

- 2000 EU Commission Energy award “Campaign for Take-off Award”

- Swedish Architects Association’s Housing Award 2001 for the “Kajplats 01” apartment building

- American Institute of Architects, 2003 honor award for the Tango Housing, Moore

Ruble Yudell Architects & Planners

Page | 31

Braamwisch Ecological Estate

Ecological Estate Braamwisch was a joint eco-construction pilot project of the Federal Research Ministry,

Federal Foundation for the Environment, the City of Hamburg, and the Hamburg Gas Works. The project

was the testing grounds for the Finnish government’s experimental sustainable building program. It was

completed in 2000. There are 40 housing units in 5 rows of terraced houses and 2 semi-detached houses

in the residential community. The goal was to develop a low cost, modular, energy efficient housing

using responsible materials. The community is supplied by solar district heating and encourages

“ecologically oriented mobility concepts.” Water saving measures help the community maintain the

natural treatment of sewage and waste, treating greywater with wastewater purifying beds.

Framework: Loosely based on Local Agenda 21

Awards: Unknown

Page | 32

Civita

Civita is a 230-acre high density urban village in Mission Valley that will feature 4,780 residential homes

and apartments, a 19+acre city park, and 900,000 square feet of retail and office development.

Pedestrian oriented neighborhoods within walking distance of transit stops, solar powered electric

vehicle charging stations and car share programs discourage use of personal vehicles. The community is

expected to exceed California Title 24 building standards by double digit margins, which require 15%

energy use reduction, 20% water use reduction, and 50% reduction in construction waste. Civita is also

planning to offer 10% affordable housing. Through an agreement with the utility, Civita will develop a

smart “micro-grid” to “help residents and businesses conserve electricity, preserve the environment and

make Civita a model for future “low-carbon” communities” (Civitalife.com 2012)

Framework: LEED-ND Gold Stage 1

Awards

- 2010 Outstanding Planning and Leadership and Service Award (awarded by San Diego Chapter of

the American Planning Association)

- 2009 Governor’s Environmental and Economic Leadership Award (GEELA)

- 2009 San Diego Merit Award for Sustaining Excellence (awarded by American Society of Landscape

Architects)

- California Catalyst Project (awarded by the California Department of Housing and Community

Development) (1 of 13 projects chosen for innovation and testing sustainable strategies that

reflect the interdependence of environmental, economic, and community health.)

Page | 33

Excelsior and Grand

Excelsior and Grand in St Louis Park is a pedestrian friendly, mixed use 16 acre infill development in a

Minneapolis suburb. The development includes high density town center with 91,000 SF of retail, 338

apartments and 306 condos for sale (18 of which are affordable.) It is recognized for its 6 year civic

engagement public visioning process that integrated community input into the design. The community

also is integrated into public transit system with 3 bus routes. It was completed in 2007.

Framework: LEED-ND

Awards

- Merit Award for “Outstanding Planning and Urban Design”, MN Chapter of the American Planning

Association

- 1000 Friends of Minnesota Smart Growth Award for “Town Center” Development, 2004

- C&MCA Excellence in Concrete & Masonry Design & Construction, 2004

- MN Shopping Center Association STARR Award for Redevelopment, 2003

- Best Multifamily Project, City Business, Best In Real Estate Award, 2001

Page | 34

Dockside Green

Dockside Green is a 15 acre, 1.3 Million SF mixed use development for 2500 residents that is currently

being developed. It has been touted as the “greenest project of its kind ever in North America.” Two

phases of Dockside Green have been accomplished and the project is now on hold due to the downturn

in the economy. The developer, Vancity, created a master plan that considered social, environmental

and economic criteria required by the City of Victoria in the Triple Bottom Line Assessment mechanism

developed by City Project Manager Kim Fowler. The 26 buildings comprising Dockside Village, Dockside

Commons and Dockside Wharf, will all pursue LEED-NC Platinum, and the community as a whole will

pursue LEED-ND Platinum as a pilot project. The projects incorporates buildings meeting LEED NC

criteria, biomass energy plants and wastewater treatment on site, green building materials and

energy/water efficient design on a former brownfield. Design also embraces alternative modes of

transportation to POV and offers affordable housing in its mix of housing options.

Framework: LEED-ND

Awards

- American Standard Grand SAM Award 2010 – SAM Awards, Canadian Home Builders Association

(CHBA) – British Columbia

- Project of the Year ‐ CARE Awards, CHBA ‐Victoria, 2009

- Top Ten Green Projects Worldwide ‐ AIA (American Institute of Architects) COTE, 2009

- Residential Development of the Year – Georgie Awards, CHBA‐ British Columbia, 2009

- Recognized by Clinton Climate Initiative as a large-scale urban undertaking that demonstrates that

cities can grow in ways that are “climate positive.”

- Sustainable Community Brownfield Award, FCM-CH2MHill Sustainable Community Awards, 2009

- Special Jury Award – AIBC Architectural Awards, 2009

Page | 35

Fields of St Croix

Fields of St Croix is a 241 acre development completed in 2004 by Robert Engstrom Development

Company. The Lake Elmo, MN development is one of the more comprehensive conservation projects in

the country, including ecological restoration in open space, historic preservation, organic agriculture,

innovative stormwater and wastewater management. 40% of the open space was used for 113 single

houses and 12 attached houses in the large-scale cluster housing community, with the remaining 60%

conserved with a conservation easement as open space.

Framework: None

Awards

- Best in American Living Gold National Award, Top National Award for communities of fewer than

150 units, sponsored by the National Association of Home Builders , 1999.

- Best in American Living Regional Award, “Best in the Region” competition

- The 5th Annual Environmental Initiative Award: Land Use and Community Development, awarded

by the Minnesota Environmental Initiative (Presented for efficient and well-planned land use,

accounting for economic prosperity, environmental stewardship and community wellbeing.)

Page | 36

Prairie Crossing

Prairie Crossing is a 667 acre low density “Conservation Community” development northwest of Chicago

with an emphasis on agriculture and open space. It was purchased by a group of neighbors that wanted

to preserve open space and agriculture lands, while developing only 20% of the land for 359 homes. The

contrasting high density final phase of the project includes 36 condos inside the LEED-ND portion called

Station Square with both retail and train access. The condos are all built to EnergyStar standards while

the homes were built to Building America Program. The natural prairie ecosystem has been restored, as

part of the landscape stormwater management and natural drainage system including bio-filtration,

swale conveyance and wetland restoration. This system acts to reduce runoff volumes, increase

infiltration and limit pollutants. A commercial farm also operates on site.

Framework: LEED-ND only for Station Square portion of site

Awards

- 1994 Honor Award from Illinois ASLA

- 1996 Gold Key Award from Homebuilders Association of Greater Chicago

- 1995 Certificate of Recognition from National Association of Homebuilders

Page | 37

Grow

The Grow community is being developed currently on 8 acres of urban infill in Bainbridge Island, WA.

The community, the second One Planet Community endorsement in the United States, is targeting zero-

carbon by 2020. The multi-generational 130 home community will be transit oriented to discourage

personal vehicle use with pedestrian oriented design, easy access to transit and flex car/truck options.

The community will include a variety of housing for a variety of tenants, with a layout that encourages

interaction. The community is also meant to become self-sustaining where it will contain everything it

needs to “grow and thrive” including the urban agriculture program, pedestrian access to transportation

and community services (school, library, retail, grocery, restaurants, etc.) Renewable energy generated

on and off site will be complemented with efficient homes that reduce energy and water use. In order to

garner the OPL endorsement, monitoring will focus on building performance, sustainable services and

resident opinion and satisfaction. The monitoring will feed into an Annual Report (Grow Community

Action Plan) to OPL and will also refine “management and support strategies over time to facilitate

continual improvement.” It is there hope that the monitoring will also provide evidence of their ability

to create an effective sustainable community and create a case study for others. To further this effort,

Asani, the developer, has partnered with Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA) to monitor the

energy performance post occupancy of their Everett model home as a pilot project. A NEEA will use the

pilot to discover cost effective ways to build energy efficient home, and set the next level of high

performance home efficiency standards for the northwest region.

Framework: OPL

Awards

- 2013 Futurewise Livable Communities Award for Overall Excellence in Residential Community

Development.

Page | 38

Kronsberg (Model Kaiserhof – Expo 2000 project)

Kronsberg is 1200 hectare eco-district that began development in 1990 in Hannover, as a part of the

regional planning principle which revolved around transit oriented development strategies. The

community was developed as a result of World Exposition 2000, where it was decided to develop

Kronsberg as a demonstration project adjacent to the Expo site. To meet the Expo date, 3000 homes

were built in 30 months. The development would demonstrate strict ecological criteria detailed in

Agenda 21. A comprehensive plan incorporated responsible soil, water, and waste management. The

community, when completed, will include 6000 dwellings and create 3000 new jobs. The goal was to

reduce emissions by 60% (amended by the city council to 80%)from conventional dwellings through Low

Energy House (LEH) standards construction methods and renewable energy generation (CHP, solar,

wind), solar district heating, water and energy saving features, transit oriented development and

selective material sourcing. The energy efficient construction became the “Energy Efficiency

Optsimisation at Kronsberg” programme and is now “a model urban development project and currently

the leading ecological construction program in Germany.” The Kronsberg Environmental Liaison Agency

(Kronsberg-Kommunikations-Agentur GmbH- KUKA) was established on site to coordinate projects with

city administration. KUKA also monitored quality assurance on construction to ensure LEH standards

were met, along with providing training to architects, engineers, builders to train them on energy

efficient construction methods. The residents were also taught about energy saving measures in KUKA

trainings. The Kronsberg Water concept used the “Mulden Rigolen System” for decentralized retention

and water permeation through the ground. The Kronsberg Waste Management Concept looked at

construction, domestic and commercial waste to encourage landfill diversion and reuse strategies.

Quality Assurance of the construction methods was integral to the project, as was extensive monitoring

of performance in many performance indicators post occupancy. It was deemed such a success that

Hannover adopted many of its standards to the entire city of Hannover in 2007. The standard includes

solar-enhanced development planning, soil and nature conservation, waste and rain water

Page | 39

management, ecologically responsible construction materials, energy efficient construction with passive

house requirements for all new construction. The project was expected to be complete by 2000 but

instead it is only 2/3 complete due to low demand for housing.

Framework: Agenda 21

Awards

- 2001 ‘Energiespar-Oskar’ in Linz, Austria, second prize from among 1,260 submissions from 83

countries.

- 2002 ‘Climate Star 2002’ awarded by the European Climate Alliance for the exemplary energy and

environmental concept of the Kronsberg development.

Page | 40

Linz Solar City

Linz Solar City is a 36 hectare sustainable urban development located in Pichling, Austria comprised of

1,298 apartments (73 apartment buildings), local retail and public services and transit oriented

development strategies for 2,700 people. 12 developers were chosen to create the community that

included energy efficient buildings utilizing passive and active solar energy, natural methods of

wastewater treatment and renewable energy. The renewable energy was provided by solar panels for

hot water, while CHP with biomass and natural gas provided district heating. The Federal Ministry of

Transport, Innovation and Technology, in the subprogram of “Building of Tomorrow”, the city developed

a tool for evaluating developments both in the conceptual and planning phases, as well in the post

occupancy phases. This tool, LES – Linz entwickelt Stadt! (Linz Develops City!), included criteria for

sustainable urban development, economic and social aspects, energy and environmental performance

and mobility. The tool’s real value lie in the fact that is was designed to be easy to use within municipal

government structures via a database format. Following completion in 2005, the city utilized post

occupancy monitoring in 2 studies to gather extensive information about the performance of the

project.

Framework: LES!

Awards

- 1998 "Best practice" awarded by United Nations in a competition on the improvement of the

human habitat.

- 2000 The EBS District (planned by architect Treberspurg) was selected as one of the 5 best

concepts amongst 92 entries in the "Innovatory Building Concepts" category, sponsored by the

Federal Ministry for Transport, Innovation and Technology

- 2001 Awarded International Bremen Partnership Award for being 1 of the 5 best projects

worldwide at the "Business and Municipality - New Partnerships for the 21st century Conference”

Page | 41

Sonoma Mountain Village

Sonoma Mountain Village (SOMO) is a 200 acre mixed use sustainable community redevelopment

comprised of commercial and residential spaces and complementary amenities and community services.

The community was the first North American (and 4th in the world) OPL community endorsement, and

will also aspire for dual certification with LEED-ND (Platinum.) Codding Enterprises, the developer, has

partnered with the community to develop a sustainable village that will allow residents to live, work and

play all within SOMO. Construction for 1,694 units, a town center and 700,000 SF of commercial, office

and retail space will be phased over 12 years, beginning in 2012. The OPL Action Plan for the community

calls for energy and water efficient construction, low impact material sourcing, waste management and

transit oriented strategies to lower the entire community’s ecological footprint. 10,000 solar panels are

already installed on site to provide 2.14MW of solar power to the site. Extensive monitoring is a key

integral piece of the OPL endorsement. Currently construction of new homes is awaiting further

recovery of the market.

Framework: LEED-ND and OPL

Awards

- 2008, Governor's Environmental and Economic Leadership Award (GEELA) awarded on merit of being

a “model for comprehensive land use planning.”

- 2008, Best in the West, by Dwell Magazine

Page | 42

Vauban

Vauban is a neighborhood in Freiburg, Germany developed on the former French Military base. The 38

hectare development was planned for 5,000 inhabitants, focusing on affordable, low energy consuming,

multifamily units. The planning for the "sustainable model district" began in 1993 and was completed in

2006 after the third development phase. When the French government abandoned the base, a group of

citizens, called Forum Vauban, encouraged the city council to develop the site sustainably. Forum

Vauban was later heavily involved with planning and consulting of the development of a car-free and

low energy consuming community. All units are built to low energy consumption standards with 100

units meeting Passivhaus standards. Houses utilize various energy efficient technologies, such as

biomass cogeneration district heating, solar generated electricity and solar collectors. The Solar

Settlement in Vauban is a 59 PlusEnergy community to produce a positive energy balance where solar

energy surplus is sold back to the city’s utility for profit. The development also focused on transit via

public tramway transit, bicycle or foot, with design oriented to accommodate social interaction and

transit (discouraging personal vehicle use and ownership.) The “Optimization of Traffic Concept during

Implementation” project was funded by the German Environment Foundation (Deutsche Bundesstiftung

Umwelt.) Vauban, as a European Union LIFE project, culminated with an international conference called

Urban Visions in Freiburg. The Forum Vauban is considered a unique cooperative case study between a

municipality and citizens, showcasing the grassroots effort of citizens to actively engage and participate

in the planning and development of their community.

Framework: NA

Awards

- 2002 United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-HABITAT) Dubai International Award

for Best Practices to Improve the Living Environment

Page | 43

Village Homes

Village Homes in Davis, CA is a 68 acre low density sustainable community comprised of 220 single

family homes, 20 apartments, a community center and office building for a variety of tenants

interspersed with large open spaces. It was developed by Michael Corbett and Town Planners and

completed in 1982, with a very innovative land use design that went against conventional neighborhood

planning. The development was designed to be transit and pedestrian oriented with walkways, narrow

tree-lined streets connecting to community services within 10 minutes of walk. 12 acres are set aside for

community agriculture producing 24% of the produce consumed by residents. All homes are energy

efficient and passive solar designs, most with rooftop solar water heaters and no air conditioners. Water

infiltration is increased with runoff diversion to permeable sand pits. There are no fenced areas and

instead common areas filled with native and edible landscaping. The development was meant to

increase a sense of community while also conserving resources, an inspired a great number of studies

due to its experimental and unconventional design. In 1977, Thayer a journalist for Sunset Magazine,

suggested, “Village homes will make a significant contribution to progress in community design, whether

it stabilizes as a neighborhood and true product of environmental awareness or serves as a continually

evolving laboratory for conservation and community in environmental design.” It has been called “a

living model of sustainable community design and an ongoing laboratory for research and replication,”

where many organizations have studied, researched and conducted post occupancy evaluations on the

community and its design. (Francis 2002, 23)

Framework: NA

Awards

- 1st Place Case Study Initiative on Land and Community Design by the Landscape Architecture

Foundation

Page | 44

Eco-Viikki

Eco-Viikki is the first ecological designed community in Finland and was a testing ground for the Finnish

Experimental Sustainable Building Program, Eco-Community Project. The project was a joint venture

with the city of Helsinki Planning Department, The National Technology Agency (TEKES), the European

Commission and the Ministry of Environment. It also is part of the energy demonstration, Thermie, EU

PV-Nord. The Association of Architects and the municipality launched a design competition for the

project design. The residential community was completed in 2004. Solar Energy District Heating coupled

with energy efficient design allows for low energy consumption. The goals were to reduce energy use in

the homes, cut emissions by 20%, use no more than 50 Liters of water per person per day and generate

20% less waste than conventional homes in Finland. Developers had to meet the minimum ecological

criteria and participate in monitoring. “The central task of monitoring was to study the attainment of

goals, particularly in the realization of eco-criteria.” (http://www.hel.fi/static/ksv/julkaisut/eco-

viikki_en.pdf) The monitoring of building construction allowed assessment of processes, design and

technical solutions based on consumer data. The Final Monitoring Report was released in 2004.

