NIST GCR 15-986-1

Proceedings of the Measurement 

Science for Sustainable Construction 

and Manufacturing Workshop

Volume I. Position Papers and 

Findings

Bilal M. Ayyub

Gerald E. Galloway

Richard N. Wright

University of Maryland

This publication is available free of charge from:

http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.GCR.15-986-1

NIST GCR 15-986-1

Proceedings of the Measurement 

Science for Sustainable Construction 

and Manufacturing Workshop

Volume I. Position Papers and 

Findings

Prepared for

U.S. Department of Commerce

Engineering Laboratory

National Institute of Standards and Technology

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8600

By

Bilal M. Ayyub

Gerald E. Galloway

Richard N. Wright

University of Maryland

This publication is available free of charge from:

http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.GCR.15-986-1

February 2015

U.S. Department of Commerce 

Penny Pritzker, Secretary

National Institute of Standards and Technology 

Willie May, Acting Under Secretary of Commerce for Standards and Technology and Director 
This publication was produced as part of Cooperative Agreement 70NANB13H211 with the 

National Institute of Standards and Technology. The contents of this publication do not 

necessarily reflect the views or policies of the National Institute of Standards and 

Technology or the US Government
v

Organizing Committee

Bilal M. Ayyub, University of Maryland

Robert Chapman, National Institute of Standards and Technology

Joannie Chin, National Institute of Standards and Technology

Gerald E. Galloway, University of Maryland

I. S. Jawahir, University of Kentucky

Josh Kneifel, National Institute of Standards and Technology

Sudarsan Rachuri, National Institute of Standards and Technology

Jelena Srebric, University of Maryland

Richard N. Wright, University of Maryland

Sponsors

National Institute of Standards and Technology

American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)

American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE)

American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME)

American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) 

University of Maryland

Recommended Citations

Ayyub, B. M., Galloway, G. E., and Wright, R. N. (editors), 2014, Measurement Science for 

Sustainable Construction and Manufacturing, Volume I. Position Papers, University of Maryland 

Report to the National Institute of Standards and Technology, Office of Applied Economics, 

NIST Grant/Contractor Report 15-986-1, Gaithersburg, MD. 

Ayyub, B. M., Galloway, G. E., and Wright, R. N. (editors), 2014, Measurement Science for 

Sustainable Construction and Manufacturing, Volume II. Presentations, University of Maryland 

Report to the National Institute of Standards and Technology, Office of Applied Economics, 

NIST Grant/Contractor Report 15-986-2, Gaithersburg, MD. 
vi

[This page is internationally left blank]
vii

Chapman, Robert, National Institute of Standards and Technology

Foreword 

An environmentally conscious public is increasingly demanding products that are more 

sustainable. Manufacturers are seeking to meet the expectations of consumers and the demands 

of regulators while becoming more environmentally responsible. For consumers, regulators, and 

manufacturers alike, this requires that credible processes be implemented to accurately measure 

the environmental impacts of products. As a result, sustainability considerations can drive new 

materials and technologies for sustainable products, process innovation for sustainable 

manufacturing, and innovation and creativity in supply and value chain operations. Therefore, 

progress toward greater sustainability in the built environment and the manufacturing sector is a 

necessary step to better enable resource efficiency in our nation. 

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) develops unbiased, state-of-the-art 

measurement science that advances the nation’s technology infrastructure and is needed by

industry to continually improve products and services. The mission of NIST’s Engineering 

Laboratory is to promote U.S. innovation and industrial competitiveness in areas of critical 

national priority by anticipating and meeting the measurement science and standards needs for 

technology-intensive manufacturing, construction, and cyber-physical systems in ways that 

enhance economic prosperity and improve the quality of life. Sustainability is a recognized 

critical national priority—one that requires meaningful and rigorous measurement science for 

establishing suitable performance metrics. 

To address this need, NIST launched an effort to develop, organize, and convene an invitational 

workshop on sustainability to promote the adoption and use of sustainable construction and 

manufacturing and guide NIST in developing a portfolio of programs that are focused on 

providing the enabling measurement science to key industry stakeholders. The University of 

Maryland in collaboration with the American Society of Civil Engineers, the American Society 

of Mechanical Engineers, the American Institute of Chemical Engineers, and the American 

Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers undertook and performed that 

effort. The workshop was organized around four cross-cutting themes: (1) measurement science; 

(2) systems; (3) planning, design, and supply chains; and (4) economic, environmental, and 

social aspects. Plenary session presentations were commissioned covering each of the four 

cross-cutting themes. The plenary session presentations set the stage for focused breakout 

sessions organized around the four cross-cutting themes. Workshop participants were assigned 

to the breakout sessions in a manner that facilitated discussions among the key stakeholder 

groups represented at the workshop. The breakout sessions were co-facilitated by each theme’s 

plenary speakers, which provided a firm base from which to develop a snapshot of the current 

state-of-the-art in that topic area, as well as identify gaps and research opportunities. Change 

agents were also identified for key stakeholder groups in industry, academia, government, 

standards development organizations, and hardware and software developers.
viii

The results of the workshop breakout sessions presented herein provide a path forward for key 

stakeholders. These results are augmented by short, executive summary papers from workshop 

participants that lay out the challenges and opportunities associated with the increased use of 

sustainability-related products and processes in their areas of expertise within the construction 

and manufacturing industries. Thus, this report provides the elements of a roadmap useful not 

only for NIST but for other key industry stakeholders on potential opportunities for their 

sustainability-related research, development, and deployment efforts.

The workshop provided many useful insights for NIST as it moves forward with its portfolio of 

programs focused on sustainability-related research. Specifically, the four cross-cutting themes 

resonate with NIST’s vision for the future, which is itself evolving around several cross-cutting 

themes. These include: innovative materials and the new classes of products they enable; 

additive manufacturing; distributed energy generation associated with net-zero energy, highperformance buildings and their interactions with the electric power grid; and the promise that 

systems-based sustainability thinking has for increased resilience to natural and man-made 

disasters.

The material contained in this report will promote an increased awareness of sustainabilityrelated issues—both challenges and opportunities—in the construction and manufacturing 

industries. The report identifies definitional and methodological disconnects and analyzes them 

from a systems perspective. The report also identifies barriers to the increased use of 

sustainability-related products and processes in the construction and manufacturing industries 

and recommends actions for NIST and others to address these barriers.
ix

Harary, Howard, National Institute of Standards and Technology

Preface – Opening Remarks 

Good morning. I’m very pleased to welcome you all to this Workshop on Measurement Science 

for Sustainable Construction and Manufacturing, jointly hosted by NIST, ASCE, ASME, and the 

University of Maryland.

At NIST, our mission is to promote U.S. innovation and industrial competitiveness by advancing 

measurement science, standards, and technology in ways that enhance economic security and 

improve our quality of life. Since our inception -- in addition to maintaining the more traditional 

National physical standards -- we have also focused a significant portion of our research and 

measurement services activities on addressing contemporary societal needs, such as 

sustainability.

Sustainability is a term that is used frequently these days -- perhaps even over-used. And 

multiple definitions exist. One of the more frequently quoted definitions -- originating from the 

Brundtland Report -- focuses on the concept of “meeting the needs of the present without 

compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” We might all agree 

that incorporating a concept of sustainability into construction and manufacturing is valuable. If 

you didn’t, you probably wouldn’t be here today. But how is this conceptual definition to be 

operationalized? We contend that a critical, even foundational step, in operationalizing the 

concept of sustainability requires that we develop meaningful, science-based measurements for 

characterizing suitable sustainability metrics for lifecycle considerations. Sustainability issues 

occur at all scales, and in all sectors. It is fundamentally a systems level challenge, in which all 

consequences, trade-offs, and synergies in economic, environmental, and social domains must be 

considered.

A little bit of history. The Engineering Laboratory -- and its predecessor organizations -- has 

conducted sustainability-related research for well over 20 years. One of our better-know 

products is BEES, that stands for Building for Environmental and Economic Sustainability. 

BEES enables a science-based evaluation of the environmental performance of building 

materials and products across 12 environmental attributes. It also includes cost information to 

promote more cost-effective decision making. We are currently expanding the BEES concept to 

BIRDS, that stands for Building Industry Reporting and Design for Sustainability, which enables 

the analysis of whole building characteristics, including the calculation of carbon footprints.

Here at NIST, our research on sustainable manufacturing has two broad thrusts. The first is 

concerned with developing science-based methodologies for characterizing, analyzing, and 

assessing the sustainability of individual manufacturing processes. The second focuses on 

development of a framework that will combine sustainability measurements for individual 

manufacturing processes into a generic information model with the ability to track the 

sustainability performance of all of the processes in a manufacturing network. This information 

model will allow industrial managers to analyze sustainability performance throughout an entire 

supply chain.
x

On another front of the sustainability issue, the NIST Net-Zero Energy Residential Test Facility 

is being used to demonstrate that a desirable residential house can produce as much energy from 

renewable energy resources as it consumes on an annual basis. I am pleased to report that as of 

June 3rd, as we enter the final month of the year-long trial, the NIST Net-Zero Energy 

Residential Test Facility had already achieved the net-zero energy goal; it is now a net producer.

Despite our experience and history with sustainability issues, we are not optimally equipped to 

address the crosscutting nature of sustainability. Moreover, those crosscuts are often the crucial 

points where progress can be made, and generally involve agencies and organizations at levels 

other than federal. 

The objective of these next two days is to engage all of you in utilizing your combined expertise 

to critically think about the measurement science needed to guide decisions for sustainability 

throughout the life cycle of design, construction/manufacturing, operations, and even 

maintenance of facilities and systems of the built environment and manufactured products. 

These outcomes will inform NIST, and guide NIST and other key stakeholders, in developing a 

portfolio of inter-related programs that will ultimately help promote the use of sustainable 

manufacturing and construction practices. You have all been invited here to participate because 

we believe you are in a position to make significant contributions to key issues in sustainable 

construction and manufacturing. We are very pleased to have with us a number of national and 

international thought leaders and experts from the construction and manufacturing domains, 

including codes and standards development organizations, industry, and academia.

I would like to thank all of you for taking time away from all of your other responsibilities to be 

here, and take on the challenge of identifying the critical measurement science gaps in 

sustainable construction and manufacturing. Many thanks also to our workshop partners at the 

University of Maryland, ASCE, and ASME for all of the hard work that went into planning and 

organizing this event. Once again, welcome. I greatly look forward to hearing about the 

outcomes of your work.
xi

Ayyub, Bilal M., Galloway, Gerald E., and Wright, Richard N., University of Maryland

About the Workshop on Measurement Science for Sustainable 

Construction and Manufacturing

1. Background

Achieving long-term suitability poses a linked-systems challenge for policy makers to assess the 

consequences, trade-offs and synergies in economic, environmental and social domains. A 

sustainable society can be defined as the one that can thrive over generations; one that is farseeing enough, flexible enough, and wise enough not to undermine its economic, environmental 

and social systems of support. A major need for achieving sustainable construction and 

manufacturing is to establish meaningful measurements for the complex attributes of 

sustainability suitable for lifecycle considerations. What one can measure, one can manage. 

NIST, ASCE, ASME and the University of Maryland are hold this workshop to address this 

challenge.

2. Objectives

The objective of the workshop was to examine the measurement science needed to guide 

decisions for sustainability throughout the life cycle of design, construction/manufacturing, 

operations, and maintenance of facilities and systems of the built environment and manufactured 

products, and to guide NIST and other key stakeholders in developing a portfolio of related 

programs. The workshop engaged key international and domestic thought leaders and experts 

from stake-holding disciplines including construction, manufacturing, codes and standards 

development, economics, government, industry, and academia, and addressed trends and needs 

relating to sustainable construction and manufacturing. The results from this effort are

documented herein in coordination with NIST, ASCE and ASME.

3. Discussion Topics

Discussion topics included:

 Measurement science (definition, standards, metrics, indicators and ratings)

 Systems (aggregation, linkages, system of systems, sustainability-resilience synergy and 

interdependencies)

 Planning, design and supply chain (lifecycle analyses and treatments, and material and 

energy efficiency), or

 Economic, environmental and social aspects (valuation, impacts and behavior).

4. Participants

The workshop was attended by about 77 people. A complete list is provided in Appendix A.
xii

5. Agenda

Day 1: June 12, 2014

Time Topic Duration Room Speakers

8:00-8:30 Breakfast

Welcome and Introduction Darryll Pines, Dean, School of Engineering, Un. Maryland (UMD)

Opening remarks Howard Harary, Acting Director, Engineering Laboratory, NIST 

Symposium program

Bilal Ayyub, Director, Center for Technology & Systems Management, 

CEE Professor, UMD

Perspectives on sustainability for the Nation Nabil Nasr, Associate Provost for Academic Affairs & Director of Golisano 

Institute for Sustainability, Rochester Institute of Tech., NY

9:00-9:25 Sustainable manufacturing 20+5 ASCE William Flanagan, Director, Ecoassessment Center of Excellence, GE 

Global Research, General Electric Company

9:25-9:50 Sustainable construction 20+5 ASCE Nancy Kralik, Fluor and Construction Industry Institute

9:50-10:00 Break 10

10:00-10:20 Sustainability metrics-measurement science 17+3 ASCE

Subhas Sikdar, Associate Director for Science, National Risk Management 

Research Lab, EPA, and AIChE

10:20-10:40 System sustainability: aggregation & linkages 17+3 ASCE Joseph Fiksel, Director, Center for Resilience at The Ohio State Un. 

10:40-11:00 Planning, design and supply chain 17+3 ASCE Gül Kremer, Professor, Industrial & Manufacturing Eng., Penn State

11:00-11:20 Economic, environmental and social aspects 17+3 ASCE

Cliff Davidson, Director, Center for Sustainable Engineering, Thomas and 

Colleen Wilmot CEE Professor, Syracuse University

11:20-12:40 Quantified Urban Community at Hudson Yards 17+3 ASCE Constantine E. Kontokosta, NYU Polytechnic School of Engineering

11:40-12:00

Population and Carrying Capacity: Metrics for 

Sustainability 17+3 ASCE

Eugenia Kalnay, NAE, Distinguished University of Maryland Professor of 

Atmospheric and Oceanic Science 

12:00-1:00 Hosted Lunch (sandwiches) 60

Perspectives on sustainable construction and 

manufacturing 108 ASCE

Gerald Galloway (Moderator), NAE, Glenn L. Martin Institute Professor 

of Engineering, UMD

Implementation and challenges for metrics 15+3 ASCE David Dise, Director of General Services, MD Montgomery County 

A Case study on the role of metrics 15+3 ASCE Fulya Kocak, Clark Construction Group, Bethesda, MD

Perspectives of a federal agency on metrics 15+3 ASCE

Joe Cresko, Lead internal analysis and strategic planning, Advanced 

Manufacturing Office, DOE

Metrics for sustainable products and process 15+3 ASCE

I. S. Jawahir, Director, Institute for Sustainable Manufacturing

James F. Hardymon Chair, University of Kentucky

Perspectives of owner and builder on metrics 15+3 ASCE

James Dalton, Chief, Engineering and Construction, Directorate of Civil 

Works, USACE

International perspectives on metrics 15+3 ASCE

Bohumil Kasal, Director of Fraunhofer Institute at Braunsweig, Germany 

and Professor at the Technical University of Braunschweig

2:48-3:00 Break 12

3:00-4:00 Panel 1 - Perspectives from users 60 ASCE

Richard Wright (Moderator, Research Professor, UMD), Michele Russo 

(McGraw Hill/ENR), Chris Pyke (US Green Building Council), William 

Bertera (Instit. for Sustain. Infrastructure), William Flanagan (General 

Electric Company)

4:00-5:00 Panel 2 - Perspectives from researchers 60 ASCE

Jelena Srebric (Moderator, Professor, UMD), Nabil Nasr (Rochester 

Institute of Tech), Damon Fordham (TRB), Andrew Persily (NIST), Subhas 

Sikdar (AIChE/ EPA)

5:00-5:15 Second day breakout sessions 10 ASCE Richard Wright, NAE, Research Professor, UMD (NIST retired)

6:00-8:30 Hosted Dinner (participants seated per breakouts) 150 Ballroom A Joannie Chin, Acting Deputy Director, Engineering Laboratory, NIST

Day 2: June 13, 2014

Time Topic Duration Room Speakers

8:00-8:30 Breakfast

8:30-8:45 Getting oriented and allocated to breakout sessions 15 ASCE Gerald Galloway, UMD

8:45-9:45 Breakout 1: Measurement science 60 CH2M Hill Co-moderators: I. S. Jawahir and Subhas Sikdar

8:45-9:45 Breakout 2: Systems 60 Harris Co-moderators: Joseph Fiksel & John Carberry (affiliation, invited)

8:45-9:45 Breakout 3: Planning, design and supply chain 60 President Co-moderators: Nabil Nasr (Rochester Instit. of Tech) and Fazleena 

Badurdeen (U. Kentucky)

8:45-9:45 Breakout 4: Economic, environmental and social aspects 60 ASCE Co-moderators: Cliff Davidson and William Flanagan

9:45-10:00 Break 15

10:00-11:00 Breakout 1: Measurement science 60 CH2M Hill Co-moderators: I. S. Jawahir and Subhas Sikdar

10:00-11:00 Breakout 2: Systems 60 Harris Co-moderators: Joseph Fiksel & John Carberry (affiliation, invited)

10:00-11:00 Breakout 3: Planning, design and supply chain 60 President Co-moderators: Nabil Nasr (Rochester Instit. of Tech) and Fazleena 

Badurdeen (U. Kentucky)

10:00-11:00 Breakout 4: Economic, environmental and social aspects 60 ASCE Co-moderators: Cliff Davidson and William Flanagan

11:00-11:15 Break to regroup 15

11:15-12:15 Summaries of breakouts 1, 2, 3 and 4 60 ASCE By Co-moderators, report requirements (facilitor Richard Wright, UMD)

12:15-12:30 Expected products and adjournment 15 ASCE Bilal Ayyub, UMD

8:30-9:00 ASCE

1:00-2:48

30
xiii

Disclaimer and Limitations

This report was prepared for the National Institute of Standards and Technology (hereafter 

referred to as NIST) as the primary sponsor, and the American Society of Civil Engineers 

(hereafter referred to as ASCE), the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (hereafter 

referred to as ASME), the American Institute of Chemical Engineers (hereafter referred to as 

AIChE) and the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers

(hereafter referred to as ASHRAE) by the Center for Technology and Systems Management of 

the University of Maryland and its associates and subcontractors (hereafter referred to as the 

UMD). Although this product was prepared using the best available resources, NIST, ASCE, 

ASME, AIChE and UMD do not make any warranty, expressed or implied, or assume any legal 

liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, 

apparatus, product or process disclosed, or represent that its uses would not infringe on privately 

owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade 

name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its 

endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by NIST, ASCE, ASME, AIChE, ASHRAE and 

UMD. Opinions expressed in this report are personal opinions of the participants and do not 

reflect the opinions of the respective employers of the participants. 
xiv

[This page is internationally left blank]
xv

Table of Contents

[Papers are provided in alphabetical order of last name of first author.]