Framework: Finnish National Program of Ecologically Sustainable Buildings, PIMWAG criteria

Awards

- Unknown

Page | 45

The Brewery

The Brewery is a historic redevelopment project in Milwaukee, WI transforming the former Pabst

Brewing Manufacturing Complex into a LEED ND Platinum Certified Mixed Use community “destined to

be one of urban America's premier sustainable neighborhoods.” (www.thebrewerymke.com) The

Brewery Development will preserve 60% of the historic buildings and remediate the brownfield site

during the integrated development process guided by smart growth and “green building methodology”

which incorporates both green infrastructure and high performance green buildings. The Brewery

requires buildings to meet minimum performance standards by adhering to technical guidelines. These

guidelines were adopted into the Development Incentive Zone Guidelines and City Planning criteria to

allow enforcement of the guidelines by the City of Milwaukee. The 20 acre, 6 block master planning was

led by the late philanthropist Joseph Zilbur and his investment group Brewery Project LLC. Gorman and

Company is now developing a number of buildings within the site. The fully built out community will

include 300 homes and 1.3M SF of office and retail space.

Framework: LEED-ND

Awards

- 2013 The Brewhouse Inn & Suites was awarded the J. Timothy Anderson Award Winner by The

National Housing & Rehabilitation Association for "Best Commercial/Retail/Non-Residential

Project"

Page | 46

Current Monitoring Trends in Sustainable Communities – Research Data

Survey Responses -

The data was taken from the survey responses primarily. It was assumed that the community, developer

or Homeowners Association (HOA) provided accurate information. Sometimes the data from different

sources conflicted. In these instances, all information provided is reported. It was also clear that in

some cases, the person responding for the municipality, developer or HOA were not aware of

monitoring that had been conducted in the community. One example of this scenario included the

community Village Homes, where the HOA representative responded: "Historically, I am not aware of

any interest or motivation to monitor our community's sustainability.” A Case Study on Village Homes,

utilized for the community profile, revealed contradictory information where the author Mark Francis

states there have been numerous studies and post occupancy monitoring evaluating more than 1

sustainable indicator. (Francis 2002, 23) In this case, both the response of the HOA and the relevant

contradictory information are provided. Please see the Appendix for detailed survey responses provided

by each development.

Page | 47

Current Monitoring Trends in Sustainable Community Developments – Review of Data

Which Communities Monitor Sustainable Performance?

Table 2: Monitoring Practices and Frameworks of Sustainable Communities - Under Construction

SD Community Name Construction Complete?

Monitor post occupancy?

Monitor >1 SD indicator post occupancy Framework

Grow Community (NA) No Plan to Plan to OPL

Sonoma Mountain Village (NA) No Plan to Plan to OPL and LEED-ND

Kronsberg (EU) No Yes Yes Local Agenda 21

The Brewery (NA) No Plan to Plan to LEED-ND

Civita (NA) No Plan to No Plan LEED-ND

Dockside Green (NA) No No Plan No Plan LEED-ND Table 3: Monitoring Practices and Frameworks of Sustainable Communities – Completed Communities

Of the 16 communities that responded to the survey, 6 are still under construction and 4 of these plan

to monitor more than one sustainable indicator post occupancy. The communities aiming for OPL

endorsement are required to monitor more than 1 sustainable indicator post occupancy, so they all plan

to monitor post occupancy. It’s interesting to note that of the 3 communities seeking LEED-ND

certification solely, 2 are not planning to monitor any sustainable indicator post occupancy.

SD Community Name Construction Complete?

Monitor post occupancy?

Monitor >1 SD indicator post occupancy Framework

Eco-Viikki (EU) Yes Yes Yes PIMWAG

BedZED (EU) Yes Yes Yes OPL Prototype

Village Homes (NA) Yes Yes Yes NA

Braamwisch Eco Settlement (EU) Yes Yes Yes Local Agenda 21

Linz Solar City (EU) Yes Yes Yes LeS!

Prairie Crossing (NA) Yes Yes Yes LEED-ND (Station Village portion)

Bo01 (EU) Yes Yes Unknown NA

Vauban (EU) Yes Yes No NA

Fields of St Croix (NA) Yes No No NA

Excelsior & Grand (NA) Yes No No LEED-ND

Page | 48

Of the 16 communities that responded to the survey, 10 communities are completed and in a post

occupancy phase. When reviewing post occupancy monitoring, 6 of those communities reported

monitoring more than 1 sustainable indicator post occupancy. The OPL Prototype, BedZED, monitored

extensively, while the 2 communities guided by the LEED-ND framework, only monitored 1-2 SD

indicators post occupancy (Stormwater Quality and Biodiversity.) An interesting observation is that

these particular communities are motivated to design to LEED-ND sustainable guidelines, however are

not likewise driven to assess their sustainable performance in the various criteria that LEED-ND requires.

It’s of particular interest that some of the communities surveyed touted as being the “greenest” or most

sustainable do not have the monitoring efforts in place to validate these claims.

“Measuring sustainability means we are getting serious about sustainability,”

(Newman 2006)

Page | 49

Why are they Monitoring and Who is Responsible?

Table 3: Motivation and Responsible Party for Monitoring Post Occupancy in SD Communities - Under Construction

Name

Monitor post occupancy?

Monitor >1 indicator post occupancy Responsible? Driver? Continent

The Brewery Plan to Plan to Municipality/ Owner Compliance N America

Kronsberg Plan to Plan to Municipality Demonstration Europe

Sonoma Mountain Village Plan to Plan to Developer/HOA Economic N America

Grow Community Plan to Plan to Developer Economic N America

Civita Plan to No Plan Developer Economic/ Compliance N America

Dockside Green No Plan No Plan Developer NA N America

Table 4: Motivation and Responsible Party for Monitoring Post Occupancy in SD Communities - Completed Communities

Name

Monitor post occupancy?

Monitor >1 indicator post occupancy Responsible? Driver? Continent

Village Homes Yes Yes Outside Orgs No interest N America

Prairie Crossing Yes Yes Municipality/HOA Compliance N America

Eco-Viikki Yes Yes Municipality Demonstration Europe

Linz Solar City Yes Yes Municipality Demonstration Europe

Bedzed Yes Yes Developer Demonstration Europe

Braamwisch Eco Settlement Yes Yes Academia Demonstration Europe

Bo01 Yes Unknown Developer Compliance Europe

Vauban Yes No Academia Demonstration Europe

Fields of St Croix No No NA No interest N America

Excelsior & Grand No No NA No ROI N America

In the communities that responded to the survey, European communities tend to monitor to

demonstrate effectiveness of sustainable technology and to advance sustainable development. In these

particular communities, the municipality or involved academia was mainly responsible for monitoring to

demonstrate effectiveness of new strategies and technology. Most of these communities were a part of

an expo to showcase and research sustainable development for future developers and to “learn what

works and what doesn’t.” The funding for monitoring, and in some cases the actual development itself,

Page | 50

was funded through partnerships with outside organizations, such as the United Nations, the federal

government, academic institutions or nonprofit research organizations.

The North American communities that responded to the survey were generally motivated by

either/both compliance and economic drivers. In the North American instances of compliance,

developers were typically responsible for complying with monitoring requirements of either Master

Development Agreements with the Municipality or special zoning requirements. Other North American

communities explained that the driver to monitor was economic in nature. Sonoma Mountain Village is

one community where monitoring was driven by economics. In their survey, they stated, “We want this

to be replicable and part of that is financial viability. OPL status allows us a competitive edge in this

market. We are required to monitor to maintain OPL status. So ultimately, we monitor to attract sales,

to promote our development and to share a model of sustainable development.” Grow Community,

another community whose main driver was economic in nature, stated that even though monitoring

was required to maintain OPL endorsement, there was nothing that required them to maintain the

endorsement. They plan to maintain the monitoring and OPL endorsement because it “differentiates

our project in a competitive market, this is the direction that the industry is headed and we want to be

in front of it (competitiveness)." Ultimately, if the industry is going to develop sustainably, sustainable

communities will need to be economically viable in order to be effective and replicable. Designers,

Developers, Municipalities, end users and owners need to look holistically at the communities

(economics, environment, social) to ensure their success. Developing sustainably needs to be

environmentally, socially and economically effective to succeed. Interestingly, some communities

declared transparency was another driver for monitoring, though no community cited transparency as

the sole driver to monitor. This suggests that communities are not yet ready to invest in monitoring for

the sake of transparency alone.

Page | 51

The communities that did not monitor post occupancy were also questioned as to the reason monitoring

was not accomplished. In these responses, developers and communities either had no interest in

monitoring, or there was no incentive to monitor as it was too expensive and/or they did not have the

manpower/resources available to monitor.

Page | 52

What do the Communities Monitor?

Table 5: Sustainable Indicators monitored post occupancy by Completed Communities

Completed Communities What is monitored post occupancy?

Bedzed (EU) Energy, Water, Transportation, Food, Waste, Quality of Life, Ecological Footprint/Co2 Emissions

Linz Solar City (EU) Energy and environmental performance, related economic factors and mobility issues

Braamwisch Ecological Settlement (EU)

Heating energy, energy consumption, effectiveness of water purification system, wastewater generation, potable water consumption, alternative transportation, annual utility costs, carbon emissions

Eco-Viikki in Helsinki (EU) Energy, Water, Waste, Biodiversity, water infiltration, satisfaction and opinion of residents

Bo01 (EU) Energy

Vauban (EU) Indicators for traffic concept, energy consumption

Prairie Crossing (NA)

HOA: Water quality of the created water bodies, the health of wetlands and prairies, biodiversity City: stormwater quality and flow

Village Homes (NA) HOA reported no monitoring

Excelsior & Grand (NA) No monitoring post occupancy

Fields of St Croix (NA) No monitoring post occupancy

Table 6: Sustainable Indicators that Communities in Construction are planning to monitor post occupancy

Incomplete Communities What are you planning to monitor post occupancy?

Sonoma Mountain Village (NA)

OPL Targets: Carbon Emissions, Waste reduction, Transportation, Sustainable Materials, Sustainable Food, Sustainable Water, Land Use and Wildlife, Culture and Community, Equity and Local Economy, Health and Happiness

Grow Community (NA)

OPL Targets: Carbon Emissions, Waste reduction, Transportation, Sustainable Materials, Sustainable Food, Sustainable Water, Land Use and Wildlife, Culture and Community, Equity and Local Economy, Health and Happiness

The Brewery (NA) Energy and water consumption for 12 months light performance for a year in the LEED Parking Garage

Kronsberg (EU) Energy consumption and carbon emissions, heat energy and renewable energy

Civita (NA) Traffic

Dockside Green (NA) No monitoring plans for post occupancy

Page | 53

Upon examining the responses regarding monitoring that is conducted (or planned), there is quite a

variety of indicators present. 4 of the 10 completed communities (BedZED, Braamwisch Ecological

Settlement, Linz Solar City, Eco-Viikki) monitor a wide variety of sustainable indicators within the

community, though none of these communities monitors on a recurring bases. Most of the monitoring

in these communities was completed for a limited timeframe following occupancy to verify performance

of the community. Post occupancy performance is extremely dependent on occupant behaviors and

management strategy, which can change over time, revealing different performance from that reported

in earlier years following project completion. A community may have monitored and revealed

sustainable performance in the earlier years; however, there may be a tendency for less sustainable

behavior and performance when occupants and management realizes monitoring has stopped.

Additionally, the opportunity for continuous improvement gained from recurring monitoring is lost in

these communities.

The limited (or lack of) monitoring that occurs in the other communities (Bo01, Vauban, Excelsior and

Grand, and Fields of St Croix) does not provide a holistic picture of the community’s entire sustainable

performance. Many of these communities are touted as sustainable or environmentally friendly,

whereas we can see from this compilation of their responses, most have little proof to substantiate

these claims.

Of the 6 responding communities that are still under construction, only 2 (Sonoma Mountain Village and

Grow Community) reported plans to monitor economic, social and environmental sustainability

indicators to allow a holistic assessment of the community performance. This extensive annual

monitoring is a requirement of all OPL communities, which highlights an interest in assessing ongoing

performance and continual improvement. The other communities are mainly concerned with

monitoring only one or two of the categories of Water, Energy and Traffic. It’s important to point out

that for many communities still under construction, monitoring plans have yet to be drafted and

Page | 54

implemented, and these plans can change over time. A Dockside Green Monitoring Program prepared

for the City of Victoria by Sheltair Group in March 2007 lists 49 sustainable indicators and methodology

for extensive and holistic monitoring post occupancy. The survey from the city of Victoria revealed that

today there is no requirement for monitoring post occupancy nor does the City of Victoria have future

plans to monitor environmental performance post occupancy. The community is still years away from

completion so this may change in the future, as could the monitoring plans for the other communities

under construction.

Page | 55

How are they Monitoring Sustainable Performance?

Table 7: Methodology Used to Monitor Sustainable Performance Post Occupancy

Name How do you Monitor Sustainable Performance?

Civita Surveys

Dockside Green NA

Grow Community

The Grow Community still needs to develop their monitoring plan. The monitoring will utilize an eco-concierge to facilitate the monitoring and provide feedbacks to residents of Grow. Methods that may be utilized include metering, self-monitoring, intranet, retailer provided customer data, occupant surveys and interviews

Sonoma Mountain Village

"As you noticed from reviewing our Sustainability Action Plan we will have a myriad of metrics to measure and we’ll be relying on our BioRegional and One Planet Communities Partners for best practices. I imagine that academia plays a big role as well. Academic research is vital to understanding and moving sustainable design and lifestyles forward."

Kronsberg Surveys, audits, metering devices were all mentioned in the literature.

The Brewery Metering devices and utility bills

Eco-Viikki

The city of Helsinki with the Ministry of the Environment utilized consultant Motiva Oy to collect consumption data from 2002-3. The data was taken from property manager’s utility heating, electric and water bills for each residential block, as well as data from Helsinki Energy. Ecology, Water Runoff reports and extensive resident surveys were also utilized in the monitoring process. Property Developer VVO also contributed to the data. Some of the buildings participated in Project HOPE which conducted a survey on health aspects of living on a block of flats. There is also social research carried out by University of Helsinki Department of Social Policy (Sanna Ahonen).

Fields of St Croix NA

Excelsior & Grand NA

Braamwisch Eco Settlement

Surveys were the only confirmed method used for monitoring. Data from TU Braunschweig has not confirmed their methodology.

Prairie Crossing No Response

Vauban Surveys and Vehicle Registration Information

Bo01 No Response

Village Homes No Response

BedZED Meter readings, surveys, waste audits

Linz Solar City Surveys

Occupant Surveys and Interviews, Automatic Remote Metering Devices for utility data, audits and public

census or registration information are all utilized to gather data on sustainable performance in the

communities that responded to the survey. Other data collection methods not used by these

communities include voluntary self-monitoring and data from site retailers and service providers.

Page | 56

Several communities utilized academic institutions interested in evaluating some indicator performance

to conduct the monitoring and evaluation. Other methods included hiring an outside consultant to

monitor performance and utilizing the eco-concierge position within the community to facilitate the

monitoring and feedback process.

Page | 57

What are the issues realized with monitoring practices/methods?

Some of the issues with monitoring practices and methods reported by Survey respondents included:

Table 8: Issues reported while monitoring sustainable communities post occupancy

Issues with audits results being skewed as a result of occupants aware of monitoring. (You behave differently when you are being watched.)

Energy calculations were not very well developed or standardized so results and accuracy varies.