Page

Organizing Committee...............................................................................................................v

Sponsors.....................................................................................................................................v

Recommended Citations............................................................................................................v

Chapman, Robert, National Institute of Standards and Technology ............................................ vii

Foreword................................................................................................................................. vii

Harary, Howard, National Institute of Standards and Technology................................................ ix

Preface – Opening Remarks..................................................................................................... ix

Ayyub, Bilal M., Galloway, Gerald E., and Wright, Richard N., University of Maryland ........... xi

About the Workshop on Measurement Science for Sustainable Construction and 

Manufacturing.................................................................................................................... xi

1. Background.......................................................................................................................... xi

2. Objectives ............................................................................................................................ xi

3. Discussion Topics................................................................................................................ xi

4. Participants........................................................................................................................... xi

5. Agenda ................................................................................................................................ xii

Disclaimer and Limitations.................................................................................................... xiii

Table of Contents.....................................................................................................................xv

Ayyub, Bilal M., University of Maryland, College Park.................................................................1

Value Systems and Information Necessary for Sustainable Construction and 

Manufacturing......................................................................................................................1

1. Value Systems and Valuations...............................................................................................1

2. Axioms of Utility Theory.......................................................................................................3

3. Income Inequality and Inequity .............................................................................................3

4. Measurement and Metrics......................................................................................................3

5. References..............................................................................................................................6

Badurdeen, Fazleena, University of Kentucky ................................................................................7

Planning, Design and Management of Supply Chains for Sustainability..................................7

1. Background............................................................................................................................7

2. Current Practice and Challenge to Sustainable Manufacturing .............................................9

3. Vision for Planning, Design and Management of Sustainable Supply Chains....................10

4. References............................................................................................................................11

Begley, Loida, National Nuclear Security Administration, DOE..................................................13

Measuring the Benefits of Green Buildings.............................................................................13

1. Background..........................................................................................................................13
xvi

2. Gaps in Measuring Building Certification Systems.............................................................14

3. Measurement and Metrics....................................................................................................15

3.1. LEED as a Baseline for Green Building .................................................................... 15

3.2. Federal Guiding Principles as a Baseline for Green Building ................................... 15

3.3. Traditional Green Building Benefits.......................................................................... 16

3.4. Potential Green Building Benefits............................................................................. 16

4. Conclusion ...........................................................................................................................17

5. References............................................................................................................................17

Bertera, William J., Institute for Sustainable Infrastructure ..........................................................19

Sustainability and How We Value It .......................................................................................19

Caldas, Anne, ANSI.......................................................................................................................23

ANSI’s Role in the U.S. Standards and Conformity Assessment Infrastructure.....................23

1. What Is ANSI? An Overview ..............................................................................................23

2. Domestic Activities..............................................................................................................24

3. International Engagement: ISO, IEC, and Other Standardization Organizations................24

4. Accreditation Services.........................................................................................................25

5. Conformity Assessment Activities ......................................................................................25

6. Sample Standards and Conformance Activities: Sustainable Construction and 

Manufacturing....................................................................................................................25

7. Education and Training: Standards and Conformity Assessment........................................27

8. Why are standards and conformance so important? ............................................................27

Carberry, John, Carberry EnviroTech - (Retired) DuPont Director of Environmental Technology29

Metrics and Systems Issues When Analyzing Chlorine Use ...................................................29

1. Objective ..............................................................................................................................29

2. Present Supply, Use and Disposal Train..............................................................................29

3. Challenges............................................................................................................................30

4. Proposal................................................................................................................................31

Castro-Lacouture, Daniel, Georgia Institute of Technology .........................................................33

Resource Management and Closed-Loop Systems: Advancing Sustainable 

Performance Metrics..........................................................................................................33

1. Background..........................................................................................................................33

2. Closed-Loop Systems and Resource Management..............................................................34

2.1. Cost Metrics............................................................................................................... 35

2.2. Life-Cycle Assessment Metrics................................................................................. 36

3. Retro-Commissioning Portfolio for Communities...............................................................36

4. Discussion............................................................................................................................37

5. References............................................................................................................................38

Chapman, Robert, Joannie Chin, Sudarsan Rachuri, Joshua Kneifel, Andrew Persily, and 

Anthony Hamins, Engineering Laboratory, National Institute of Standards and Technology39

Measurement Science for Sustainable Construction and Manufacturing: A NIST 

Perspective .........................................................................................................................39

1. Background..........................................................................................................................39
xvii

2. Current Sustainability-Related Research .............................................................................40

2.1. The Business Case for Sustainability......................................................................... 40

2.2. Service Life Prediction .............................................................................................. 41

2.3. Net-Zero Energy, High-Performance Buildings........................................................ 41

2.4. Manufacturing Processes and Standards.................................................................... 42

2.5. Green Button.............................................................................................................. 43

3. Future Directions .................................................................................................................44

3.1. Designer Materials..................................................................................................... 44

3.2. The Additive Transformation .................................................................................... 44

3.3. Smart Grid Interoperability Standards....................................................................... 44

3.4. The Business Case for Sustainability Revisited......................................................... 45

3.5. Interactions between Sustainability and Resilience................................................... 45

4. Conclusion ...........................................................................................................................46

5. References............................................................................................................................47

Colker, Ryan M., National Institute of Building Sciences ............................................................49

Achieving High-Performance Buildings: Metrics, Data and Tools.........................................49

1. Introduction to High Performance .......................................................................................49

2. Measuring High Performance ..............................................................................................50

3. Interoperability.....................................................................................................................51

4. Decision Support and Feedback...........................................................................................52

5. Challenges............................................................................................................................53

5.1. Off-Site Construction................................................................................................. 53

5.2. Energy/Water Nexus.................................................................................................. 53

5.3 Design vs. Performance .............................................................................................. 54

6. Conclusions..........................................................................................................................54

7. References............................................................................................................................54

Cross, John, American Institute of Steel Construction LLC .........................................................57

Life Cycle Assessment Valuation: the Economic Precedent...................................................57

1. Background..........................................................................................................................57

2. The Example of Structural Steel..........................................................................................58

3. Key Questions......................................................................................................................60

4. Conclusions..........................................................................................................................64

5. References............................................................................................................................64

Davidson, Cliff I., Syracuse University, and Shahzeen Z. Attari, Indiana University ..................65

Metrics of Sustainability in Human Development: How Well Do People Understand 

the Impacts of their Activities? ..........................................................................................65

1. Background..........................................................................................................................65

2. Types of Sustainability Metrics...........................................................................................66

3. Metrics Related to Human Understanding...........................................................................67

4. Discussion and Conclusions ................................................................................................70

5. References............................................................................................................................70

Dise, David E., Rassa Davoodpour, and Eric R. Coffman, Montgomery County, Maryland .......73
xviii

Vegetative Roofs and Rainwater Harvesting Systems on Montgomery County, 

Maryland Facilities - Long Term Data Needs ...................................................................73

1. Background..........................................................................................................................73

2. Equipment Maintenance and Transportation Operations Center.........................................74

2.1. Description of System................................................................................................ 74

2.2. Results........................................................................................................................ 74

3. Challenges and Research Needs ..........................................................................................76

3.1. Regulatory Issues....................................................................................................... 76

3.2. Social Cost of Carbon ................................................................................................ 77

3.3. Assessment of Air Quality Benefits........................................................................... 77

3.4. Solar Integration......................................................................................................... 77

3.5. Amenity Value on a Community Scale ..................................................................... 77

3.6. Green Roofs and Wildlife Interactions...................................................................... 77

4. Conclusion ...........................................................................................................................77

5. References............................................................................................................................78

Eckelman, Matthew J., and David Fannon, Northeastern University............................................79

Information Barriers and Enablers for Sustainable Buildings and Construction....................79

1. Background..........................................................................................................................79

2. Information Barriers.............................................................................................................80

3. Information Enablers ...........................................................................................................82