As urban planners and designers, monitoring is not a standard practice for us so we are unsure how we will monitor at the moment.

Figures were only available for a few blocks on hot water demand, so that others had to be estimated from actual summer energy demand, making them less precise.

As a private development we are not now able to reliably monitor metrics such as water use or energy consumption of individual households. Several years ago we did sponsor a contest among homeowners to self-report their energy use. The people who responded were obviously folks who were already interested, not a reliably "typical" population.

There is a vital need for consistent and transparent monitoring systems, ranging from understanding the high level development economics to raising public awareness and support.

We've neared the goal to consume less energy quite a bit, we'd appreciate some measuring but at the same time, the most important things are immeasurable. But you can perceive them in a very direct manner, as human being.

The monitoring process revealed that collecting information about construction and building use was time-consuming. It also revealed there were no measurements yet available for the eco-criteria that were “simple enough or dependable enough.” (http://www.hel.fi/static/ksv/julkaisut/eco-viikki_en.pdf) Some of the monitoring methods, such as household waste monitoring were not reliable, as the garbage truck driver estimates and resident surveys did not reveal similar results.

It’s important to establish a base reference point for the information to be compared to. It’s also important to get the appropriate entities to provide monitoring.

As you can see, the issues with monitoring a sustainable community reported by the respondents

covered many topics to include:

- Inaccurate and unstandardized monitoring methods

- Difficulty in quantifying data that is qualitative or indicative of success

- Unfamiliarity with monitoring practices

- Inaccurate, Unavailable, or Unreliable data

- Complicated and time-consuming measurement methods

Page | 58

There seems to be a great need for well-developed best practices in monitoring and measuring

performance in sustainable communities, or at least consultants that can guide developers and

municipalities in accurate and reliable monitoring.

BedZED, among other communities, struggled to pinpoint effective indicators for Health and Happiness,

Culture and Heritage, etc. This made it difficult to monitor and report performance in those areas. Some

of the more important aspects of a community and its success are difficult to accurately and effectively

measure or quantify into a number. Additionally, many communities use survey responses and local

statistics but feel their data and resulting conclusion may not be accurate. Survey findings can be

remarkably different from year to year for a number of reasons, including level of participation, varying

interpretation of questions, sensitivity of questions (for example, one may not want to report they don’t

recycle in a survey), etc. Another important aspect of monitoring is that the monitoring itself often

influences behavior. (Some suggest that what gets monitored, improves.) Sometimes audit results are

skewed because the audited households wanted to give the appearance that they perform better than

they actually do on a daily basis when not being monitored. It’s easy to understand how a household in

a sustainable community would put more effort into recycling (or other behaviors) if they knew the

results of their recycling were being recorded. There is a level of pressure to perform well during an

audit or monitoring process that could render the data inaccurate or atypical of common practices.

Page | 59

What are the lessons learned from monitoring?

Table 9: Lessons Learned reported by Communities monitoring sustainable performance post occupancy

Name Lessons Learned from Monitoring

Bedzed Detailed Action Plans are necessary to avoid Monitoring Fatigue

Bo01 Some developers didn’t calculate with wind conditions in their Energy calculations

Dockside Green

Little to no activity has occurred in relation to Dockside Green since the economic downturn in 2009 and the MDA, which sets out monitoring requirements, is currently under review. In light of this, some of the monitoring has not taken place in recent years.

Grow Community

Monitoring is expensive and budgets are slim so we are looking for opportunities to partner with organizations to lower our cost of monitoring while at the same time providing third party verification of our data accuracy.

Kronsberg

Monitoring post occupancy must be accomplished to ascertain true performance of the development resulting from occupant behaviors and lifestyles. Some issues that were found in the emissions study included the initial high consumption seen in 1999. The following years, the consumption leveled out and it was later determined that construction crews left radiators on to ensure the areas dried out, while after residences were occupied, the heating use was lowered. This emphasized the need for multiple years of data to get accurate results. 2,890 households were included in the study area in 2001, where energy consumption of the household was measured to be 1/5 of the intended energy savings per household. This audit discovered that appliances were a major contributor to this figure. 2001 studies on thermal losses in the district heating allowed them to lower losses in the system. It was suggested that the cause for these losses could be further investigated with specific metering and optimization of buildings. “The proof of sustainability on Kronsberg over the next decades will be derived from a combination of the given conditions and the evolving behaviour of the residents.”

Vauban

You asked what we learn from monitoring. We have hardly some monitoring at all, but we know what improvements we could accomplish, and to us, this means already a lot. We don't focus on the "lab rat" part of our reality so much. We know what we achieved, very often in terms of real, massive savings. Anyone is invited to copy and improve. We hope to continue learning, but all the houses are built now.

The lessons shared by the survey respondents were diverse in their scope. Some communities cited

learning curves with monitoring practices and data, including issues with calculations and monitoring

processes themselves. Kronsberg shared the need for multiple years of data to uncover anomalies in the

data and to “ascertain the true performance of the development resulting from occupant behavior of

lifestyles,” as well as improve performance by examining data for operating inefficiencies. Dockside

Green shared the unanticipated effects of a recession on their community monitoring.

Page | 60

As a prototype, lessons learned in monitoring practices at BedZED were shared in public reports so that

others could also benefit from their gained knowledge. While monitoring at BedZED, developers realized

that privacy must be respected throughout the process to avoid resident perceptions that they may

later be singled out for unsustainable behavior. Grow Community’s Action Plan suggests detailed and

thorough monitoring plans to consider the monitoring frequency and the transparent use of the data to

avoid “Monitoring Fatigue” that plagued BedZed’s residents. Their plan also calls for a “balance between

full monitoring and privacy issue” and ensures that all residents are aware of monitoring and why it

happens. They also stress to residents the ethical treatment and anonymous quality of the data, but

offer the option to opt out if they are uncomfortable.

Further monitoring could inform the other OPL communities on monitoring best practices and lessons

learned. Throughout the interviews with OPL endorsed community developers, there was a repeated

need for assistance with methods and solutions to monitor more cost effectively. Partnerships and

research in this area are needed to improve the practice and resulting data from sustainable community

monitoring.

Page | 61

Barriers to Measuring and Monitoring Performance

The 2008 NBI LEED study did more than report that 42% LEED-NC certified buildings failed to perform as

designed (in the area of energy performance.) It also highlighted the fact that few building managers or

owners failed to measure their performance at all. Measurement over time culminates into a monitoring

process which gauges performance, as well as progress towards goals. Since communities are investing

considerable effort and capital to design and develop sustainably, it would be reasonable to assume

they are also investing the capital to understand if their community is actually performing sustainably.

There are many barriers, however, that were revealed from the survey and other research in the field.

The barriers preventing measuring and monitoring performance in sustainable buildings include:

- Cost to monitor and lack of resources

o Developers and Municipalities cite “Monitoring is Expensive”

o No return on investment for developer

o Municipality does not have the staff to monitor

- Accountability/Liability

o Who’s to blame if it’s not performing as designed?

o Design cannot control and predict all behavior of occupants and operators

- No demand from consumers

o Effective Developer’s Green Marketing

o Perception is Reality with Consumers

o Little interest in validating success (or fear of validating failure)

- It’s complicated

o Cross-functional monitoring and data

o Who’s responsible for monitoring?

- Accurate Monitoring Practices

Page | 62

Cost to Monitor and Lack of Resources

There are several reasons municipalities, developers, building owners and facility managers may not

want to measure and monitor their individual performance. First and foremost, there is an added

expense to install measurement devices, verify building performance, and report performance. In the

survey results, developers and municipalities both stated that monitoring is expensive and a principle

reason for not continuing to monitor or monitor at all post occupancy. Some municipalities also report

that they did not have the staff needed to monitor the developments. Monitoring and reporting results

translates to a recurring operating expense for the facility management budget. Many owners are

unaware or overlook the fact that added initial expenses can be offset if the monitoring systems

indicate:

- Incorrect installation or operation of building/infrastructure systems

- Unsustainable occupant behavior

- Need for system adjustments/calibration to maintain optimal efficiency and operation

- Unknown equipment malfunctions

- Maintenance, operation or control strategies that could be improved to save resources

As indicated above, it makes sense to install monitoring systems if you are also paying the operational

budget and utility bills. However, if you are the developer, municipality, or another entity that does not

pay the operational bills, is there any incentive to voluntarily invest in monitoring post occupancy? One

benefit for developers might include the ability to provide proof of sustainability to investors and

occupants, perhaps also forcing competitors to provide similar validation. Another issue is that real

estate valuation does not yet fully internalize the lifecycle costs and impacts of building and

infrastructure operations to encourage investment in monitoring for most developers and management

companies.

Page | 63

Accountability

Regardless of the design, building/infrastructure operation, technical malfunctions, and occupant

behavior can significantly affect the sustainability of a building or a community development. The way

people live and work in and out of buildings has a tremendous impact on the sustainability of a

community.

Since the strategies and innovations that comprise green building and sustainable developments are

different than conventional built environment design, one would assume design professionals would be

interested in evaluating the accuracy of their models and the effectiveness of their designs’ in meeting

the sustainable design objectives and targets. However, design professionals typically won’t guarantee

building performance post occupancy, due to the number of variables not under their control that can

significantly affect overall performance, including facility managers and occupants. (Some forward

thinking design professionals are beginning to increase their understanding of building operations and

improve their ability to influence performance despite outside variables.) As a result, there are few

owners that can hold design professionals accountable for building performance sub-par to the original

design targets. Aside from good PR, there is rarely incentive for design professionals to monitor

performance in the buildings they design, especially if they must front the expense. This may change

with the recent interest in performance contracting vehicles between owners, design professionals and

contractors that guarantee energy savings performance of designed buildings. In this type of contract,

owners offer incentivizes to design professionals and contractors that can design and build a high

performance building. In this scenario, measurement and verification (M&V) of performance is

necessary to determine if targets were meant. M&V is also provided by an independent third party to

ensure unbiased and accurate results. Design professionals willing to participate in a performance

contract are becoming more competitive in the marketplace and increasing the use of this contract

vehicle in both individual buildings and neighborhood developments.

Page | 64

“Sustainable building materials, energy-saving appliances, and the latest technology all

combine to create buildings that exceed energy standards.” (Civita website, 2013)

“Our buildings are designed to use 45 to 55% less energy than the Canadian Model

National Energy Code.” (Dockside Green website, 2013)

No Demand from Consumers

For the owners, investors and developers that seek green certification to increase real estate value and

garner positive public relations (PR) and marketing, measuring and monitoring that reveals

unsustainable performance could be counterproductive to the original objective. This would eliminate

interest in both monitoring and reporting building performance. No one really wants to publicize the

fact that their building is not performing as well as it was designed to. By not monitoring the

performance, developments avoid both the proof of performance and the responsibility to report

failure. It’s also easy to maintain general public perception that Green building design and certification

equates to green building performance, if there is no evidence suggesting otherwise. From a developer’s

perspective, when green certification does not require validation of performance, there is little to

motivate developers to ensure sustainable performance, much less monitor it post occupancy over time.

Developers often use marketing full of design claims rather than proven results. Two quotes from

community development websites below reveal statements that are intended to appeal to the typical

consumer without revealing too much information about performance.

The quote above is vague and doesn’t reference how far above the energy standard it will exceed.

Additionally, since this building is required to meet or exceed 2008 Energy Efficiency Standards, just like

every other new residential building in San Diego, this building is not as notable as the quote implies.

Page | 65

The quote above offers more information by including a percentage of energy savings the building was

designed to save; however, they are still not offering any information on how the building actually

performs. Buildings do not always perform as they are designed to. It would be more impressive for the

website to report what the buildings are actually saving today.

Since 2009, LEED BD&C-NC buildings require energy and water reporting, helping to motivate

owners/operators to measure and report their performance. As witnessed by the survey responses,

LEED-ND certified communities in this study monitored only two sustainable indicators post occupancy.

Perhaps over time, consumers will demand more from their frameworks and LEED-ND may someday

require more monitoring, following a similar evolution witnessed with the LEED-NC framework.

Consumers assume/perceive that developments designed as sustainable are performing sustainably,

because they are not seeing information that counters this. Until consumers begin to demand more

information and proof of sustainable performance, perception is reality for a majority of them.

Unfortunately, without monitoring, we have no idea how big the gap is between that perception and the

actual performance.

It’s Complicated

The same barriers and issues surrounding measurement or progress in green buildings are further

compounded in sustainable communities due to their additional complexities and integrated

relationships. Monitoring performance in a sustainable community development is far more extensive

and involves more objectives and indicators than building performance entails. Monitoring sustainability

in a community involves cross-functional coordination and collaborating with other departments and

external organizations. The surveys in this study were often forwarded to many departments within the

municipality, as the intended recipient was not aware of all monitoring practices in the given

development. Additionally, there were several surveys that revealed the developer and the municipality

Page | 66

were not on the same page as far as what monitoring was occurring in the development. Some forward

thinking communities centralized information into a Sustainability Office; however, this office was often

not fully aware of specific monitoring operations. This extra collaboration and integration of data

increases the cost and time it takes to report sustainable development performance.

It is also difficult to determine who bears the responsibility of measuring and reporting performance in a

sustainable community development. Developers and municipalities have narrow budgets that do not

typically include dedicated funds to spend on monitoring initiatives. Developers might be more inclined

to invest capital into a physical improvement that would increase property value, yield better

performance (insulation) or increase visible aesthetic (landscaping), rather than spend that same capital

on an evaluation of the performance. Some developments require the developer to measure and report

performance initially (per the Master Development Agreement) until a majority of the development is

completed, at which time it can be transferred to another stakeholder. However, as the responses

suggest, this responsibility varies depending on the situation and the task could be a larger undertaking

than the responsible stakeholder is capable of managing financially and/or administratively. Some OPL

communities propose that an eco-concierge from the Home Owners Association (trained in monitoring

practices) facilitate the monitoring. This might be more effective since monitoring efforts originate from

within the group representing owners and occupants whose lifestyles and behaviors have a large impact

on the sustainable performance of the community. Furthermore, the results of the monitoring could

inform this group of additional changes or improvements that could benefit the community as a whole.

To further complicate the matter of monitoring a community development, there are many

stakeholders involved with a community development, as well as outside factors that can affect overall

performance of the development. Investors, municipalities, businesses, future occupants and tenants all

rely on the success of the development. Failing to perform sustainably in one area can affect the

performance of other linked areas due to the integrated and interdependent connections in a

Page | 67

“Monitoring progress towards achieving targets is vital in order to assess the effectiveness of the

development, identify areas for further improvement and highlight lessons learned that can be

applied to future developments.” (BioRegional 2009, 9)

sustainable community. Due to the ripple effect that failure could create, there is often greater interest

to assume the community is performing sustainably. A report of poor performance could damage the

economic viability of the sustainable development and competitive market edge that sustainability

quality affords them over conventional developments. This could include loss of potential commercial

and industrial tenants, home buyers and future expansion opportunities. Stakeholders want to see the

initial frameworks succeed because they are transforming the development market in a sustainable

direction. Successful developments that are economically viable can be replicated in other areas,

increasing awareness and adoption of these frameworks and evolving conventional development

practices and minimum standards. Failing to measure in the first place, however, robs the development

of an early opportunity to identify areas needing improvement. These improvements would strengthen

the subsequent performance of other developments adopting the same framework, garnering greater

success and a more gradual, yet more effective, sustainable development framework with continuous

improvement with each revision.

Accurate Monitoring Practices

The field of monitoring sustainable performance is just beginning to develop best practices and

standards that will help improve the reliability and accuracy of its data. In the surveys, municipalities

cited monitoring issues including data access, lack of data, questionable sample sizes, lack of third party

verification of results, inaccurate monitoring methods, lack of calibration and standardization,

inconsistencies in data, and data quality. Further research in the field of sustainable monitoring revealed

other issues include sustainable indicator weight and priority in evaluation, lack of baseline to compare

Page | 68

measurements to (monitor progress) and aggregated data that is utilized for averages. When reliability,

accuracy and precision are questioned, it’s difficult to report conclusions based on compromised data.

Furthermore, when devising new monitoring and measurement methods and protocol, third party

verification should be utilized to validate the results are reliable and accurate.

Encouraging Trends in Voluntary Monitoring and Reporting

Most real estate developers purchase land and guide the planning, design and construction of the

community. They then market and sell the real estate and leave to repeat the process elsewhere, hoping

for a reasonable margin of profit. Several developers surveyed commented that their “budgets are slim”

and many developers believe that post occupancy monitoring is an expense that they cannot justify.

Many cite that there would be no return on investment for the developer, since they are typically

moving on to the next development after the construction is complete. Committing to monitor

sustainability post occupancy is a departure from typical development schemes and entails voluntary

reporting above and beyond what industry requires or even expects. In an interview with Asani, the

developer for Grow Community in Bainbridge, WA, they revealed an intentional choice to develop

sustainably, in part to have a competitive edge on their competition and distinguish their services from

others. They also are interested in creating more sustainable developments like Grow in the future, so

they have chosen to monitor their performance. “It is our goal to create sustainable projects that are

affordable and profitable, and therefore replicable” as a business model. Despite the fact that

monitoring does cut money from the budget, it allows Asani to quickly gauge successful strategies and

eliminate those that do not contribute to the overall targets of the community. Additionally, monitoring

allows them to refine their process for future communities and offers verification that their community

is performing sustainably. Ultimately, this builds a reputation of a company that has developed proven

sustainable communities, rather than a company that can develop a community that might perform

Page | 69

sustainably. It also suggests a firm commitment to sustainability rather than only profit driven by

unsubstantiated green-washed marketing.

In a similar instance of going above and beyond what industry requires, Responsible Care is a program

that exemplifies voluntary environmental performance and self-regulation. Responsible Care is a

voluntary social responsibility initiative originated and developed by the chemical industry to ensure and

disclose environmental, public health, occupational safety and security performance from its members.

It has been lauded as “the leading sectoral voluntary environmental program in the world.” (Moffet,

Bregha and Middelkoop 2004, 177) The initiative was spurred after several chemical accidents; including

a devastating industrial accident in 1984, where 2,500 people were killed, and 200,000 people were

injured from a gas leak from a Union Carbide tank in Bhopal, India. After these incidents, public opinion

of the chemical industry as a whole was not favorable. The Responsible Care initiative was developed to

improve the chemical industry’s environmental, health and safety performance, while also helping to

restore the industry’s image. By opening itself up to public scrutiny in required annual reports and third

party verification, companies hoped to win back public confidence in their industry, operations and

products. It aimed to change a corporate culture of complying with minimum requirements by law into

one that protected the environment and worker safety before the government regulated it (and policy

demanded it.) Companies that joined Responsible Care agreed to adhere to 6 guiding principles, as well

as publicly disclose performance in several areas. “Responsible Care is more than a set of operational

procedures to protect the people and the environment; it can be said to represent an attempt at making

a fundamental change in corporate culture.” (Moffet, Bregha and Middelkoop 2004, 177) Just as

monitoring and reporting in a community requires commitment of time and investment, companies that

signed onto Responsible Care have heavily invested to change their operations, train individuals, collect

data, develop new policies and procedures that comply, monitor and report compliance of the 6

principles. It revolutionized the industry culture and represented huge change for the chemical

Page | 70

companies. Despite the huge cost and change to their operations, many companies considered this

investment necessary to remain competitive, as well as keep operations running, since Responsible Care

signatories produce nearly 90% of all chemicals produced worldwide. (Sustainable Asset Management

2012, 32) Regulation pressure may have encouraged them to join Responsible Care, but many cited that

by investing in improving the sustainability of their operations, they realized a positive economic impact

on their profit, through lower energy costs, lower health-related liabilities, etc. Responsible Care also

fosters the transfer of industry knowledge between signatories in reducing emissions of toxic

substances. Many companies share information with other companies, collectively advancing the

stewardship and emissions of the industry as a whole. The chemical industry has made a remarkable

improvement in environmental performance and reporting with the Responsible Care program. Could

the development community experience the same transition with an equally transformative voluntary

program?

There is some encouraging research from CarbonBuzz that suggests this transition may be happening

already. CarbonBuzz is a collaborative platform that invites projects to track energy use from design to

operation, allowing them to compare the modeled performance to the actual performance. This

information is voluntarily provided and all data remains anonymous unless users wish to publish their

information. Users can benefit by measuring the performance gap between design expectations and

actual performance in one building or an entire portfolio of properties. Users can also compare their

performance with benchmarks of similar buildings or sectors to see how they compare, as well as

understand how occupant behavior and operations are affecting their energy use. The industry, as a

whole, benefits from the collective data of post occupancy energy performance that is audited for

quality assurance. The data compiled will indicate trends in post occupancy performance, raise

awareness of the performance gap between modeled and actual operational performance, and highlight

effective strategies that are proven successful in high performance buildings and communities. Their

Page | 71

published case studies “demonstrate an organization’s engagement with research into achieving low

carbon performance in operation.” (CarbonBuzz.org 2013) CarbonBuzz conducted a survey earlier in

2013 (58 replies) to understand more about the use of CarbonBuzz, including possible motivation to

utilize CarbonBuzz. The encouraging results, listed below, indicate that owners are increasingly aware of

the benefits that both monitoring and reporting can provide them and the industry as a whole.

Table 10: Carbon Buzz Survey on relevance of reporting carbon emissions

Please rank in order of importance how CarbonBuzz would be relevant to your organization (10 = most important 1= least important ):

Find out how a building performs against others. 8.0

Compare design estimates against operational energy use. 8.0

Study the end use composition of other case studies. 7.8

Track the design and actual CO2 emissions of a portfolio of buildings. 7.2

Table 11: Carbon Buzz Survey on Motivation to report carbon emissions

What would encourage you to use CarbonBuzz? Tick all that apply

Provision of research data and benchmarking information to download. 49 84%

Analyze trends in building energy performance on the CarbonBuzz web site 37 64%

Ability to estimate operational performance from design data. 37 64%

Ability to identify best practice examples and advice for relevant sectors and projects.

35 60%

Ability to report energy consumption of buildings via a user-friendly template 34 59%

Short webinars on key issues and topics with relevant and respected presenters. 27 47%

Share building energy use data with other organizations 24 41%

More website navigation tools to assist in comparing data, building types and sectors.

21 36%

Certification/recognition of expertise via data audits. 21 36%

Live related workshops on key challenges and solutions. 20 34%

LinkedIn (or other social media) to share experiences and crowd source solutions. 7 12%

Page | 72

Conclusion

Peter Drucker’s popular phrase, “If you can’t measure it, you can’t manage it” applies as much to

sustainable communities as it does to the business world. Unless we measure and assess the magnitude

of impact from a community development, we cannot effectively manage and understand the gravity of

the situation. Is it irresponsible to call a community sustainable without performance data to

substantiate their claims? Post occupancy monitoring is extremely important in evaluating the success

of a sustainable community development. There are many entities attempting to build sustainable

community developments with the intention of having a lower negative impact than conventional

community developments. Developers are in the midst of a massive research and development phase to

advance the field of sustainable development, however, as the surveys from several sustainable

community developments indicate, there is very little research occurring post occupancy. Monitoring is

critical to understanding whether or not these strategies are effective at lowering negative impacts, and

what is needed to improve.

What’s happening now?

Historically North American sustainable community developments focused on monitoring during

construction only. They generally have not monitored sustainable indicators post occupancy until very

recently. In most cases, if they monitor post occupancy at all, North American communities tend to

monitor for either compliance or economic reasons. This monitoring responsibility is often born by the

developer as a requirement of the development agreement or zoning requirement. Municipalities are

largely uninterested in the responsibility of monitoring post occupancy, as well as the responsibility of

fixing the communities if not performing sustainably. With no failure to report, there is nothing to fix.

Quite contrary, European communities have a history of monitoring post occupancy to research and

demonstrate sustainable development strategy and technology effectiveness. A partnership between

municipalities and outside organizations is often responsible for monitoring with the intent to test and

Page | 73

research effectiveness of sustainable community prototypes and develop future guidance for future

sustainable communities. The European approach is more focused on research where failure is an

option and viewed as an opportunity to correct and improve prototypes, versus an American tendency

to hide lackluster performance.

Of the small number of sustainable community developments that are monitoring post occupancy,

roughly a third of these communities are assessing the performance holistically by looking at more than

a few environmental indicators of interest. These communities that are monitoring performance

holistically were either OPL endorsed communities or communities that are required to demonstrate

the performance of their sustainable community development. The remaining communities are either

not monitoring at all or monitoring only a few indicators of interest to them, resulting in insufficient

proof to substantiate any claims that they are actually performing sustainably. The general public

perceives claims of intended performance as actual performance and generally does not challenge these

claims or demand proof of performance.

Figure 3: Illustration on Greenwashing, Source: www.ourbreathingplanet.com

Page | 74

What Should Happen Next? The Path Forward

Frameworks Tied to Performance and Reporting Requirements

Despite the fact that sustainable community development is in its infancy, when compared to

conventional development strategies, there is no unifying industry voice demanding the evaluation of

current sustainable community development frameworks and strategies to determine if they are

performing effectively as intended. Many sustainable community development frameworks and

strategies are not contingent on a holistic final condition or defined end state; rather they focus on

performing “better” than conventional developments. The piecemealed strategies make it difficult

evaluate whether they are effective in advancing sustainability within the development. OPL is a unique

sustainable community development framework that requires annual progress reporting on

comprehensive end goals/final condition in order to maintain endorsement. Economic viability, social

equity and environmental performance are tied into the holistic guide. The combination of both

comprehensive end-state and monitoring and reporting of the progress towards that state is a

movement in the right direction.

What does it take to Motivate Monitoring?

There are still many barriers to monitoring and measuring performance in sustainable community

developments. These barriers impede important research of early sustainable community developments

in revealing actual performance and valuable lessons learned. Among the chief barriers, cost was

frequently cited as a large reason why communities do not monitor their performance in the surveys.

Interestingly enough, economic reasons were given as a primary driver for other communities to

implement monitoring. There should be more research into the positive benefits and impacts

monitoring can have on communities and what can be changed in the industry to motivate more

communities to monitor performance voluntarily, as witnessed in the European demonstration

communities and in the Responsible Care Program. Alternatively, the industry could move towards

Page | 75

regulation and compliance of monitoring holistically, as this was indicated as an effective motivator

when municipalities required developers to monitor as a stipulation of their community development

agreement. It’s difficult to ascertain which method would be more effective in garnering performance

monitoring in more sustainable communities without additional research into the subject.

Refine Monitoring Practices

As the demand for monitoring sustainable performance increases, the entire monitoring field of practice

will evolve to be more reliable and accurate as a whole. Standard protocol and best practices should

emerge along with common benchmarks, relevant sustainable indicators and units of measurement.

Best practices will include automation methods of data collection and data presentation that increases

understanding for every audience.

Stop Treating Sustainable Community Developments like Conventional Developments

Another large barrier to monitoring performance in communities stems from clinging to traditional

development mentality and practices. Municipalities, developers and other involved stakeholders still

have mindsets that are entrenched in conventional development methods. Just as sustainable

development has evolved the built environment and infrastructure strategies and methodology;

stakeholders need to consider alternative and innovative public and private partnerships that pair

private investments with community needs in ways that benefit both organizations (such as FundRise

and The Jacobs Center for Neighborhood Innovation.) Municipalities, developers and community

associations need to adapt to the new roles and responsibilities that accompany sustainable community

developments, to include altering development processes pre and post occupancy. The concept of

monitoring the development has to start at the beginning of the development process. In order for

monitoring to be successful and reliable, it needs to be included in discussions in conceptual and design

phases for implementation later on. Additionally, sustainable community development doesn’t end

when construction is complete. Creating sustainable developments involves more than just changes in

Page | 76

the built environment; some involved entity will need to develop accompanying post occupancy

programs and activities to engage stakeholders and encourage sustainable behavior and lifestyles.

Demand Proof as Consumers

Consumers should start demanding more information that will substantiate sustainable claims and

report progress, just as we do in other projects and industries where significant capital and time are

invested. In a net-zero building, or a carbon neutral company, we expect some system of accounting and

measurement to back their claims.… Why is the same demand of proof not placed on sustainable

developments? We should question the validity of sustainable development claims, just as we would

question a “carbon neutral” organization that does not utilize carbon accounting practices. Owners,

occupants, community associations and facility managers should expect the monitoring well beyond the

construction phase to accompany their involvement with a sustainable development as a common

practice, as well as accept their new roles as participants of the monitoring and research process.

The Path to Failure is Paved with Good Intentions

In today’s development industry, developers are traveling down a pathway towards creating community

developments that perform sustainably. The developer has good intentions of progressing on a path

towards sustainable performance; however, there is no oversight on their performance to ensure they

are performing as intended. There is no “speeding ticket” for failing to “drive responsibly” or perform as

intended. In truth, how would you perform if no one was watching, and there was no penalty for failing

to perform responsibly as intended? The old adage, (adapted for an academic audience) “The road to

‘failure’ is paved with good intentions,” is as relevant to sustainable performance as it is to highway

regulation. Good intentions (design) are irrelevant if they do not translate to good performance in

sustainable communities. One could question whether the commitment to sustainability is actually

present if the developer, investors, owners and municipality are also not as committed to validating

sustainable performance from the very beginning? The investment and commitment to develop

Page | 77

sustainably should be accompanied by an early commitment and investment to monitor sustainable

performance of that development.

The survey respondent from Kronsberg municipality stated succinctly that the proof of sustainability in

their community depends on post occupancy monitoring. Without measuring and monitoring

performance in sustainable developments post occupancy, how will the industry know if current

strategies are effective and if the development is reducing its impacts to some degree. It’s time to close

the gap between perception and reality in sustainable communities and assess the situation. To

paraphrase Alan During of the Sightline Institute, “What gets measured gets fixed.” Monitoring not only

indicates what’s working, it indicates what’s not working. Monitoring data can pinpoint inefficiencies

and issues that impair sustainable performance, leading to improvement and progress towards the goals

of each community and refining sustainable community development frameworks. Ultimately, the goal

is to develop communities that perform sustainably and reduce environmental impacts. Without post

occupancy monitoring, the development industry cannot know if communities are reaching this goal.

The solution is to refute that perception is reality in this case and increase post occupancy monitoring in

sustainable community developments. As a society, we need to demand more of developers and

municipalities that claim they are building sustainable communities. The cost of monitoring is

insignificant compared to the cost of the development or the cost of sustainable strategies. Failure to

commit and invest properly in post occupancy monitoring should be considered a failure to commit to

sustainability. At this stage in our discovery of sustainable development technology and processes,

where we are learning what will create less impact and better utilize resources, developments that fail

to monitor should not be considered sustainable. The label “sustainable community” development

should be reserved only for the developments that can substantiate their sustainable performance.

Page | 78

Figure 4: Closing the Gap Illustration, Source: Prezi Presentation by Marcella Whitfield

Page | 79

Appendix A: Survey Responses

Page | 80

Community BedZED

Location Wallington, Sutton, United Kingdom

Municipality Response No response

Developer Response Nic Wedlake of Peabody Trust, Asset Management (BedZED was developed as a partnership between BioRegional Development Group, The Peabody Trust, Bill Dunster Architects, ARUP and Gardiner and Theobold)

Framework OPL Prototype

Website http://www.oneplanetcommunities.org/communities/bedzed/

Community Complete? BedZED was completed in 2002. There are 82 houses, 17 apartments, 1,405 M2 of commercial workspace.

BedZED Survey Responses

Do you monitor?

Multiple areas were monitored for performance in 2003, 2004 2005 and 2007. It is unknown if monitoring continues today.

What do you monitor?

Energy, Water, Transportation, Food, Waste, Quality of Life, Ecological Footprint/Co2Emissions

Is your development complete?

BedZED was completed in 2002. There are 82 houses, 17 apartments, 1,405 M2 of commercial workspace.

Who is responsible for monitoring?

Developers

What is the motivation to monitor?

Monitoring was accomplished to learn what works and what doesn’t, demonstration project

Is energy performance monitored?

Yes. See above description for details. More information in http://www.bioregional.com/files/publications/BedZEDmonitoringsummary.pdf and "BedZED 7 Years On" http://www.oneplanetcommunities.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/BedZED-seven-years-on-low-res-final.pdf

What are some issues with monitoring?

"BedZED 7 Years On" details issues with waste audits results being skewed as a result of occupants aware of monitoring.

How is it reported?

BedZED made its reports available online

How much does it cost to monitor?

No response

Any lessons learned to share?

Detailed Action Plans are necessary to avoid Monitoring Fatigue

Methodology?