4. What Can the Construction Sector Learn from the Manufacturing Sector?........................83

5. Conclusions..........................................................................................................................84

6. References............................................................................................................................84

Fiksel, Joseph, The Ohio State University.....................................................................................85

A Systems Approach to Sustainability and Resilience Based on the Triple Value 

Model of Coupled Human-Natural Systems......................................................................85

1. Background..........................................................................................................................85

2. Systems Thinking.................................................................................................................86

3. The Triple Value Framework...............................................................................................87

4. Conclusions..........................................................................................................................89

5. References............................................................................................................................89

Flanagan, William P., GE Global Research, General Electric Company ......................................91

Sustainable Manufacturing from a Life Cycle Perspective .....................................................91

1. GE and Sustainability ..........................................................................................................91

2. Emerging Sustainability Drivers..........................................................................................92

3. Streamlined LCA/LCC in Defense Acquisitions.................................................................93

4. Sustainable Manufacturing ..................................................................................................93

5. Recommendations for NIST ................................................................................................94

Futornick, Kathi, Mt. Hood Community College, Oregon ............................................................95

Greening the Supply Chain: Direct Influences on Sustainability Reporting and What 

We Measure .......................................................................................................................95

1. Background..........................................................................................................................95

2. Authors of Their Destiny .....................................................................................................98
xix

3. Recommendations................................................................................................................99

4. Conclusions........................................................................................................................100

5. References..........................................................................................................................100

Jawahir, I. S., F. Badurdeen, and K. E. Rouch, University of Kentucky.....................................103

Towards Implementing and Advancing Sustainable Manufacturing: A Metrics-based 

Evaluation of Product and Process Sustainability ...........................................................103

1. Background........................................................................................................................103

1.1. Sustainability Interactions: Innovation – Manufacturing – Education and Training103

1.2. Sustainable Manufacturing ...................................................................................... 104

2. Sustainability Elements at Product and Process Levels.....................................................104

3. A Metrics-based Approach for Evaluating Product and Process Sustainability...............106

4. Implementing Product and Process Sustainability Metrics ...............................................109

5. Summary and Outlook .......................................................................................................110

6. References..........................................................................................................................110

Kasal, Bohumil, Carolo-Wilhelmina University, Braunschweig, Germany................................112

International Perspectives on Metrics....................................................................................112

1. Building Instrumentation and Measured Parameters.........................................................113

2. Standards and Codes Related to Sustainability..................................................................114

Kearney, Michael S., University of Maryland.............................................................................118

Coastal Infrastructure, Storms, and Sea Level Rise: Measuring the Effects .........................118

1. Background........................................................................................................................118

2. Storm Surge and Wave Damage ........................................................................................118

3. Wind Damage ....................................................................................................................121

4. Collateral Damage .............................................................................................................121

5. Conclusions and Gaps in Knowledge ................................................................................122

6. References..........................................................................................................................122

Kocak, Fulya, Clark Construction Group, LLC...........................................................................124

Perspectives for Sustainability in Construction Industry.......................................................124

1. Introduction........................................................................................................................124

2. What Does Sustainability Mean in Construction? .............................................................124

3. How Is It Measured?..........................................................................................................125

4. Examples Environmental Construction Operations...........................................................125

5. Change and Expectation ....................................................................................................126

6. What Next? ........................................................................................................................126

7. Examples of Commitment to Sustainability and Green Buildings....................................126

8. Beyond Building: Shaping a Green Future........................................................................126

Kontokosta, Constantine E., New York University.....................................................................128

The Urban Quantified Community ........................................................................................128

1. Background........................................................................................................................128

2. Modeling the City ..............................................................................................................128

4. Applications.......................................................................................................................131

4.1. Quality-of-Life for Urban Residents........................................................................ 131
xx

4.2. Evidenced-based Urban Planning and Design......................................................... 132

4.3. Infrastructure Operations and Resource Flows........................................................ 132

4.4. Transportation and Mobility .................................................................................... 132

4.5. Emergency Response and Safety:............................................................................ 132

5. Privacy and Data Access....................................................................................................132

6. Implications and Next Steps ..............................................................................................133

7. References..........................................................................................................................133

Kralik, Nancy J., Fluor Corporation ............................................................................................136

Sustainable Construction: An EPC Perspective....................................................................136

1. Framework .........................................................................................................................136

2. Current Sustainability Metrics...........................................................................................137

3. Gaps in Metrics..................................................................................................................138

4. Research Needs..................................................................................................................139

5. Next Steps..........................................................................................................................139

6. References..........................................................................................................................140

Kremer, Gül E. Okudan, The Pennsylvania State University, Karl Haapala, Oregon State 

University, and Ratna Chinnam, Leslie Monplaisir, Kyoung-yun Kim, and Alper Murat, 

Wayne State University .........................................................................................................142

A Plan of Action for Economic and Environmental Sustainability in Product Supply 

Chains ..............................................................................................................................142

1. Background........................................................................................................................142

2. Promising Foci for Improving Sustainability in Supply Chains........................................143

2.1. FOCUS AREA 1: Reengineering the Design to Match the Intended Product End-ofLife Option................................................................................................................ 144

2.2. FOCUS AREA 2: Assembly/Disassembly Operation Modeling and Analysis for 

Environmental Sustainability.................................................................................... 145

2.3. FOCUS AREA 3: Manufacturing Process Modeling for Sustainability Assessment

................................................................................................................................... 146

2.4. FOCUS AREA 4: Joint Optimization of the Best Subset of Design Variants with 

Mathematical Models of Life Cycle Processes......................................................... 147

3. Conclusions........................................................................................................................147

4. References..........................................................................................................................148

Lambert, James H., and Michelle C. Hamilton, University of Virginia ......................................152

Emergent and Future Conditions Influencing Risk, Sustainability, and Resilience of 

Infrastructure Systems .....................................................................................................152

1. Introduction........................................................................................................................152

2. Emergent Conditions of Energy Systems Islanding and Electricity Microgrids...............152

3. Coastal Infrastructure Systems Impacted by Climate and Other Factors ..........................153

4. Mobility, Accessibility, and Sustainability for Transportation Corridors .........................154

5. Population and Workforce Behaviors and Infrastructure Performance.............................154

6. Land and Economic Development Affecting Infrastructure Systems ...............................155

7. References..........................................................................................................................155

Mahadevan, Sankaran, Vanderbilt University.............................................................................158
xxi

Uncertainty Quantification in Sustainability Assessment......................................................158

1. Introduction........................................................................................................................158

2. Uncertainty Quantification: Current Status .......................................................................159

3. Uncertainty Quantification Research Needs......................................................................160

4. References..........................................................................................................................160

McDowell, Bruce D., Intergovernmental Management Associates, MD....................................162

Balancing Sustainability’s Triple Bottom Line .....................................................................162

1. Origins of Imbalance..........................................................................................................162

2. What is Social Equity?.......................................................................................................163

3. Social Equity Tools............................................................................................................164

4. Performance Management: Making a Difference..............................................................164

5. Viewing Infrastructure through the User’s Lens ...............................................................165

6. References..........................................................................................................................166

Mujumdar, Vilas, Consulting Engineer, VA ...............................................................................168

Sustainable Built Environment – Measurement questions ....................................................168

1. Background........................................................................................................................168

2. Built Environment Defined................................................................................................168

3. Commonalities among Systems.........................................................................................169

4. Current Methodologies ......................................................................................................169

5. Proposed Methodology ......................................................................................................170

6. Research Needs..................................................................................................................171

7. Conclusions........................................................................................................................171

8. References..........................................................................................................................172

Nasr, Nabil, and Michael Thurston, Rochester Institute of Technology .....................................174

Measurements for Sustainable Manufacturing ......................................................................174

1. Background........................................................................................................................174

2. Product Life-Cycle.............................................................................................................175

3. Measurement and Analysis of Energy Use and GHG Emissions......................................176

4. Gaps and Research Needs..................................................................................................178

5. Conclusions........................................................................................................................179

6. References..........................................................................................................................179

Pyke, Christopher R., and Maija Krizmane, US Green Building Council...................................182

Challenges and Opportunities Integrating Measures of Energy and Human 

Performance for Residential and Commercial Buildings ................................................182

1. Background........................................................................................................................182

2. Prevailing Performance Metrics ........................................................................................183

3. Integrating Human and Environmental Performance ........................................................186

4. Emerging Measures of Human Performance.....................................................................187

4.1. Location ................................................................................................................... 187

4.2. Experiential Performance......................................................................................... 188

4.3. Health Performance ................................................................................................. 189

4.3. Economic Performance............................................................................................ 189

5. Conclusions........................................................................................................................189
xxii

6. References..........................................................................................................................190

Ratterman, David B., American Institute of Steel Construction..................................................192

Sustainability, Society, and the Law As Applied to the Built Environment.........................192

1. Background........................................................................................................................192

2. The Issue ............................................................................................................................193

3. Questions Concerning Current Sustainability Codes, Standards, Contract Terms, and 

Certification Agencies Operating in the Built Environment............................................195

4. Assessment of Societal and Economic Values and Research Needs.................................196

Renschler, Chris S., The State University of New York, Buffalo ...............................................198

The PEOPLES Resilience Framework: Integrating Quantitative Measures and 

Modeling for Disaster Risk Reduction and Sustainable Development............................198

1. Background........................................................................................................................198

2. Extreme Events Management Cycle..................................................................................198

3. Proposed Methodology: The PEOPLES Resilience Framework.......................................199

3.1. Population and Demographics................................................................................. 199

3.2. Environmental/Ecosystem ....................................................................................... 199

3.3. Organized Governmental Services .......................................................................... 200

3.4. Physical Infrastructure ............................................................................................. 200

3.5. Lifestyle and Community Competence ................................................................... 200

3.6. Economic Development........................................................................................... 201

3.7. Social-Cultural Capital............................................................................................. 201

4. Measuring Policy Impacts on Systems: Infiltration & Wetlands vs. Harvest & Floods....201

5. Conclusions........................................................................................................................202

6. References..........................................................................................................................203

Sikdar, Subhas K., National Risk Management Research Laboratory, US EPA, and Humberto S. 