Meter readings, surveys, waste audits

Page | 81

BedZED Short Answer

Is there monitoring of 1 indicator? Yes

Is there monitoring post occupancy? Yes

Is there monitoring of >1 indicator post occupancy? Yes

Is construction complete? Yes

Who is responsible for monitoring? Developer

Primary driver for monitoring? Demonstration

Page | 82

Community Bo01 in Malmo Western Harbour

Location Malmo, Sweden

Municipality Response Maria Loof and other officials from the City of Malmo

Developer Response No contact attempted

Framework NA, formed the basis of Environmental Construction Program SYD that was launched after Bo01 was completed

Website http://www.malmo.se/English/Sustainable-City-Development/Bo01---Western-Harbour.html

Community Complete? Yes

Bo01 Survey Responses

Do you monitor?

Yes, Energy, however, since 2009, after Bo01 was complete, Malmo uses Miljöbyggprogram Syd (environmental program Syd) on all land owned by the City where a developer will construct a new building. It is a program that is used to stimulate a more ecological and sustainable building and where the standards are below the national standards set by the Swedish government. http://www.miljobyggprogramsyd.se/. Developers monitor up to the 2 year mark following occupancy.

What do you monitor?

Energy, however after 2009, Malmo monitors Energy, Moisture, indoor environment, urban biodiversity, acoustics, traffic

Is your development complete?

Yes

Who is responsible for monitoring?

Since 2009, the developer initially reports via online system on property owned by the city

What is the motivation to monitor?

It was decided upon in the common quality programme. Developer monitors as a requirement to develop on land that is owned by the City, compliance

Is energy performance monitored?

Yes, by E-on company. Also, - The Bo01 energy monitoring was performed by Lund University; https://www.dropbox.com/s/ujvbu5rpof60kpr/Bo01_energiutvardering_HansBagge.pdf

What are some issues with monitoring?

Energy calculations were not very well developed when Bo01 was built in 2001. Many construction companies were not used to do this very closely. From stage 2 in the Western harbor (from 2007 and onwards) we decided upon a common calculation standard. With Miljöbyggprogram Syd from 2009 we standardized even further.

How is it reported?

Developers reported online. - The reports from LTH are available publically. The article attached and earlier articles are published in scientific books. Since 2009 miljöbyggprogram Syd is implemented and display all results publically on our website.

How much does it cost to monitor?

No response

Any lessons learned to share?

One thing we realized was that some developers didn’t calculate with wind conditions in their Energy calculations. That is now corrected since western harbor is a very windy area.

Page | 83

Methodology?

No Response

Bo01 Short Answer

Is there monitoring of 1 indicator? Yes

Is there monitoring post occupancy? Yes

Is there monitoring of >1 indicator post occupancy? Unknown

Is construction complete? Yes

Who is responsible for monitoring? Developer

Primary driver for monitoring? Compliance

Page | 84

Community Braamwisch Ecological Settlement

Location Hamburg-Bramfeld, Germany

Municipality Response

The Federal Department of Research and Science, along with the Department of the Environment from the City of Hamburg and the University of Stuttgart and HeinGas developed the project initially. Thomas Schobess, the President of the Ministry of Urban Development and Environment for the Free and Hanseatic City of Hamburg had no information available on the success or performance of the community; He referred us to the German Federal Foundation for the Environment. Federal Ministry of Urban Development had no information to provide. They referred us to the Federal Ministry of Education and Research.

Developer Response

Silvia Schubert of the Association for Natural and Environmental Education, National Association of Hamburg offered a lot of answers

Framework Local Agenda 21

Website http://www.oekologische-siedlung-braamwisch.de/index.html

Community Complete?

Ecological Settlement Braamwisch was completed in 2000. There are 40 housing units in 5 rows of terraced houses and 2 semi-detached houses in the residential community.

Braamwisch Ecological Settlement Survey Responses

Do you monitor?

Monitoring is no longer occurring due to focus on new projects like Hafencity Hamburg.

What do you monitor?

Technical University of Braunschweig was monitoring the solar heating system from 1996 to 2008. Surveys were used to monitor its performance in the areas the energy consumption for heating, energy consumption, effectiveness of water purification system, wastewater generation, potable water consumption, alternative transportation, annual utility costs, and carbon emissions. This information was found online at http://www.anu-hamburg.de/fileadmin/anu-hamburg/dateien/Dokumente/braamwisch_nachhaltiger_wohnen_2007.pdf and https://www.tu-braunschweig.de/igs/forschung/solarenahwaerme/projekte/hamburgbramfeld.

Is your development complete?

Ecological Settlement Braamwisch was completed in 2000. There are 40 housing units in 5 rows of terraced houses and 2 semi-detached houses in the residential community.

Who is responsible for monitoring?

Scientific Support was given by University of Stuttgart and later the Technical University of Braunschweig in order to monitor the solar heating system from 1996 to 2008. More information about that monitoring is available online at:https://www.tu-braunschweig.de/igs/forschung/solarenahwaerme/projekte/hamburgbramfeld. Additionally Silvia Schubert distributed a survey for neighbors to explore the areas of water, energy, and satisfaction/opinion of their community. Eon Hanseatic Heating (successor to Hamburg Gas Works) operates the solar plant currently. It is unknown if they are monitoring any indicators and reporting them publicly. The Free and Hanseatic City of Hamburg and federal government supported the development with Hamburg Gas works. It is unknown if they invested in any further evaluation of the performance of the community afterwards to see if it was successful.

Page | 85

What is the motivation to monitor?

The driver to monitor performance as a pilot community to see where demonstration strategies were successful, as well as compare the performance to existing development’s performance. Some measurements (blower door test) were a precondition of the public subsidies. The survey was distributed among residents as most of them were interested to find out if their ecovillage was successful.

Is energy performance monitored?

Energy performance was monitored. TU Braunschweig was monitoring the solar heating system. More information about that monitoring is available online at: https://www.tu-braunschweig.de/igs/forschung/solarenahwaerme/projekte/hamburgbramfeld.

What are some issues with monitoring?

No response

How is it reported?

TU Braunschweig was monitoring the solar heating system. More information about that monitoring is available online at:https://www.tu-braunschweig.de/igs/forschung/solarenahwaerme/projekte/hamburgbramfeld. The report prepared by Silvia Schubert is available publicly online.

How much does it cost to monitor?

In cooperation with the TuTech Hamburg Harburg there was a small budget to finance the production of the booklet by Silvia Schubert.

Any lessons learned to share?

No response

Methodology?

Surveys were the only confirmed method used for monitoring. Data from TU Braunschweig has not confirmed their methodology.

Braamwisch Ecological Settlement Short Answer

Is there monitoring of 1 indicator? Yes

Is there monitoring post occupancy? Yes

Is there monitoring of >1 indicator post occupancy? Yes

Is construction complete? Yes

Who is responsible for monitoring? Academic

Primary driver for monitoring? Demonstration

Page | 86

Community Civita

Location San Diego, CA, USA

Municipality Response Brian Schoenfish, Senior Planner for City of Sand Diego

Developer Response Mark Radelo, VP and Sr Project Manager for Sudberry Properties

Framework LEED-ND

Website http://www.civitalife.com/

Community Complete? No, have apartments and some residential completed, but no commercial completed yet

Civita Survey Responses

Do you monitor?

Not yet but planning to monitor transportation only, currently still under threshold required for monitoring

What do you monitor?

Transportation

Is your development complete?

No, have apartments and some residential completed, but no commercial completed yet

Who is responsible for monitoring?

Developer, The City reported it "does not have the staff to conduct any monitoring at this time."

What is the motivation to monitor?

Transportation monitoring ( Transportation Demand Management Program) is a requirement of entitlement, energy performance data would be used as a marketing tool to sell more homes

Is energy performance monitored?

Plan to, installing unit and circuit energy metering now, working with utility to develop Smart Grid City, possible behavior modification programs in future

What are some issues with monitoring?

TBD

How is it reported?

TBD

How much does it cost to monitor?

TBD

Any lessons learned to share?

TBD

Methodology?

Electric meters

Page | 87

Civita Short Answer

Is there monitoring of 1 indicator? Plan to

Is there monitoring post occupancy? Plan to

Is there monitoring of >1 indicator post occupancy? No Plan

Is construction complete? No

Who is responsible for monitoring? Developer

Primary driver for monitoring? Compliance/Economic

Page | 88

Community Dockside Green

Location Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

Municipality Response

Jim Handy, MCIP RPP, Sustainable Planning and Community Development Department, Development Agreement Facilitator, City of Victoria

Developer Response Amolak Nijjar, Manager Operations & Finance for VanCity replied that Dockside is in process of reorganizing and would be in a better position to answer the survey in 6 months.

Framework LEED-ND

Website www.dockside green.com

Community Complete?

From Mr. Handy: Phase 1 & 2 are complete but construction has halted since 2009 due to downturn in the economy. Thresholds are met for some monitoring as indicated in their annual report.

Dockside Green Survey Responses

Do you monitor?

From Mr. Handy: Yes, The monitoring and annual report requirements are outlined in a Master Development Agreement (MDA). The MDA sets out the Developer’s obligation to provide and construct public amenities provide affordable housing; construct off-site and on-site services and LEED commitments (in addition to other items). The MDA lists monitoring requirement. The fact is that the annual audit will cease when the Developer has constructed the required “improvements” as outlined in the MDA. As such I am unaware of any plans to further monitor the environmental performance of Dockside Green post occupancy. However, as the completion of the project is likely many years away this situation may change subject to direction from City Council.

What do you monitor?

2012 Annual Sustainability Report includes Environmental Goals (LEED, Water Conservation, Energy Conservation, Sustainable Sites and Urban Ecology, Human Health and Wellbeing, Materials and Resources), Social Goals, and Economic Goals. The report in many instances did not reveal actual performance in any metric other than water. The reporting is generally a status of completion or compliance; a checklist of what has been accomplished to date rather than a measure of the performance of the community. As an example, Goal #13 Install Vertical Green Wall is listed as complete in Spring 2009. The green wall was removed due to lack of plant growth, yet the report states the goal is complete. This indicator not only lacks the ability to inform us of the performance of the green wall, but it has the ability to misinform readers of the document. Indicators should allow for some measurement to compare against a benchmark.

Is your development complete?

From Mr. Handy: Phase 1 & 2 are complete but construction has halted since 2009 due to downturn in the economy. Thresholds are met for some monitoring as indicated in their annual report.

Who is responsible for monitoring?

From Mr. Handy: The MDA lists the developer’s responsibility in the aspects of monitoring and reporting until the improvements are complete. “The fact is that the annual audit will cease when the Developer has constructed the required “improvements” as outlined in the MDA. As such I am unaware of any plans to further monitor the environmental performance of Dockside Green post occupancy.”

Page | 89

What is the motivation to monitor?

From Mr. Handy: The MDA lists the developer’s responsibility in the aspects of monitoring and reporting. The city was motivated to require monitoring and the Developers Annual Report (the purpose and objectives of which are outlined in Schedule J of the agreement) so that the city could audit the developer to ascertain environmental performance. The developer monitors and reports because it is a requirement of the city of the developer. The developer failed to respond to the survey so it is unknown if there are other drivers to monitor other than compliance of the MDA.

Is energy performance monitored?

No response from developer ….. Sheltair Group's Monitoring Program developed for Dockside Green (http://www.docstoc.com/docs/40245380/Dockside-Green-Monitoring-Program-Technical-Report) lists extensive monitoring. The MDA lists significantly different monitoring requirements (listed in Schedule J), many of which are checklists and not a measurement of performance. This is probably due to the fact that the city is utilizing the report to determine if their triple bottom line criteria are being met, and not to ascertain how the development is performing. As an example, in the Sheltair Program, monitoring the energy consumption per household per year is listed as an Energy Performance Indicator. Schedule J does not make a single mention of monitoring energy consumption or even monitoring the performance of the energy plants, just whether or not the energy plants are complete. However, in the most recent Developers Annual Report, the developer reports that they have completed energy efficient design of buildings and that metering devices have been installed. Neither of which inform us of how the building is actually performing, i.e. the energy consumption of the building post occupancy.

What are some issues with monitoring?

No response from developer

How is it reported?

From Mr. Handy: The MDA requires annual reporting via the Developer’s Annual Report. This is made public online.

How much does it cost to monitor?

No response

Any lessons learned to share?

From Mr. Handy: Little to no activity has occurred in relation to Dockside Green since the economic downturn in 2009 and the MDA is currently under review. In light of this, some of the monitoring has not taken place in recent years. The MDA, which sets out the monitoring requirements does not and did not anticipate the economic downturn. This is reflected in elements of the MDA relating to the delivery of public amenities, where the construction of amenities was tied to calendar dates rather than phases of development. This is also reflected in the annual monitoring whereby an annual report (and an audit of that report) is still required despite the fact that no development has taken place in the past 4-5 years. Perhaps this would not be an issue with a smaller site, however, Dockside Green covers a significant area and it was always anticipated that it would be built out over a number of years. In hindsight linking the deliverables to phases of development rather than calendar dates would have been preferable. Developer did not respond so it is unknown if they have any lessons learned that they would like to share.

Methodology?

No response from developer

Page | 90

Dockside Green Short Answer

Is there monitoring of 1 indicator? Plan to

Is there monitoring post occupancy? No Plan

Is there monitoring of >1 indicator post occupancy? No Plan

Is construction complete? No

Who is responsible for monitoring? Developer

Primary driver for monitoring? Compliance

Page | 91

Community Excelsior & Grand

Location St Louis, MN, USA

Municipality Response No response from Thomas Harmening, City Manager of St Louis Park, MN

Developer Response Gary Wilson, Told Development Company and Dennis Sutliff of Ellnes Swensen Graham Architects, Inc.

Framework LEED-ND

Website www.excelsiorandgrand.com/

Community Complete? Yes

Excelsior & Grand Survey Responses

Do you monitor?

No, Per the architect, Monitoring was NOT a part of the original design or construction of any of the four phases of this development. Beyond the normal utility meters, there was no equipment installed that would enable any monitoring.

What do you monitor?

No Response

Is your development complete?

Yes

Who is responsible for monitoring?

No Response

What is the motivation to monitor?

Mr. Wilson of TOLD Development cites the reason for NOT monitoring is that there was no incentive to monitor as it was too expensive

Is energy performance monitored?

No Response

What are some issues with monitoring?

No Response

How is it reported?

No Response

How much does it cost to monitor?

No Response

Any lessons learned to share?

No Response

Methodology?

No Response

Page | 92

Excelsior & Grand Short Answer

Is there monitoring of 1 indicator? No

Is there monitoring post occupancy? No

Is there monitoring of >1 indicator post occupancy? No

Is construction complete? Yes

Who is responsible for monitoring? NA

Primary driver for monitoring? No ROI

Page | 93

Community Fields of St Croix

Location Lake Elmo, MN, USA

Municipality Response No response from City of Lake Elmo, but did get a response from Joe Holmberg on the Board of Directors for the Development

Developer Response Joe Holmberg from the HOA

Framework NA

Website http://www.engstromco.com/prev_fields

Community Complete? Yes

Fields of St Croix Survey Responses

Do you monitor?

No, Per Joe Holmberg: "We're not doing any of that" in reference to monitoring

What do you monitor?

No Response

Is your development complete?

Yes

Who is responsible for monitoring?

No Response

What is the motivation to monitor?

There is no interest in monitoring

Is energy performance monitored?

No Response

What are some issues with monitoring?

No Response

How is it reported?

No Response

How much does it cost to monitor?

No Response

Any lessons learned to share?

No Response

Methodology?

No Response

Page | 94

Fields of St Croix Short Answer

Is there monitoring of 1 indicator? No

Is there monitoring post occupancy? No

Is there monitoring of >1 indicator post occupancy? No

Is construction complete? Yes

Who is responsible for monitoring? NA

Primary driver for monitoring? No interest

Page | 95

Community Grow Community

Location Bainbridge, WA, USA

Municipality Response No response from the City of Bainbridge Island

Developer Response Arja Preston, President of Asani Development Company

Framework OPL

Website http://growbainbridge.com/

Community Complete? The first of three phases that will make up the entire community is under construction. Eight homes are occupied, another 36 are under construction. At completion there will be 132 homes.

Grow Community Survey Responses

Do you monitor?

Not yet but planning to monitor

What do you monitor?

As an endorsed OPL Community, a developer commits to monitoring progress towards an OPL principle target. The developer determines what it will monitor with respect to those targets. Their indicators listed in the OPL Action Plan are in the areas of Carbon Emissions, Waste reduction, Transportation, Sustainable Materials, Sustainable Food, Sustainable Water, Land Use and Wildlife, Culture and Community, Equity and Local Economy, Health and Happiness.

Is your development complete?

The first of three phases that will make up the entire community is under construction. Eight homes are occupied, another 36 are under construction. At completion there will be 132 homes.

Who is responsible for monitoring?

As an OPL Community, the developer commits to monitoring and reporting performance beyond occupancy. The developer stated that this role will be fulfilled “most likely through the Neighborhood Association and the Ecoconcierge, a position that will be funded through the community's nonprofit entity.”

What is the motivation to monitor?

Our primary driver to monitor is to “advance sustainability, provide transparency and establish metrics for replicability.” “Technically, we are required to monitor against the OPAP to maintain our One Planet Endorsement. There is however, nothing that requires us to maintain the endorsement other than: our investors believe in the OP program and feel strongly that it is the right thing to do (and are willing to invest patient capital - this is rare), OP differentiates our project in a competitive market, this is the direction that the industry is headed and we want to be in front of it (competitiveness)."

Is energy performance monitored?

"One of our homes is being monitored for energy performance by NEEA - Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance. This gives us third-party data on energy performance. The residents of this home have agreed to participate in the program. "

What are some issues with monitoring?

“We have been extremely busy designing the project and getting it constructed and have not yet had time to implement a system or procedure for monitoring. It is our hope that we will connect with others that may be interested in collecting and analyzing the data as this is not our field (we are urban planners and developers).”

Page | 96

How is it reported?

Monitoring will be reported in the OPL Annual Report, which will be available online at www.oneplanetcommunities.org and circulated to all residents and tenants

How much does it cost to monitor?

The developer believes that monitoring is expensive.

Any lessons learned to share?

Monitoring is expensive and budgets are slim so we are looking for opportunities to partner with organizations to lower our cost of monitoring while at the same time providing third party verification of our data accuracy. With the lessons learned at BedZED, we are looking to avoid Monitoring Fatigue to ensure sustained cooperation from residents

Methodology?

The Grow Community still needs to develop their monitoring plan. The monitoring will utilize an eco-concierge to facilitate the monitoring and provide feedbacks to residents of Grow. Methods that may be utilized include metering, self-monitoring, intranet, retailer provided customer data, occupant surveys and interviews

Grow Community Short Answer

Is there monitoring of 1 indicator? Plan to

Is there monitoring post occupancy? Plan to

Is there monitoring of >1 indicator post occupancy? Plan to

Is construction complete? No

Who is responsible for monitoring? Developer

Primary driver for monitoring? Economic

Page | 97

Community Kronsberg

Location Hannover, Germany

Municipality Response Elizabeth Czorny and Brigitta Rawe of the City of Hannover

Developer Response No contact attempted

Framework Local Agenda 21

Website http://www.hannover.de/Leben-in-der-Region-Hannover/Planen,-Bauen,-Wohnen/Bauen-Denkmalpflege/%C3%96kologisches-Bauen/Modell-Kronsberg

Community Complete? No, 30%

Kronsberg Survey Responses

Do you monitor?

Yes

What do you monitor?

Yes, Energy consumption and carbon emissions were monitored post occupancy for three years between 1999-2001, a detailed CO2 audit by Heidelberg ifeu Institut commissioned by the Hannover City Council . The city of Kronsberg has monitored its performance in energy consumption, carbon footprint, heat energy, and renewable energy; additionally figures from Kronsberg are included in the Hannover Environmental Report every 3 years. This report includes energy indicators. These are available online at http://www.hannover.de/Leben-in-der-Region-Hannover/Umwelt/Umweltinformation/Umweltbericht-der-Landeshauptstadt-Hannover

Is your development complete?

No, 30%

Who is responsible for monitoring?

City of Hannover , Department of Economic and Environmental Activities

What is the motivation to monitor?

Elizabeth Czorny reported that “Our motivation is that we want to make sure that what we 20 years ago (1992, planning began for the Kronsberg) had been conceived and planned in the implementation is how it works, as we had foreseen that. We want to find out by monitoring where planning and reality diverge and what you would do from today's perspective, maybe better. These findings, we have transferred to our construction activities throughout the city and decided based on findings from the Kaiserhof environmental standards in construction for the entire city. In addition, the knowledge and insights from the Kaiserhof in plans for new building areas such as zero District. Our motivation and our goal is to always learn something new in sustainable construction and thereby become better and better.”

Page | 98

Is energy performance monitored?

Yes, Hannover City Council commissioned an a detailed CO2 audit by Heidelberg ifeu Institut between 1999 – 2001, which showed that it has been almost possible to achieve 60% emissions reduction targets in practice. The city of Kronsberg has monitored its performance in energy consumption, carbon footprint, rainwater management, waste reduction, soil management, heat energy, water conservation, open space/green space and renewable energy. Energy consumption and carbon emissions were monitored post occupancy for three years between 1999-2001, additionally figures from Kronsberg are included in the Hannover Environmental Report every 3 years. This report includes energy and climate protection, mobility and traffic, air and noise, soil and land use, nature conservation, agriculture and recreation, water, sewer and surface water and waste presented indicators. These are available online at http://www.hannover.de/Leben-in-der-Region-Hannover/Umwelt/Umweltinformation/Umweltbericht-der-Landeshauptstadt-Hannover

What are some issues with monitoring?

Figures were only available for a few blocks on hot water demand, so that others had to be estimated from actual summer energy demand, making them less precise.

How is it reported?

Online via annual reports for the entire city of Hannover

How much does it cost to monitor?

No response

Any lessons learned to share?

Monitoring post occupancy must be accomplished to ascertain true performance of the development resulting from occupant behaviors and lifestyles. Some issues that were found in the emissions study included the initial high consumption seen in 1999. The following years, the consumption leveled out and it was later determined that construction crews left radiators on to ensure the areas dried out, while after residences were occupied, the heating use was lowered. This emphasized the need for multiple years of data to get accurate results. 2,890 households were included in the study area in 2001, where energy consumption of the household was measured to be 1/5 of the intended energy savings per household. This audit discovered that appliances were a major contributor to this figure. 2001 studies on thermal losses in the district heating allowed them to lower losses in the system. It was suggested that the cause for these losses could be further investigated with specific metering and optimization of buildings. “The proof of sustainability on Kronsberg over the next decades will be derived from a combination of the given conditions and the evolving behaviour of the residents.”

Methodology?

Surveys, audits, metering devices were all mentioned in the literature.

Kronsberg Short Answer

Is there monitoring of 1 indicator? Plan to

Is there monitoring post occupancy? Plan to

Is there monitoring of >1 indicator post occupancy? Plan to

Is construction complete? No

Who is responsible for monitoring? Municipality

Primary driver for monitoring? Demonstration

Page | 99

Community Linz Solar City

Location Linz, Austria

Municipality Response Gunter Amesberger, Director of Urban Development for the Municipality of Linz

Developer Response No contact attempted

Framework LeS!

Website http://www.linz.at/english/life/3199.asp

Community Complete? Yes, 2006

Linz Solar City Survey Responses

Do you monitor?

There is no monitoring on a recurring basis. Post occupancy monitoring of SolarCity was carried out only in 2005 and again in 2006-2008 to verify if performance of the project was successful in achieving their objectives. A first “sustainability check” of solarCity was carried out with the evaluation tool LeS, following completion of the first phase of construction (at the end of 2005). “Within the scope of the research program on technologies for sustainable development (“Nachhaltig Wirtschaften”) initiated by the Federal Ministry of Transport, Innovation and Technology, in the subprogram “Building of Tomorrow”, the City of Linz developed a method for evaluating urban development schemes, entitled “LeS - Linz entwickelt Stadt!” (“Linz Develops City”). “It comprises a catalogue of target criteria for sustainable urban development that can be used for evaluating large construction projects. This criteria catalogue includes a summary of general requirements for sustainable urban development, social aspects, aspects relating to energy and environmental performance, related economic factors, and mobility issues, and is designed for easy use within a city administration structure by means of a database tool suitable for networks. In March of 2007, the University of Natural Resources and Applied Life Sciences in Vienna (Prof. Treberspurg) began conducting a three-year sustainability check. This sustainability monitoring and reporting project, supported by the Province of Upper Austria, the City of Linz and the housing developers, is based on quantitative quality indicators and involves intensive interviewing of the residents. The social analysis is being carried out by Dr. Josef Lins of the Johannes Kepler University of Linz."

What do you monitor?

The city monitored LeS! Tool's general requirements for sustainable urban development, social aspects, aspects relating to energy and environmental performance, related economic factors, and mobility issues

Is your development complete?

Yes, 2006

Who is responsible for monitoring?

The City of Linz

What is the motivation to monitor?

The municipality chose to monitor performance to point out where demonstration strategies were successful and where they could be improved or optimized, as well as compare the performance to existing development’s performance. "The goal of the post-occupancy evaluation is to provide factual documentation of the quality of the solarCity and a clear presentation of its sustainability performance, focusing particularly on the areas of urban development, architecture, energy management, climate protection, material management and user satisfaction.”

Page | 100

Is energy performance monitored?

Yes, Energy performance was monitored partly in LeS and on a large scale in the second monitoring done by Treberspurg et.al. Permissions were obtained by building contractors.

What are some issues with monitoring?

No response

How is it reported?

Reports which were available online

How much does it cost to monitor?

No response

Any lessons learned to share?

No response

Methodology?

Surveys were mentioned in the response and literature.

Linz Solar City Short Answer

Is there monitoring of 1 indicator? Yes

Is there monitoring post occupancy? Yes

Is there monitoring of >1 indicator post occupancy? Yes

Is construction complete? Yes

Who is responsible for monitoring? Municipality

Primary driver for monitoring? Demonstration

Page | 101

Community Prairie Crossing

Location Grayslake, IL, USA

Municipality Response David Husemoller of Lake County, Kirk Smith of Village of Grayslake

Developer Response Michael Sands with the Liberty Prairie Foundations (HOA)

Framework LEED-ND (Station Village portion only)

Website http://www.prairiecrossing.com/

Community Complete? Yes

Prairie Crossing Survey Responses

Do you monitor?

Yes

What do you monitor?

County: “We facilitate the review and permitting of buildings and developments and we do encourage the use of sustainable practices, but we do not track the performance of any particular buildings or developments. “ Developer: “We do have better metrics on the quality of the restoration and performance of the common area assets. These include the water quality of the created water bodies, the health of the planted native wetlands and prairies and the resulting biodiversity found in the natural areas.” City: Grayslake does not monitor sustainability in Prairie Crossing per se. However, since some of the public improvements in Prairie Crossing contain sustainability features we do monitor to ensure the “public” portions are performing properly. For example, some of the public roads have a rural cross section which the Village monitors for performance. In addition, we monitor some stormwater aspects are working properly, especially during heavy precipitation events. City: “We facilitate the review and permitting of buildings and developments and we do encourage the use of sustainable practices, but we do not track the performance of any particular buildings or developments. “ Developer: “We do have better metrics on the quality of the restoration and performance of the common area assets. These include the water quality of the created water bodies, the health of the planted native wetlands and prairies and the resulting biodiversity found in the natural areas.”

Is your development complete?

Yes

Who is responsible for monitoring?

No response

What is the motivation to monitor?

Compliance

Is energy performance monitored?

No

Page | 102

What are some issues with monitoring?

As a private development we are not now able to reliably monitor metrics such as water use or energy consumption of individual households. Several years ago we did sponsor a contest among homeowners to self-report their energy use. The primary purpose of the data was to get people thinking about their energy use. The people who responded were obviously folks who were already interested, not a reliably "normal" population.

How is it reported?

No Response

How much does it cost to monitor?

No response

Any lessons learned to share?

No response

Methodology?

No response

Prairie Crossing Short Answer

Is there monitoring of 1 indicator? Yes

Is there monitoring post occupancy? Yes

Is there monitoring of >1 indicator post occupancy? No

Is construction complete? Yes

Who is responsible for monitoring? Municipality/HOA

Primary driver for monitoring? Compliance

Page | 103

Community Sonoma Mountain Village

Location Rohnert Park, CA, USA

Municipality Response No response

Developer Response Tina Montgomery of Codding Enterprises, Property & Marketing Manager

Framework OPL and LEED-ND

Website http://www.sonomamountainvillage.com/

Community Complete? No, Only commercial is completed right now, Residential should be complete in 2015

Sonoma Mountain Village Survey Responses

Do you monitor?

The plan is to monitor performance.

What do you monitor?

"Metrics for monitoring building performance thru the USGBC LEED Programs are one track for measuring carbon, waste, materials and water use. We’ll also need to monitor the social components of healthy and sustainable communities. Metrics specifically around Health and Happiness, Culture and Heritage, Equity and Local Economy, Local and Sustainable Food, Land Use and Wildlife, and Sustainable Transport. "

Is your development complete?

No, Only commercial is completed right now, Residential should be complete in 2015

Who is responsible for monitoring?

The developer will partner with the community

What is the motivation to monitor?

We want this to be replicable and part of that is to financial viability. OPL status allows us a competitive edge in this market. We are required to monitor to maintain OPL status. So ultimately, we monitor to attract sales, to promote our development and to share a model of sustainable development.

Is energy performance monitored?

We are planning to monitor energy.

What are some issues with monitoring?

"As we’ve not yet begun to develop the residential and community components of Sonoma Mountain Village, I’m not aware of monitoring methods developed thus far around the above One Planet Living or sustainable communities. There is a vital need for consistent and transparent monitoring systems, ranging from understanding the high level development economics to raising public awareness and support. With the goals of creating replicable models of sustainable communities and hopes to move sustainable development forward, it will be important to share successes and challenges for developers as well as transparent, easy to understand messages to the public."

How is it reported?

Reporting will be included in the OPL Annual Reports that are public and online.

How much does it cost to monitor?

No Response

Any lessons learned to share?

No Response

Page | 104

Methodology?

"As you noticed from reviewing our Sustainability Action Plan we will have a myriad of metrics to measure and we’ll be relying on our BioRegional and One Planet Communities Partners for best practices. I imagine that academia plays a big role as well. Academic research is vital to understanding and moving sustainable design and lifestyles forward."

Sonoma Mountain Village Short Answer

Is there monitoring of 1 indicator? Plan to

Is there monitoring post occupancy? Plan to

Is there monitoring of >1 indicator post occupancy? Plan to

Is construction complete? No

Who is responsible for monitoring? Developer/HOA

Primary driver for monitoring? Economic

Page | 105

Community Vauban

Location Freiburg, Germany

Municipality Response Thomas Dresel, Environmental Agency for City of Freiburg

Developer Response No contact attempted, Andreas Delleske, representative of the citizen's initiative Forum Vauban replied

Framework NA

Website www.freiburg.de/vauban

Community Complete? Yes, Delleske: 98 or 99% of the plots of land are being constructed upon, there are only 2-3 construction sites currently open.

Vauban Survey Responses

Do you monitor?

No/Yes depending on whom you ask

What do you monitor?

Dresel: To the best of my knowledge, no monitoring of any sustainability indicators has ever been put in place in Vauban. This may be due to the fact that Vauban hat not really been conceived as what you call a sustainable community. So the only data that have been "monitored" are the following (to the best of my knowledge): - number of private vehicles per household (has the transport concept of a largely car-free neighborhood been successful?) - energy demand of selected buildings (are buildings in compliance with the mandatory energy standard?) - efficiency of the district heating (is the CHP system viable?) Dresel: Transportation Method of Monitoring: you simply take the statistics of car registrations for this specific neighborhood. Energy Method of Monitoring. The construction standard stipulated a max. heating energy consumption of 65 kWh/m²/year (technical demand of the building, not of the behavior of residents). As we do not know whether the buildings were actually constructed according to this standard (planning permission is given on the basis of documents submitted, mostly the plans of architects), there is the idea of doing a random check on a couple of buildings on the spot. CHP Monitoring: The concept was that district heating on the basis of CHP (plus renewable fuels) would be an environment-friendly and economically viable way of (heating) energy provision. The power company Badenova who runs the installation has an interest in not losing out on this. So this is why they do a cost/benefit calculation as any power company does with any investment. While there is not much that could be changed in the Vauban infrastructure (still, the original woodchip CHP has been replaced by a natural gas CHP in combination with a woodchip heating system which can be run in a more efficient way), they nevertheless use these data for optimizing the design of heating schemes in other developments (volume of demand, number of households linked, distribution of demand over time, daily and over the year, length of lines etc.). Delleske: To put it bluntly: We don't monitor anything. Delleske: The Forum Vauban did measure some indicators in 2003, for the traffic concept. The research paper about our traffic concept with a lot of statistics and indicators is available at http://vauban.de/component/jdownloads/viewcategory/26?Itemid=267

Is your development complete?