Brandi, Instituto Nacional de Metrologia, Qualidade e Tecnologia, INMETRO, Xerém -

Duque de Caxias – RJ, Brazil ................................................................................................204

How to Quantify Sustainability Advancement in Construction and Manufacturing and 

the Needs for Standards...................................................................................................204

1. Introduction and Background ............................................................................................204

2. Standards............................................................................................................................206

3. Indicators and Metrics........................................................................................................208

4. Sustainability Analysis.......................................................................................................209

5. Conclusions........................................................................................................................209

6. References..........................................................................................................................209

Srebric, Jelena, and Mohammad Heidarinejad, University of Maryland ....................................212

Sustainability in the Built Environment.................................................................................212

1. Background........................................................................................................................212

2. Quantitative vs. Quantitative Criteria ................................................................................213

3. GB Rating Systems for the Built Environment..................................................................213

4. Opportunities to Facilitate the Building Design at the Built Environment Scale ..............214

5. Conclusions........................................................................................................................215

6. References..........................................................................................................................215
xxiii

Stumpf, Annette L., Franklin H. Holcomb, Ilker Adiguzel, and James C. Dalton, U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers.................................................................................................................218

Measuring High Performance Army Facility Construction and Renovation........................218

1. Background........................................................................................................................218

2. Holistic Life-Cycle Approach to Facility Management.....................................................219

3. Role of Technology and Innovation ..................................................................................220

4. Partnerships and Communication ......................................................................................221

5. Closing the Loop................................................................................................................222

6. Conclusions........................................................................................................................223

7. References..........................................................................................................................223

Tatari, Omer, Murat Kucukvar, and Nuri C. Onat, University of Central Florida ......................226

Towards a Triple Bottom Line Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment of Buildings.............226

1. Background........................................................................................................................226

1.1. Impact of Buildings.................................................................................................. 226

1.2. Life Cycle Assessment............................................................................................. 227

2. Research Needs..................................................................................................................227

3. Method ...............................................................................................................................228

4. Conclusions........................................................................................................................230

5. References..........................................................................................................................230

Tinkleman, Michael, Point of Contact, ASME............................................................................232

ASME Sustainable Products & Processes Strategic Plan, February 2011.............................232

1. ASME’s Role.....................................................................................................................232

2. Ideas for Enhancing Sustainability ....................................................................................233

3. Product Design for Sustainability ......................................................................................233

4. Sustainable Manufacturing Processes................................................................................235

5. Systems Approach to Water Management.........................................................................237

6. Other ASME Sustainability Programs...............................................................................238

Uddin, Nasim, University of Alabama at Birmingham and Craig Taylor, Imagecat, Inc. ..........240

Advances in Measurement Science to Enhance the Resilience of Infrastructure to 

Natural and Manmade hazards.........................................................................................240

1. Background........................................................................................................................240

2. Gaps and Research Needs..................................................................................................241

2.1. Improvement in Performance Prediction of Infrastructure...................................... 241

2.2. Developing Risk Consistent Design Approach for Innovative Hazard Resistant 

Structures and Ensuring Infrastructure Performance under all Weather Conditions 242

2.3. Developing Risk Consistent Design Approach for Multiperil................................. 244

2.4. Robust Simulation as Assessment Tools to Predict Consequences of Disasters, 

Leading in Turn to Increased Resilience .................................................................. 245

3. Conclusions........................................................................................................................246

4. References..........................................................................................................................246

Wallace, William A., Founder and President, Wallace Futures Group, LLC..............................248

Research Needs for Sustainable Infrastructure Engineering for a New Harsh and 

Resource-Constrained World...........................................................................................248
xxiv

1. Purpose...............................................................................................................................248

2. Background........................................................................................................................248

3. Three Challenges to Solve Simultaneously .......................................................................249

4. Gaps and Research Needs..................................................................................................249

5. Research Needs..................................................................................................................251

6. Conclusions........................................................................................................................252

7. References..........................................................................................................................252

Wang, Zhichao, Shapour Azarm, and P. K. Kannan, University of Maryland............................254

Design for Supply Chain and Interoperability in Profit-Sustainable Market Systems.........254

1. Background........................................................................................................................254

2. Gaps and Research Needs..................................................................................................255

3. Design for Supply Chain and Interoperability Considerations..........................................256

4. References..........................................................................................................................258

Wei, Hsi-Hsien, and Miroslaw J. Skibniewski, University of Maryland ....................................261

Catastrophe Modeling for Assessing Sustainability of Hazard Mitigation ...........................261

1. Background........................................................................................................................261

1.1. The Triple Bottom Lines of Sustainability .............................................................. 261

1.2. Performance Measures............................................................................................. 261

1.3. Catastrophe Theory and Modeling........................................................................... 262

2. Methodology......................................................................................................................262

2.1. Seismic Risk Assessment Tools............................................................................... 262

2.2. HAZUS Methodology and Application ................................................................... 262

2.3. Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Analysis for Reconstruction and Replacement........... 263

3. Research Needs and Conclusions ......................................................................................266

4. References..........................................................................................................................266

Wright, Richard N., and Bilal M. Ayyub, University of Maryland.............................................269

Measurement Needs for Adaptation to Climate Change .......................................................269

1. Background........................................................................................................................269

2. Measurement Needs of the Building Community .............................................................273

3. Recommendations..............................................................................................................273

4. References..........................................................................................................................274

Yudelson, Jerry, Green Building Initiative, Portland, Oregon ....................................................275

Problems with Measuring and Achieving High-Performance Green Buildings: Case 

Studies from 18 Countries ...............................................................................................275

1. Background........................................................................................................................275

2. Energy Use in Case Study Projects....................................................................................277

Co-Moderators: I. S. Jawahir and Subhas Sikdar ........................................................................280

Outcomes of Breakout Session 1 on Measurement Science (Definition, Standards, 

Metrics, Indicators and Ratings)......................................................................................280

1. Problems Covered..............................................................................................................280

2. Lack of Clarity on Sustainability Science and Engineering ..............................................280

3. Challenges in Measuring....................................................................................................281
xxv

4. Unmeasurable Sustainability Values/Factors/Elements ....................................................282

5. Vetting of Valuing Issues...................................................................................................283

6. Uncertainty in measurement ..............................................................................................284

Co-Moderators: Joseph Fiksel and John Carberry.......................................................................287

Outcomes of Breakout Session 2 on Systems (aggregation, linkages, system of 

systems, sustainability- resilience synergy and interdependencies) ................................287

1. Problems Covered..............................................................................................................287

2. Coupled human-natural systems........................................................................................287

3. Predictive system assessment ............................................................................................288

4. Are there tractable methods for practitioners to understand the complex interactions within 

a system of systems across multiple spatial and temporal scales?...................................289

5. Roles of Stakeholders ........................................................................................................289

5. Additional Discussion........................................................................................................290

Co-Moderators: Nabil Nasr and Fazleena Badurdeen .................................................................293

Outcomes of Breakout Session 3 on Planning, Design and Supply Chain (lifecycle 

analyses and treatments, and material and energy efficiency).........................................293

1. Problems Covered..............................................................................................................293

2. Systems not Designed for EOL..........................................................................................293

3. Limited data sharing and lack of interoperability ..............................................................294

4. Lack of Predictive Models.................................................................................................295

5. Lack of Systems-based Approach......................................................................................296

6. Lack of Resilience in Designed Systems...........................................................................297

7. Lack of a Common Sustainability Nomenclature..............................................................299

Co-Moderators: Cliff Davidson and William Flanagan...............................................................301

Outcomes of Breakout Session 4 on Economic, Environmental and Social Aspects 

(Valuation, Impacts and Behavior)..................................................................................301

1. Problems Covered..............................................................................................................301

2. Measuring the value to society of incorporating sustainability .........................................301

3. Big data collection .............................................................................................................302

4. Reducing social inequity....................................................................................................302

5. Multi-criteria decision support...........................................................................................303

6. Human health, feelings of well-being, and work performance in green buildings............304

Appendices...................................................................................................................................307

Appendix A. Participants.......................................................................................................307

A.1. Registrants......................................................................................................................307

A.2. Pictures of Attendees .....................................................................................................311

A.3. Breakout Session Attendees...........................................................................................313

Appendix B. Biographical Information on Speakers, Panelists and Moderators ..................317
xxvi

[This page is internationally left blank]
1

Ayyub, Bilal M., University of Maryland, College Park

Value Systems and Information Necessary for

Sustainable Construction and Manufacturing

Abstract

Many cultural transformations in recent history, such as abolition of slavery, prohibition of 

alcohol, assertion of women’s rights, restriction of smoking, and most recently same-sex 

marriage, were facilitated by memes—ideas that spread within a culture through various media 

of communication. There is a need to understand the linkages among information, societal value 

systems, and cultural and behavioral areas as they relate to sustainable construction and 

manufacturing.