Delleske: Yes, 98 or 99% of the plots of land are being constructed upon, there are only 2-3 construction sites currently open.

Who is responsible for monitoring?

Delleske: Maybe it would be enlightening to ask the city administration.

Page | 106

What is the motivation to monitor?

Delleske: Maybe it would be enlightening to ask the city administration. Dresel: So the motivation of the collection of some of these data derives directly from the concept of Vauban: traffic/transport, to see if it was effective. Motivation for monitoring energy: if the City introduces an obligatory energy standard for new constructions, does this have any effect?

Is energy performance monitored?

Delleske: We would like to measure energy use and put in into perspective, but this could only be done by out grid company and/or the city that owns it partly. I hope they will do it one day. We or the city of Freiburg should compile data from our local energy company and set it into relation to other averages. At the moment, we can only guess that we consume about 50% of the energy of heat and electricity compared to a normal district, but that was not your question. (One reason that the city has not accomplished this so far is that some construction sites are not yet completed).

What are some issues with monitoring?

Delleske: Most of life's aspect is non-deterministic. Observing thinks means very often to have a certain bias, ignoring other phenomena. The only thing is: We could tackle many small and bigger details together with the administration. This was a constructive process. We've neared the goal to consume less energy quite a bit, we'd appreciate some measuring but at the same time, the most important things are immeasurable. But you can perceive them in a very direct manner, as human being.

How is it reported?

Delleske: Nothing, nothing...we have not even a public report. Maybe some years ago, the Öko-Institut tried to compile some numbers about our district. (www.oeko.de) I don't have them also because then, they were hardly more that educated guessing. Please ask the city administration. We also think they are doing not enough. Maybe they will as soon our district is "completed". Dresel: CHP is monitored. These data are of course strictly limited to the company and not available outside.

How much does it cost to monitor?

No Response

Any lessons learned to share?

Delleske: “You asked what we learn from monitoring. We have hardly some monitoring at all, but we know what improvements we could accomplish, and to us, this means already a lot. We don't focus on the "lab rat" part of our reality so much. We know what we achieved, very often in terms of real, massive savings. Anyone is invited to copy and improve. We hope to continue learning, but all the houses are built now. We could fly less, and some or many do. We gained a lot of life quality, our district is the less noisy and yet the most densely populated one of Freiburg. 40% of us is below 18 years of age.”

Methodology?

Survey and Registration Information Utilized

Page | 107

Vauban Short Answer

Is there monitoring of 1 indicator? Yes

Is there monitoring post occupancy? Yes

Is there monitoring of >1 indicator post occupancy?

No

Is construction complete? Yes

Who is responsible for monitoring? Academic

Primary driver for monitoring? Demonstration

Page | 108

Community Village Homes

Location Davis, CA, USA

Municipality Response No response

Developer Response No response , Did get response from Katie Corral, Village Homeowners Association

Framework NA

Website http://www.villagehomesdavis.org/

Community Complete? Yes

Village Homes Survey Responses

Do you monitor?

Yes

What do you monitor?

There were multiple indicators monitored over the years, though the HOA reported, "Village Homes was established in 1975 and at the time I don't think there was much need, or any interest, in monitoring sustainable performance. Therefore no rules or requirements to monitor our community have made it into any of our HOA governing documents. Historically, I am not aware of any interest or motivation to monitor our community's sustainability. "

Is your development complete?

Yes

Who is responsible for monitoring?

No response

What is the motivation to monitor?

Academics, though the community does not itself seem aware of the monitoring completed

Is energy performance monitored?

It was monitored as a part of an Academic study in the 70's

What are some issues with monitoring?

No Response

How is it reported?

No Response

How much does it cost to monitor?

No Response

Any lessons learned to share?

No response

Methodology?

No Response

Page | 109

Village Homes Short Answer

Is there monitoring of 1 indicator? Yes

Is there monitoring post occupancy? Yes

Is there monitoring of >1 indicator post occupancy? Yes

Is construction complete? Yes

Who is responsible for monitoring? Outside Organizations

Primary driver for monitoring? No interest

Page | 110

Community Eco-Viikki in Helsinki

Location Helsinki, Finland

Municipality Response Tuomas Eskola, Head of Architecture for the Helsinki City Planning Department

Developer Response No contact attempted

Framework PIMWAG

Website http://en.uuttahelsinkia.fi/areas/156/viikki and http://www.uuttahelsinkia.fi/fi/viikki-kivikko/perustietoa/esitteet-ja-julkaisut

Community Complete? Yes, 2004

Eco-Viikki Survey Responses

Do you monitor?

No/Yes depending on whom you ask

What do you monitor?

Energy, Water, Waste, Biodiversity, water infiltration, satisfaction and opinion of residents

Is your development complete?

Yes, 2004

Who is responsible for monitoring?

City of Helsinki and Ministry of Environment

What is the motivation to monitor?

“The central task of monitoring was to study the attainment of goals, particularly in the realization of eco-criteria.” (http://www.hel.fi/static/ksv/julkaisut/eco-viikki_en.pdf)

Is energy performance monitored?

Yes

What are some issues with monitoring?

The monitoring process revealed that collecting information about construction and building use was time-consuming. It also revealed there were no measurements yet available for the eco-criteria that were “simple enough or dependable enough.” (http://www.hel.fi/static/ksv/julkaisut/eco-viikki_en.pdf) Some of the monitoring methods, such as household waste monitoring were not reliable, as the garbage truck driver estimates and resident surveys did not reveal similar results.

How is it reported?

The Final Monitoring Report was released in 2004. Most reports are online at http://www.uuttahelsinkia.fi/fi/viikki-kivikko/perustietoa/esitteet-ja-julkaisut

How much does it cost to monitor?

No Response

Any lessons learned to share?

No Response

Page | 111

Methodology?

The city of Helsinki with the Ministry of the Environment utilized consultant Motiva Oy to collect consumption data from 2002-3. The data was taken from property manager’s utility heating, electric and water bills for each residential block, as well as data from Helsinki Energy. Ecology, Water Runoff reports and extensive resident surveys were also utilized in the monitoring process. Property Developer VVO also contributed to the data. Some of the buildings participated in Project HOPE which conducted a survey on health aspects of living on a block of flats. There is also social research carried out by University of Helsinki Department of Social Policy (Sanna Ahonen).

Eco-Viikki Short Answer

Is there monitoring of 1 indicator? Yes

Is there monitoring post occupancy? Yes

Is there monitoring of >1 indicator post occupancy? Yes

Is construction complete? Yes

Who is responsible for monitoring? Municipality

Primary driver for monitoring? Demonstration

Page | 112

Community The Brewery

Location Milwaukee, WI

Municipality Response

Kristin Connelly from the Planning Department of the City of Milwaukee

Developer Response Dennis J Stapleton, Senior Architect for KM Development Corp

Framework LEED-ND

Website http://www.thebrewerymke.com

Community Complete?

No, 30% Complete

The Brewery Survey Responses

Do you monitor?

Yes

What do you monitor?

"An extensive Stormwater Management Plan has been designed and partially constructed for The Brewery Neighborhood. We gather stormwater flow and total suspended solids information at the beginning of the project, prior to the implementation of any of the stormwater management strategies and it is our intent to gather the same information once the entire STMP has been completed. There are presently two LEED Gold Buildings that have been constructed at The Brewery. A requirement of the LEED Certification is that the energy and water consumption must be recorded for 12 months after the building completion. One of the LEED Gold Buildings is an 8 story parking structure with a street level retail component. We decided to use LED lighting with occupancy and photo sensors to maximize the efficiency and longevity of the parking area lighting. The local utility wanted to monitor the energy consumption and light performance for a year. "

Is your development complete?

No, 30% Complete

Who is responsible for monitoring?

"We will ask The City of Milwaukee and The Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewage District to place and read monitors "

What is the motivation to monitor?

Developer: "The Brewery, The City of Milwaukee and The Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewage District have invested a great deal of time, money and effort into the development of the Stormwater Management Plan at The Brewery and would like to get an understanding of its impact on the site’s stormwater." City: “The owners/developers of the Brewery requested to amend the Brewery Project Development Incentive Zone (DIZ) overlay to require a signed sustainability checklist to be submitted by applicants along with the site plan, building design, etc. as part of the submittal package for City Plan Commission approval. Because each project is required to have sustainable elements integrated into it, which the City encourages, the City/Planning waives the usual $1500 application fee that the applicant would otherwise have to pay when submitting for approval by the City Plan Commission. “

Page | 113

Is energy performance monitored?

"Energy performance is monitored only for the two LEED Gold Buildings, the energy consumption is to be provided to the EPA Property Portfolio Manager by the owner."

What are some issues with monitoring?

"Establishing a base reference point for the information to be compared to, getting the appropriate entities to provide the monitoring"

How is it reported?

No Response

How much does it cost to monitor?

No Response

Any lessons learned to share?

No response

Methodology?

Metering devices and utility bills

The Brewery Short Answer

Is there monitoring of 1 indicator? Plan to

Is there monitoring post occupancy? Plan to

Is there monitoring of >1 indicator post occupancy? Plan to

Is construction complete? No

Who is responsible for monitoring? Municipality

Primary driver for monitoring? Compliance

Page | 114

Appendix B: Ideas and Personal Future Research Efforts

Ideas and Personal Future Research Efforts to Advance Post Occupancy Monitoring in Sustainable

Community Developments

- Develop a National Clearinghouse to match a development’s monitoring needs with an outside

organization’s research needs

- Research private/public partnerships that fund projects via unconventional means

- Develop best practices for monitoring performance in sustainable community developments

- Conduct cost benefit analysis on long term sustainable community development monitoring

(greater than 10 years post occupancy)

- Develop Sustainable Community Development ranking system based solely on performance

data (indicators that describe processes)

Page | 115

Appendix C: Bibliography Joss, Simon. Interview by author. Phone interview. United Kingdom, September 18, 2013. Chuvarayan, Alexandra, Isabelle Martel, and Celia Peterson. "A Strategic Approach for Sustainability and

Resilience Planning within Municipalities." Blekinge Institute of Technology, School of Engineering. http://www.bth.se/fou/cuppsats.nsf/all/b11fcfb6b29644afc1257259006bd213/$file/20070104ResilienceFinal.pdf (accessed October 17, 2013).

Vancity. "Annual Sustainability Report 2011." Dockside Green.

http://www.docksidegreen.com/Portals/0/pdf/sustainability/Sustainability_Report_2011.pdf (accessed August 15, 2013).

BioRegional Development Group. "BedZED Monitoring Summary." http://www.bioregional.com/.

http://www.bioregional.com/files/publications/BedZEDmonitoringsummary.pdf (accessed November 7, 2013).

Birch, Eugenie, Amy Lynch, Stuart Andreason, Theodore Eisenman, John Robinson, and Kenneth Steif.

"Measuring U.S. Sustainable Urban Development." PENN IUR WHITE PAPER SERIES ON SUSTAINABLE URBAN DEVELOPMENT. http://www.penniur.upenn.edu/uploads/media_items/measuring-u-s-sustainable-urban-development.original.pdf (accessed November 13, 2013).

UNEP. "Buildings and Climate Change." UNEP Sustainable Building and Climate Initiative.

http://www.unep.org/sbci/pdfs/SBCI-BCCSummary.pdf (accessed October 20, 2013). Sudberry Development, Inc. "Civita Life: Green Comes in Many Shades." Civita Life.

http://www.civitalife.com/community-tour/sustainable-design/ (accessed October 17, 2013). Coleman, Marie. "Building Performance Partnership: Post-LEED Certification." Facilities Net.

http://www.facilitiesnet.com/green/article/Building-Performance-Partnership-PostLEED-Certification--12030 (accessed November 17, 2013).

Cunningham, Storm. The restoration economy the greatest new growth frontier. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler,

2002. Eubank, Huston, and William Browning. "Energy Performance Contracting for New Buildings." Rocky Mountain

Institute. http://www.rmi.org/Knowledge-Center/Library/D04-23_EnergyPerformanceNewBuildings (accessed November 17, 2013).

Francis, M.. "Village Homes: A Case Study In Community Design." Landscape Journal 21, no. 1 (2002): 23-41. Frank, Thomas , Christopher Schnaars, and Hannah Morgan. "In U.S. building industry, Is It Too Easy To Be

Green?." USA Today. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/10/24/green-building-leed-certification/1650517/ (accessed November 6, 2013).

Energy Cities. "Guidebook of Sustainable Neighbourhoods in Europe ." Energy Cities. http://www.energy-

cities.eu/IMG/pdf/ademe_sustainable_districts_en.pdf (accessed September 18, 2013). Federal Institute for Research on Building, Urban Affairs and Spatial Development. "Hamburg: Ecological Estate

Braamwisch." Werkstatt-Stadt. http://www.werkstatt-stadt.de/en/projects/28/#sources (accessed November 17, 2013).

Page | 116

Hodge, Jessica , and Julia Haltrecht. "BedZED Seven Years On." One Planet Communities. http://www.oneplanetcommunities.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/BedZED-seven-years-on-low-res-final.pdf (accessed September 11, 2013).

Endeavour Technical Limited . "ISO 9001 Training." Looking for PDCA Guidance?. http://www.iso-9001-

checklist.co.uk/iso-9001-training.htm (accessed November 17, 2013). "Innovative Buildings: Bo01 Sustainable Housing Development Malmo, Sweden." Canada Mortgage and Housing

Corporation. http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/inpr/bude/himu/inbu/upload/Bo01-Sustainable-Housing-Development.pdf (accessed October 22, 2013).

Joss, Simon. "INTERNATIONAL ECO-CITIES INITIATIVE." BELLAGIO CONFERENCE REPORT: TOMORROWS CITY

TODAY ECO-CITY INDICATORS, STANDARDS & FRAMEWORKS. http://www.westminster.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/198358/Bellagio_Spreads_PDF-Version__28.1.13-12.pdf (accessed November 1, 2013).

Joss, Simon , D Tomozeiu, and R Cowley. "Eco-city indicators: governance challenges." WIT Transactions on

Ecology and the Environment. http://library.witpress.com/pages/PaperInfo.asp?PaperID=23106 (accessed November 17, 2013).

Joss, Simon . "ECO-CITIES: The Mainstreaming of Urban Sustainability; Key Characteristics and Driving Factors."

International Journal of Sustainable Development and Planning 6, no. 3 (2011): : 268-284. Joss, Simon. "ECO-CITIES: The Mainstreaming of Urban Sustainability; Key Characteristics and Driving Factors."

International Journal of Sustainable Development and Planning 6, no. 3 (2011): 268-284. Joss, Simon. "ECO-CITY GOVERNANCE: A Case Study of Treasure Island and Sonoma Mountain Village ." Journal of

Environmental Policy and Planning 13, no. 4 (2011): 331-348. Katz, Ashley. "Press Release: Buildings Seeking LEED to Provide Performance Data." USGBC .

http://www.usgbc.org/Docs/News/MPRs%200609.pdf (accessed November 8, 2013). Kildsgaard, Ivana, Anna Jarnehammar, Ake Iverfeldt, Jeanette Green, Tor Fossum, and Carl Baker. "Best practice

on Energy Performance of New and Existing Buildings." Secure Project: Sustainable Energy Communities in Urban Areas in Europe. http://www.secureproject.org/download/18.2f3a7b311a7c8064438000210907/ (accessed September 24, 2013).

Kirk, Patricia. "Civita: San Diegos New City within the City." Urban Land Magazine.

http://urbanland.uli.org/planning-design/civita-san-diego-s-new-city-within-the-city/ (accessed November 17, 2013).