Keywords

Behavior, culture, construction, information, manufacturing, measurement, memetics, valuation, 

values

1. Value Systems and Valuations

Value systems define respective cultures, and cultures in turn generate behaviors based on 

conscious decisions. The behaviors can be beneficial or harmful to sustainability. Decision and 

policy makers rely on information and knowledge. Information is plentiful although it has its 

deficiencies, and knowledge is accessible with also its deficiencies.

Many decision analysis frameworks require valuations in economic or monetary terms. 

Approached broadly from philosophy and particularly from ethics, we can make distinctions 

among values as: (1) instrumental and intrinsic values, (2) anthropocentric and biocentric (or 

ecocentric) values, (3) existence value, and (4) utilitarian and deontological values. These 

distinctions are described using an ecosystem as an example. This section is based on Ayyub 

(2014).

For an ecosystem, the instrumental value is derived from its role as a means toward an end other 

than itself, i.e., its value is derived from its usefulness in achieving a goal. In contrast, intrinsic 

value, also called non-instrumental value, is its existence independently of any such contribution 

defined by usefulness. For example, if an animal population provides a source of food for either 

humans or other species, it has instrumental value that stems from its contribution or usefulness 

to the goal of sustaining the consuming population. If it continues to have value even if it were 

no longer useful to these populations, e.g., if an alternative, preferred food source were 

discovered, such a remaining value would be its intrinsic value. For example, a national park, 

such as the Grand Canyon, has an intrinsic value component that exists unrelated or independent 

of direct or indirect use by humans for recreation or investigation. Such an intrinsic value can 

also stem from cultural sources, such as monuments and burial grounds (NRC 2004).

An anthropocentric value system considers humankind as the central focus or final goal of the 

universe, human beings as the only thing with intrinsic value, and the instrumental value of 

everything else is derived from its usefulness in meeting human goals. On the other hand, 

biocentric value system, i.e., non-anthropocentric, assigns intrinsic value to all individual living 
2

systems, including but not limited to humans, and assumes that all living systems have value 

even it its usefulness to human beings cannot be determined or can be harmful to human beings. 

Existence value reflects the desire of human beings to preserve and ensure the continued 

existence of certain species or environments to provide for humankind welfare, making it an 

anthropocentric and utilitarian concept of value and within the domain of instrumental value 

system. Therefore, utilitarian values are instrumental in that they are viewed as a means toward 

the end result of increased human welfare as defined by human preferences, without any value 

judgment about these preferences. The value of certain species or environments comes from 

generating welfare to human beings, rather than from the intrinsic value of these nonhuman 

species. This definition permits the potential for substitution or replacement of this source of 

welfare with an alternative source, i.e., the possibility of a welfare-neutral trade-off between 

continued existence of species or environments and other things that also provide the same 

utility.

The deontological value system is based on an ethical doctrine which holds that the worth of an 

action is determined by its conformity to some binding rule rather than by its consequences. In 

this case, deontological value system implies a set of rights that include the right of existence. 

Something with intrinsic value is irreplaceable and its loss cannot be offset by having more of 

something else. For example, the death of person is a loss of an intrinsic value because it cannot 

be offset or compensated by that person having more of something else. The contentious issue is 

whether this concept should be extended to non-human species, for example animals, either 

individual animals or species, or all biological creatures, i.e., all plant and animal life, 

collectively called the biota. In the context of ecosystem valuation, the modern notion of intrinsic 

value extends the rights beyond human beings. On the other hand, utilitarian values are based on 

providing utilities.

Many decision analysis frameworks use a valuation approach with the following characteristics:

 Anthropocentric in nature based on utilitarian principles;

 Consideration of all instrumental values, including existence value;

 Its utilitarian basis to permit the potential for substitutability among different sources of 

value that contribute to human welfare;

 Individual’s preferences or marginal willingness to trade one good or service for another 

that can be influenced by culture, income level and information making it time- and 

context-specific; and

 Societal values as the aggregation of individual values.

Such an approach is consistent with NRC (2004) and does not capture non-anthropocentric 

values, e.g., biocentric values and intrinsic values as it relates to rights. In some decisions 

including environmental policy and law, biocentric intrinsic values should be included as was 

done previously, e.g., the Endangered Species Act of 1973.

A total economic value (TEV) framework can be constructed based on these characteristics and 

using individual preferences and values. The TEV framework is necessary to ensure that all 

components of value are recognized and included while avoiding double counting of values 

(Bishop et al. 1987, Randall 1991). Figure 1 provides a classification of total economic values 

for aquatic ecosystem services with examples (Ayyub 2014, NRC 2004, Barbier 1994).
3

These characteristics should be examined in the context of sustainability.

Figure 1. Classification of Total Economic Value for Aquatic Ecosystem Services with 

Examples (Ayyub 2014)

2. Axioms of Utility Theory

The concept of utility under uncertainty is based on the following axioms (Ayyub 2014):

 Decision making is always rational.

 Decision making takes into considerations all available alternatives.

 Decision makers prefer more consumption or wealth to less.

These axioms define what is termed cardinal utility. A primary question can be posed herein 

about their appropriateness for addressing sustainability related decisions.

3. Income Inequality and Inequity

It is generally recognized at a societal level that inequality and inequity could motivate and 

change behavior adversely toward sustainability. Are these relationships relevant to 

manufacturers, builders, contractors, infrastructure owners, etc.? For example, would income 

gaps between executives and workers contribute to behavioral changes?

4. Measurement and Metrics

Sustainable construction and manufacturing depend on broad, often diverse, cultures within these 

sectors. A culture (or subculture) that encourages waste and ignores sustainability is 

dysfunctional with respect to attaining sustainability. It is now feasible with new neurosciencebased technology to identify and modify a dysfunctional culture and its consequent adverse 

behavior. 

There are many definitions of “meme,” but in our pragmatic definition a meme is information (as 

defined by Claude Shannon (Shannon, 1948) that propagates, has impact, and persists 

(Finkelstein, 2011). Memetic metrics should be identified, defined and evaluated for the 

Total Economic Value Use values Nonuse values (existence & bequest) Direct Indirect Consumptive

Non-consumptive Commercial & recreational fishing Aquaculture Wild resources Potable water

Transportation Recreation Scientific & educational activities Genetic materials Nutrient retention & cycling Flood control Storm protection Habitat function Shoreline & river bank stabilization

Cultural heritage Resources for future generations Existence of charismatic species Existence of wild places
4

meaning of “information,” “propagation,” “impact,” and “persistence.” Memes can alter the 

values of individuals, and the aggregated altered values across a population can change a culture. 

A culture is the entire way of life of a group; a repertoire of socially transmitted ideas about how 

to live and make judgments; a set of values and norms shared by a group. Values and norms

ultimately determine the group’s members’ behavior and interactions with each other and with 

people outside the group. Values consist of general criteria, standards, or guiding principles that 

people use to determine which types of behaviors, events, situations, and outcomes are desirable 

or undesirable; the bases for holding beliefs and attitudes, making decisions and taking actions; 

and the bases for defining a culture. Norms are the methods of culture; practices, standards, or 

styles of behavior considered acceptable for people in a culture. Culture drives individual and 

group behavior, such as preferences in goods, services, and lifestyle, e.g.: consumption of 

energy, choice of food, jobs, education, social interactions, transactions, manners, conservation, 

and self-actualization. Culture can change unintentionally and organically, with punctuated 

equilibrium, from major natural or human-made catastrophic disasters, such as a prolonged 

drought or war. Culture can be changed intentionally with political leadership, social and 

technological pressure, media campaigns, and entertainment with embedded cultural lessons. 

Culture can be changed more effectively and efficiently within a framework of a science of 

memetics, employing new tools and techniques developed for neuro-science, neuro-economics, 

and neuro-marketing, along with social media networks. A dysfunctional culture (or subculture), 

determined quantitatively as such with suitably defined metrics, can be transformed into a 

functional culture by using those new tools and techniques to change the dysfunctional values 

and norms of individuals.

An overall research methodology is required for the evaluation of products, processes, and 

systems in order to consider their impacts on sustainability as provided in Figure 2. There are 

substantial challenges to identifying and understanding the social impacts associated with 

engineered systems as well as the socially and culturally derived effects on these systems. 

Research is needed to identify, quantify, and standardize metrics of social impact as well as 

socially-oriented drivers of sustainability. 
5

Figure 2. Behavioral and Cultural Modeling and Simulation

Methods should be developed to prioritize sustainability metrics in different contexts. Given the

large number of social sustainability metrics that have already been identified and the desire to 

enable decision makers to take immediate action related to the social performance of their areas 

of purview, it will be necessary to develop a method to prioritize social sustainability impacts. A 

multivariate decision-making approach similar to the analytic hierarchy process (Saaty 1980) 

will underpin the methodology. It will facilitate consideration of characteristics of the metrics 

and organization as well as different objectives based on different stakeholder interests. 

Organizational characteristics of interest include the economic sector, level of risk aversion, and 

approach to sustainability. Characteristics of metrics such as data type (e.g., quantitative or 

qualitative); data source; geographic, political, and sector-level applicability will also be 

considered. Additionally, the methodology will enable decision-makers to consider the interests 

of different stakeholders (e.g., corporations, customers, and suppliers).

Developing messages directed at various populations to enhance awareness and inform behaviors 

are necessary. Concepts from memetics, and tools and techniques from neuroscience, can be 

employed to impact the value systems of selected populations, and tests can be developed to 

assess their effectiveness. 

Many cultural transformations in recent history, such as abolition of slavery, prohibition of 

alcohol, assertion of women’s rights, restriction of smoking, and most recently same-sex 

marriage, were facilitated by memes—ideas that spread within a culture through various media 

of communication. By the same token, memes can hasten a transformation toward sustainability, 

perhaps avoiding future crises. There is a need to understand the linkages among information, 

Ethical values (selected) 1. Attentiveness/Kindness 2. Communication 3. Comprehension 4. Courage 5. Creativity 6. Decision making 7. Enthusiasm 8. Fairness/Justice spirit 9. Forgiveness/Compassion 10. Friendliness/Unity 11. Generosity 12. Gratitude/Appreciation 13. Honesty 14. Humility 15. Humor 16. Integrity 17. Knowledge/Learning 18. Love 19. Patience 20. Perseverance/Hard worker 21. Respect 22. Responsibility 23. Self-discipline/Temperance 24. Self-fulfillment/Diligence 25. Self-motivation 26. Service 27. Tolerance 28. Vision/Objectivity 29. Others

Behavioral and cultural modeling and simulation Sustainability values To be developed based on:  Literature review  Focus groups  Surveys Transforming actionable values into rules for agents in simulation models Assessment of rules for behavioral generation Stratification of populations into belief groups Examining cross-strata dynamics Unit testing and validation Review

System models Agent based simulation Sensitivity factors Trends Key rules and associated values Value groupings Definition of memes Mapping memes to value groupings Simulation based testing Sustainability relevance filter
6

societal value systems, culture and behavior areas as they relate to sustainable construction and 

manufacturing.

5. References

Ayyub, B. M., 2014. Risk Analysis in Engineering and Economics, Second Edition, Chapman & 

Hall/CRC, Taylor & Francis Group, Boca Raton, NY.

Barbier, E.B. 1994. “Valuing Environmental Functions: Tropical Wetlands,” Land Economics, 

70(2):155-173.

Bishop, R.C., Boyle, K. J., and Welsh, M. P. 1987, “Toward Total Economic Value of Great 

Lakes Fishery Resources,” Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 116 (3):339-345.

Finkelstein, Robert, 2011. “Tutorial: Military Memetics” Social Media for Defense Summit, 

Alexandria, VA.

National Research Council, 2004. Valuing Ecosystem Services: Toward Better Environmental 

Decision-Making, The national Academies Press, Washington, DC.

Randall, A. 1991. Chapter 10 Total and Nonuse Values in Measuring the Demand for 

Environmental Quality, Braden, J.B., and C.D. Kolstad (eds.). North Holland, Amsterdam.

Saaty, 1980, Analytic Hierarchy Process

Shannon, C.E., 1948. “A Mathematical Theory of Communication,” The Bell System Technical 

Journal, Vol. 27, pp. 379–423, 623–656, July, October, 1948.

Acknowledgements

The author would like to acknowledge comments received from Dr. Robert Finkelstein and 

Professor Joseph Fiksel on parts of this paper. The financial support of the National Institute of 

Standards and Technology is greatly appreciated. Opinions presented herein are of the author and 

not the sponsors.
7

Badurdeen, Fazleena, University of Kentucky

Planning, Design and Management of Supply Chains for Sustainability

Abstract

Sustainable manufacturing involves the manufacture of more sustainable products through the 

use of manufacturing processes and systems (including supply chains) that are more sustainable. 

Achieving optimal performance at the product, process and systems level is feasible only when 

the interconnectivity of these three aspects is considered in their planning, design and 

management. When it comes to the supply chain level, historically, the emphasis has been only 

on the first three stages of the product life-cycle which involve pre-manufacturing, 

manufacturing and use; the post-use stage has often been considered as an afterthought. 

However, emphasis on all the four stages is essential to enable closed-loop, near perpetual 

material flow to promote more sustainable manufacturing. This paper addresses some of the 

issues that arise due to the poor integration and coordination of activities across the supply chain 

and potential steps that can be taken to overcome those challenges.

Keywords

Sustainable supply chain, life-cycle, integration, 6R, closed-loop flow

1. Background

Numerous definitions of sustainable manufacturing have been put forward in recent years. While 

they each address some aspects that must be covered to promote economic, environmental and 

societal performance in various domains pertinent to sustainable manufacturing, most are 

inadequate. This is primarily because many of those attempts fail to address all the three integral

elements of products, processes and systems essential to promoting manufacturing sustainability 

more importantly, they also fail to stress the interconnectivity between the these elements as 

shown in Figure 1. Sustainable manufacturing does offer a new way of producing functionally 

superior products using sustainable technologies and advanced manufacturing methods, but only 

if product design, process design, production, supply chain design and management and 

enterprise-level logistics can be understood and managed in a holistic integrated way (Jayal et 

al., 2010).
8

Figure 1. Product-Process-System Integration for Sustainable Manufacturing (Badurdeen, 2012)

The life-cycle of a manufactured product can be divided broadly into four stages as premanufacturing, manufacturing, use and post-use. The activities carried out in each of these stages 

can be mapped to the supply chain, whose members engage in sourcing, converting, delivering 

and collecting products at end-of-life. Conventionally, however, supply chain management 

practices have focused only on the first three stages of the life-cycle; the fourth stage, post-use, 

probably the most important from a sustainability perspective, is often addressed on a piece-meal 

basis and as an afterthought, only when such practices deliver economic benefits. Thus, at the 

systems level there is a need to consider all aspects of the entire supply chain, taking into account 

all the major life-cycle stages and also considering multiple life-cycles to enable value recovery 

from end-of-life products to be channeled into subsequent life-cycles of the same or different 

products (Badurdeen et al., 2009).

In order to enhance sustainability performance at the supply chain level, product and process 

sustainability must be integrated and coordinated with system (manufacturing system and supply 

chain) design across all life-cycle stages. This implies that a closed-loop systems approach must 

be followed in the planning and management of sourcing, procurement, conversion 

(manufacturing), and logistics activities involved during all four life-cycle stages while explicitly 

considering the environmental and societal impacts, in addition to the economic benefits alone.

Supply chain management has conventionally been approached as the process of ‘... 

coordinating the operations of (a) independently managed entities (b) who seek to maximize 

profits (only) individually’ (Badurdeen et al., 2009), an approach that serves as a major obstacle 

to enhancing coordination across the supply chain to enhance sustainability in supply chain 

operations. To the contrary, for sustainability, supply chains must be designed and managed as 

an integrated system. The 6R methodology which integrates the previous 3Rs—reduce, reuse and 

recycle—with additional steps of recover, redesign and remanufacture (Jawahir, 2008) provides 

a means to achieve this integration across all life-cycle stages (Figure 9). Closed-loop flow in 

supply chains, as shown in the figure, is heavily dependent on the product design; while almost 

80% of a product’s costs are determined during design the reuse, remanufacturing and recycle 

costs (and therefore reverse flows) of the product and the resulting environmental and societal 

implications are heavily influenced by the number/variety of materials used, design for ease of 
9

disassembly and whether product-inherent information is included in the product to make 

recovery and reprocessing easier, etc., etc. This interdependency between the selection of 

products, processes and the system used material conversion and reverse flow, makes it 

imperative that a holistic and systems-based approach is followed in the design and management 

of sustainable supply chains.

Thus, sustainable supply chain management can be described as “the planning and management 

of sourcing, procurement, conversion and logistics activities involved during pre-manufacturing, 

manufacturing, use and post-use stages in the life cycle in closed-loop through multiple lifecycles with seamless information sharing about all product life-cycle stages between companies 

by explicitly considering the social and environmental implications to achieve a shared vision” 

(Badurdeen et al., 2009).