Lyle, John Tillman. Regenerative design for sustainable development. New York: John Wiley, 1994. Lyon, Thomas P., and John W. Maxwell. "'Voluntary' Approaches to Environmental Regulation: A Survey." Social

Science Research Network. http://ssrn.com/abstract=147888 (accessed November 17, 2013). Mang, Pamela, and Bill Reed. "Designing from place: a regenerative framework and methodology." Building

Research & Information 40, no. 1 (2011): 23-38. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09613218.2012.621341#.UohYPdLUDy8 (accessed September 27, 2013).

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. "Measuring Sustainable Development." Organisation

for Economic Co-operation and Development Statistics Brief. http://www.oecd.org/std/35407580.pdf (accessed November 21, 2013).

Page | 117

Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development. "Measuring Sustainable Development INTEGRATED ECONOMIC, ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL FRAMEWORKS." Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development. http://www.oecd.org/site/worldforum/33703829.pdf (accessed November 13, 2013).

Melton, Paula. "Occupant Engagement “Where Design Meets Performance." Building Green.

http://www.buildinggreen.com/auth/article.cfm/2011/11/1/Occupant-Engagement-Where-Design-Meets-Performance/ (accessed November 17, 2013).

Millán, Naomi . "Does Your Facility Hit Its Energy Target?." Buildings Operation Management.

http://www.facilitiesnet.com/bom/articleemail.asp?id=8965# (accessed October 16, 2013). Moffet, John , Franois Bregha , and Mary Jane Middelkoop. "Chapter 6 Responsible Care: A Case Study of a

Voluntary Environmental Initiative." School of Public Policy and Administration. http://www.carleton.ca/sppa/wp-content/uploads/ch6.pdf (accessed September 5, 2013).

Nobis, Claudia, and Janina Welsch . "Mobility management at district level - The impact of car-reduced districts on

mobility behaviour." European Platform on Mobility Management. http://www.epomm.eu/ecomm2003/ecomm/papers/ClaudiaNobis.pdf (accessed October 17, 2013).

Nwakanma Amanze , Collins , and Emma Eriksson. "Regional Cooperation for Strategic Sustainable Development:

A case study of Blekinge ." Blekinge Institute of Technology, School of Engineering. http://www.bth.se/fou/cuppsats.nsf/all/2cd5fcc734216e6cc125710e00330503/$file/Amanze_Eriksson_Thesis.pdf (accessed October 9, 2013).

Our common future. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987. Our common future : a reader's guide: the "Brundtland Report" explained. Washington, D.C.: IIED-Earthscan, 1987. Perspectives of sustainable development: some critical issues related to the Brundtland report.. Stockholm:

Stockholm Group for Studies on Natural Resources Management, 1988. "Responsible Care ." International Council of Chemical Associations. http://www.icca-

chem.org/ICCADocs/ICCA%20-%20Responsible%20Care%20_English.pdf (accessed September 4, 2013). Rey, F. John. "You Can't Manage What You Don't Measure." About.com Management.

http://management.about.com/od/metrics/a/Measure2Manage.htm (accessed November 1, 2013). Robeco. "SAM Insight: Sustainability in the Chemical Industry." SAM Sustainability Investing.

http://www.robecosam.com/images/1203-sam-insight-e.pdf (accessed September 2, 2013). European Commission. "SUSTAINABLE URBAN DEVELOPMENT IN THE EUROPEAN UNION: A FRAMEWORK FOR

ACTION." European Commission. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/urban/pdf/framework_en.pdf (accessed November 4, 2013).

Scheurer, Jan , and Peter Newman. "Vauban: A European Model Bridging the Green and Brown Agendas." UN

Habitat. http://www.unhabitat.org/downloads/docs/grhs2009casestudychapter06vauban.pdf (accessed October 16, 2013).

Schubert, Silvia . "Nachhaltiger Wohnen: Erfahrungen aus 10 Jahren, Akologische Siedlung Braamwisch." ANU

Hamburg e.V.. http://www.anu-hamburg.de/fileadmin/anu-hamburg/dateien/Dokumente/braamwisch_nachhaltiger_wohnen_2007.pdf (accessed September 18, 2013).

Page | 118

Sims, Michelle, and Alan Meier. "2012 ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings: An Examination of the Recertification Processes of Building Certification Systems ." 2012 ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings American Council for an Energy Efficient Council. http://www.aceee.org/files/proceedings/2012/data/papers/0193-000076.pdf (accessed October 8, 2013).

Stroebel, Karen, Erin Romanchuk, Sarah Cheevers, and Alaya Boisvert . "Measuring Success: Indicators for

Strategic Approaches to Sustainable Community Planning." Blekinge Institute of Technology, School of Engineering. http://www.bth.se/fou/cuppsats.nsf/all/6b39a620d0193624c1257461005ab9ec/$file/Thesis_SustainabilityIndicators_2008.pdf (accessed October 15, 2013).

Turner, Cathy, and Mark Frankel. "Energy Performance of LEED® for New Construction Buildings , Final Report."

New Buildings Institute. http://newbuildings.org/sites/default/files/Energy_Performance_of_LEED-NC_Buildings-Final_3-4-08b.pdf (accessed November 8, 2013).

"Vstra Hamnen: The Bo01-area." City of Malmo, Environmental department, Environmental Strategy Unit.

http://www.upv.es/contenidos/CAMUNISO/info/U0557446.pdf (accessed November 8, 2013). Deutsche Bundesstiftung Umwelt (German Federal Environmental Foundation). "ƒ–kologische Siedlungsplanung:

Braamwisch Bereich: Projekte (Project Data Sheet)." DBU Project Database. http://www.dbu.de/projekt_06513/20_db_1036.html (accessed November 17, 2013).

Page | 119

Appendix D: Community Contacts

BedZED

City: No response

Developer:

Nic Wedlake, Group Sustainability Manager of Asset Management, Property Services, Housing

Peabody

A: 45 Westminster Bridge Road, London SE1 7JB, W: www.peabody.org.uk/sustainability

T: +44 20 7021 4567, E: nic.wedlake@peabody.org.uk

Developer:

Pooran Desai, Cofounder

BioRegional

A: BedZED Centre, 24 Helios Road, Wallington, Surrey, SM6 7BZ, UK, W: www.bioregional.com

C: +44 (0)7903 589503

Braamwisch Ecological Settlement

The Federal Department of Research and Science, along with the Department of the Environment from the City of

Hamburg and the University of Stuttgart and HeinGas developed the project initially. Thomas Schobess, the

President of the Ministry of Urban Development and Environment for the Free and Hanseatic City of Hamburg had

no information available on the success or performance of the community. He referred us to the German Federal

Foundation for the Environment, which provided some literature. The Federal Ministry of Urban Development

(buergerinfo@bmvbs.bund.de) had no information to provide and referred us to the Federal Ministry of Education

and Research. The Federal Ministry of Education and Research (information@bmbf.bund.de) stated they did not

fund the project and had no information to provide.

City:

Thomas Schobess, President P13

Free and Hanseatic City of Hamburg, Ministry of Urban Development and Environment

A: New Straße 19, D-21109 Hamburg, W: http://www.bsu.hamburg.de

T: +49 (0)40 42840 – 2378, E: Thomas.Schobess@bsu.hamburg.de

Developer: No attempt to contact

Other:

Stefan Rümmele, Deputy Technical Director

DBU - German Federal Foundation for the Environment, Center for Environmental Communication

Postfach 1705 49007, At the Bornau 2, 49090 Osnabrück 0541-9633965, W: www.dbu.de

T: (0541) 9633-0, E: zuk-info@dbu.de, E: s.ruemmele@dbu.de

Other: Bernd Breuer, Section I 2 - Urban Development Federal Institute of Building, Urban Affairs and Spatial Development (BBSR) Federal Office for Building and Regional Planning (BBR) A: Deichmanns Aue 31 – 37 D - 53179 Bonn, A: www.bbsr.bund.de, A: www.werkstatt-stadt.de E: bernd.breuer@bbr.bund.de

Page | 120

Other: Silvia Schubert Association for Natural and Environmental Education, National Association of Hamburg W: www.anu-hamburg.de E: silvia.schubert@anu-hamburg.de Bo01: The City of Tomorrow City: Maria Loof, Environmental Engineer City of Malmo, Department of Environment and Health A: bergsgatan 17, 205 80 Malmö, W: www.malmo.se T: 040-34 20:58, C: 0708-577184, E: maria.loof@malmo.se City:

Daniel Skog, Communication Officer for MALMÖ STAD

Miljöförvaltningen [Environment Department], Kommunikationsenheten [Communication Unit]

A: Bergsgatan 17 , SE-205 80 Malmö, Sweden, W: www.malmo.se/miljo

T: +46 709 34 20 86 , E: daniel.skog@malmo.se

City:

Elisabet Corengia, Communication Officer for Technical Visit Department

Goran Rosberg, Senior Advisor

City of Malmö, City Planning Office

A: August Palms Plats 205 80 Malmö, W: www.malmo.se

T: (0)40-34 23 93 , E: elisabet.corengia@malmo.se

Developer: No Contact attempted. Multiple Developers.

The Brewery

City:

Kristin D. Connelly, Planning Administration

City of Milwaukee, Dept. of City Development

A: 2nd Floor, 809 N. Broadway, Milwaukee, WI 53202,

W: http://city.milwaukee.gov/Projects/Brewerysite.htm

T: 414-286-5714, E: planadmin@milwaukee.gov, E: kdconne@milwaukee.gov

Developer:

Dennis J Stapleton, NCARB, Senior Architect

KM Development Corp, 710 N. Plankinton Avenue, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, 53203

T: 414.274.2817, C: 414.791.2820, E: dennis.stapleton@zilber.com

Page | 121

Civita

Developer:

Mark K. Radelow, Vice President / Sr. Project Manager

SUDBERRY PROPERTIES, INC.

A: 5465 Morehouse Drive, Suite 260, San Diego, CA 92121, W: www.sudberryproperties.com

T: 858.546.3000 x 526 C: 858.344.3571, E: mark@sudprop.com

City:

Brian Schoenfisch, Senior Planner

City of San Diego, Planning, Neighborhoods & Economic Development Department

T: (619) 533-6457 E: bschoenfisch@sandiego.gov

Dockside Green City: Jim Handy, MCIP RPP, Development Agreement Facilitator City of Victoria , Sustainable Planning and Community Development Department A: 1 Centennial Square Victoria, BC, V8W 1P6 T: (250) 361-0523, E: jhandy@victoria.ca Developer:

Replied “Dockside is in the process of reorganizing and would be in a better position to answer these questions with

the appropriate level of information in approximately 6 months.”

Amolak Nijjar, Manager Operations & Finance

VanCity E: Amolak_Nijjar@vancity.com Eco-Viikki City: Tuomas Eskola, Head of Architecture Helsinki City Planning Department, Town Planning, Western Office A: PO Box 2100, FI-00099 City of Helsinki T: (09) 310 3728 5, E: tuomas.eskola@hel.fi Developer: No contact made. Excelsior and Grand City: no response Thomas Harmening, City Manager

St. Louis Park, MN

T: (952) 924-2525, E: tharmening@stlouispark.org

Developer:

Gary Wilson, Asset Manager, Excelsior and Grand

TOLD Development

A: 2 Carlson Parkway, Ste. 220, Plymouth, MN 55447

T: 952-278-0118, C: 612-865-4039, E: garyw@toldmn.com

Page | 122

Architect:

Dennis J. Sutliff, AIA, AICP, Principal

Elness Swenson Graham Architects, Inc.

A: 500 Washington Ave South #1080, Minneapolis, MN 55415, W: www.esgarchitects.com

T: 612.373.4624, E: dennis.sutliff@esgarch.com

Fields of St Croix

City: No response

Kyle Klatt, Planning Director

City of Lake Elmo

A: 3800 Laverne Ave N, Lake Elmo, MN 55042

T: 651-747-3911, E: kklatt@lakeelmo.org

Developer: No response

Robert Engstrom

Robert Engstrom Companies

A: 4801 West 81st Street, Suite 101, Minneapolis, MN 55437, W: www.engstromco.com/prev_fields

T: 952-893-1001, E: bob@engstromco.com

Other:

Joe Holmberg

Fields of St. Croix Development Board of Directors

E: fieldsofstcroix@gmail.com , E: jholmberg@saintandrews.org, W: http://fieldsofstcroix.wordpress.com/

Grow Community

City: No response

Kathy Cook, Director of Planning and Community Development Department City of Bainbridge Island A: 280 Madison Avenue North, Bainbridge Island, WA 98110

T:(206) 780-3756 Developer:

Arja Preston, President

Asani Development Company

A: 710 John Nelson Lane, Bainbridge Island, WA 98110, W: www.asanillc.com

T: 206.245.7674, E: marja@asanillc.com

Kronsberg

City:

Elizabeth Czorny, Environmental Protection, City of Hannover, Environment and City Green Department

A: Prinzenstr. 4 , 30159 Hannover, W: www.hannover.de/Leben-in-der-Region-Hannover/Umwelt

T: 0511 / 16,845,028, E: elisabeth.czorny@hannover-stadt.de

Page | 123

City:

Brigitta Rawe, Agenda 21 - sustainable office

City of Hannover A: Prinzenstraße 4, 30159 Hannover, W: http://www.agenda21.de/index.php

T: +49 (0) 511 168 4498 3, E: Brigitta.Rawe@Hannover-Stadt.de

Developers: No contact attempted

Linz

City: Silvia Rötzer . Administration, Urban Development

Municipality City of Linz

A: 4041 Linz, Hauptstraße 1-5 , AUSTRIA , W: www.linz.at

T:+43 732 7070-3001 , E: silvia.roetzer@mag.linz.at

City: Gunter Amesberger, Director of Urban Development

Municipality City of Linz

A: 4041 Linz, Hauptstraße 1-5 , AUSTRIA , W: www.linz.at

T: +43 732 7070 3000, M: +43 664 38 25 035 E: gunter.amesberger@mag.linz.at

Developer: No contact attempted

Prairie Crossing

County:

David Husemoller, AICP, LEED GA, Senior Planner

Planning, Building & Development Department

A: 500 W. Winchester Road, Libertyville, IL 60048-1331

T: 847.377.2151, E: dhusemoller@lakecountyil.gov

City:

Kirk Smith, Zoning Officer

Village of Grayslake

A: 10 South Seymour Avenue, Grayslake, IL 60030, W: www.villageofgrayslake.com

T: 847.223.8515, E: ksmith@villageofgrayslake.com

HOA:

Michael Sands, Senior Associate

Liberty Prairie Foundation

A: 32400 N. Harris Road, Grayslake, IL 60030, W: http://www.prairiecrossing.com/

E: mikesands@prairiecrossing.com , T: 847-812-1618

Page | 124

Sonoma Mountain Village

Developer:

Tina Montgomery, Property & Marketing Manager

Codding Enterprises Community

A: 1400 Valley House Drive, Suite 100, Rohnert Park, CA 94928, W: www.codding.com

T: 707.795.3550 x138, C: 707.478.7000, E: tinam@codding.com

City: No response

Jeff Beiswenger, Planner III

City of Rohnert Park, Development Services, Planning

A: 130 Avram Avenue, Rohnert Park, CA 94928, W: www.ci.rohnert-park.ca.us

T: (707) 588-2253 E: jbeiswenger@rpcity.org, E: planning@rpcity.org

Vauban

City:

Thomas Dresel, Environmental Protection Agency

City of Freiburg

A: Talstr. 4, D-79102 Freiburg, W: www.freiburg.de/vauban

T: 0761 / 201-6146, E: thomas.dresel@stadt.freiburg.de

Community Forum:

Andreas Delleske, Resident, elected representatives of Forum Vauban e.V. (2003), energy and electrical planner

Forum Vauban

A: Walter-Gropius-Strasse 22, D-79100 Freiburg, W: http://www.vauban.de/

T: 49 761 4568330 E: post@dellekom.de, E: delleske@vauban.de The actual transcript of the survey was posted on their website at: http://www.vauban.de/en/topics/faq Village Homes

City: No response

City of Davis

A: 23 Russell Blvd Suite 2, Davis, CA 95616

T: 530-757-5610, E: cddweb@cityofdavis.org

Other

Village Homes Homeowners Association

Katie Corral, VHA Manager

T: (530)753-6345, E: villagehomes.manager@gmail.com

Developer: No Response Michael Corbett Town Planners A: 2417 Bucklebury Road , Davis, CA 95616 T: (916) 756-5941 E: lgc@dcn.davis.ca.us