Figure 2. 6R Integration for Closed-loop Flow in Sustainable Supply Chains (Badurdeen et al., 

2009)

2. Current Practice and Challenge to Sustainable Manufacturing

Numerous recent efforts have examined the current practices in supply chain planning, design, 

management and integration in an effort to identify challenges to promoting sustainable 

manufacturing and closed-loop material flow in supply chains to enable sustainable supply chain 

management (Badurdeen, 2011; SMART Report, 2013; ASME Report, 2013). These can be 

summarized as follows.

 Implementing closed-loop flow in supply chains requires better collaboration and 

coordination of activities. However, there is limited visibility in most supply chains as 

companies have limited visibility beyond their tier 1 suppliers. Lack of visibility restricts 

access to information about performance in other life-cycle stages. 

 Improving sustainability performance in supply chains requires comprehensive models 

that can integrate sustainability considerations across the entire life-cycle as well as their 

interdependencies and trade-offs. Complex modeling capabilities that integrates these 

aspects is lacking. 

Reverse logistics service provider (RLSP)

Step 1 Step 2 Step 3

Select for + ...

Reuse

Select for 

Reman

Select for 

Recycle

Supplier 

for part 1 

(S1)

Supplier 

for part n 

(Sn)

Supplier 

for part 2 

(S2)

Disposal/

landfill Direct disposal

Reuse 

Remanufacture

Recycle

Focal 

Company

(manufacturer) 

(F C)

Redesign

Customer/end 

user

Tier 2 

suppliers 

(extract)

Source

Pre-manufacturing Manufacturing Use Post-use

........

Recover
10

 Global supply chains are increasingly exposed to uncertain events and disruptions. The 

sustainability performance of supply chains is catastrophically affected when such 

unpredictable events occur (e.g.: earthquake and tsunami in Japan). However, 

quantitatively models for evaluating interdependent risks between supply chain partners 

and methods to analyze their propagation through the supply chains are lacking.

 Effective collaboration between supply chain partners requires the capability to exchange 

information on a real-time (or near real-time) basis pertaining to life-cycle of products. 

However, the lack of interoperability between information management systems and 

enterprise resource management systems used by different supply chain partners limits 

their ability to collaborate effectively. 

 For sustainability, supply chains must be designed and managed as an integrated system. 

To enable closed-loop flow and increase sustainability performance, the optimization of 

supply chain design and product design must be intrinsically linked. However, these two 

aspects are addressed, mostly, independent of each other, leading to increased cost, poor 

environmental performance and/or adverse societal consequences. 

 Sustainability improvements often take a long-term to materialize and benefits are likely 

to accrue across the supply chain. However, existing accounting frameworks do not lend 

themselves to accurately determine cross-company benefits, economic or otherwise. 

 Small and medium scale companies often do not have the resources nor know how to 

implement sustainability improvements. 

 Comprehensive metrics to evaluate total life-cycle sustainability across the supply chain 

with respect to economic, environmental and societal performance is lacking

3. Vision for Planning, Design and Management of Sustainable Supply Chains

Addressing the above challenges requires developing the tools and capabilities necessary to 

comprehensively measure, model, evaluate and integrate performance across supply chain 

partners across all life-cycle stages. Thus, the vision for planning, design and management of 

sustainable supply chains must incorporate a variety of aspects, including (Badurdeen, 2011; 

SMART Report, 2013; ASME Report, 2013):

 A common nomenclature and taxonomy developed to enhance interoperability and 

information exchange between supply chain partners that will help improved 

coordination of operations.

 Tools that can integrate sustainability considerations (e.g.: energy consumption, 

emissions, water consumption, etc.) for supply chain planning and scheduling for 

optimized operation are developed.

 All modeling tools for manufacturing system design and sustainable supply chain design 

must incorporate quantifiable risk assessment to enable a realistic evaluation of tradeoffs. The models will handle uncertainties more efficiently through better modeling to 

enable developing more robust supply chains. 

 Supply chain disruptions, which are low likelihood events that have catastrophic impacts 

are studied to determine methods to increase the robustness to withstand such impacts 

and enhance resilience to recover and return to pre-disruption status as quickly as 

possible. 

 A comprehensive framework and metrics to evaluate environmental and societal 

sustainability performance of supply chain operations are developed to enable supply 
11

chain managers to quantitatively evaluate the impact of various supply chain related 

decisions and the trade-offs involved. 

 Lean and green manufacturing tools are extended to incorporate sustainability 

considerations whereby the flow of material through the supply chain is perfectly 

matched between the supply side and the demand side minimizing economic, 

environmental and societal wastes. 

 Post-use life-cycle stage management for value recovery from end-of-life products and 

for channeling products back for reuse, remanufacture, and/or recycling must be 

incorporated into regular supply chain operations. 

Thus, developing such advanced capabilities to address these challenges faced by supply chain 

partners during planning, design and management of activities across all life-cycle stages can 

enhance the sustainability performance.

4. References

ASME Sustainable Manufacturing Open Research Forum: Preparing for a New Business

Imperative, ASME, June 18, 2013, Washington, DC.

Badurdeen, F., Goldsby, T.J., Iyengar, D., Metta, H., Gupta, S., Jawahir, I.S., Extending Total 

Life-cycle Thinking to Sustainable Supply Chain Design, International Journal of Product 

Lifecycle Management, 4/1/2/3: 49–67, 2009.

Badurdeen, F., Next Steps in Sustainable Manufacturing R&D: Report of a Two-day Workshop 

on Innovation for Sustainable Manufacturing & Workforce Effectiveness, Institute for 

Sustainable Manufacturing (ISM), University of Kentucky, Lexington KY, June 21-22, 2011. 

Badurdeen, F., Sustainable Manufacturing: Recent Advances in the Total Lifecycle-based 

Approach, Keynote Presentation, 22nd International Conference on Flexible Automation and 

Intelligent Manufacturing (FAIM), June 10-13, 2012.

Jayal, A.D., Badurdeen, F., Dillon Jr., O.W., Jawahir, I.S., Sustainable manufacturing: modeling 

and optimization challenges at the product, process and system levels, CIRP Journal of 

Manufacturing Science and Technology, 2: 144-152, 2010.

Jawahir, I.S., (2008), Beyond the 3Rs: 6R Sustainability Concepts for Next Generation 

Manufacturing, IIT MMAE Symposium on Sustainability and Product Development, 

Chicago, IL, August 7-8, 2008.

PCAST Report: Capturing Domestic Competitive Advantage in Advanced Manufacturing, 

Advanced Manufacturing Partnership (AMP) Steering Committee, President’s Council of 

Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) July 2012.

Sustainable Manufacturing Advances in Research and Technology (SMART) Coordination 

Network: Output from the Roadmap Workshop on Sustainable Manufacturing, Compiled by 

IMTI, Inc.; NSF-sponsored Workshop Held in Cincinnati, Ohio on August 15-16, 2013; 

Document Released September 8, 2013.
12

[This page is internationally left blank]
13

Begley, Loida, National Nuclear Security Administration, DOE

Measuring the Benefits of Green Buildings

Abstract1

Green, sustainable, and high performance can all describe a building that is constructed or 

maintained better than code. The popularity of Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design 

(LEED®), administered by the U.S. Green Building CouncilTM, and the advent of other systems 

(Green Globes®, Living Building ChallengeTM), further solidify green buildings as a mainstay in 

the world’s built environment. The federal government operates almost one million facilities

(National Research Council, 2013, p. vii). The federal Guiding Principles (GPs) for high 

performance sustainable buildings is similar to other green building systems and is required for a 

fraction of existing and all new federal buildings. Despite the acceptance of green building 

systems, measurement gaps remain in quantifying the benefits of systems. American National 

Standards Institute (ANSI) and National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) have a 

unique opportunity to address measurement gaps that can be implemented in the near-term.

Keywords

Green building certification, green building systems, high-performance building, LEED®, federal 

Guiding Principles (GPs), performance measures

1. Background

A recent report on green building certification confirms that “the terms ‘green’ and ‘sustainable’ 

are often used interchangeably with high-performance buildings, but there are no standard 

definitions for those terms,” (National Research Council, 2013, p. 2). Although not 

standardized, green buildings can be explained as such:

Building standards and green building certification systems have been developed by 

nonprofit organizations to provide a framework for the design and operation of highperformance and green buildings. Building standards typically establish minimum 

requirements for the design of one aspect of a building’s performance (for example, 

energy). Green building certification systems, in contrast, take a “whole building” 

approach to design by accounting for the interrelationships among building design, 

materials, mechanical systems, technologies, and operating practices.

(National Research Council, 2013, p. 3).

Another report confirms the popularity of LEED, and suggests why LEED could be synonymous 

with green building. The report compares different third-party green building systems, and 

demonstrates that LEED is the oldest and most used system: 

 Green Globes was launched in 2006 and has 176 facilities awarded certification, 

 LEED was launched in 1999 and has 10,000 facilities awarded certification, 

 

1 Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, 

or otherwise do not constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States 

Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of the author expressed herein do not necessarily state 

or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof.
14

 Living Building Challenge was launched in 2006, and has 4 facilities awarded 

certification

(Wang, Fowler, & Sullivan, 2012, pp. 4.10-4.11) 

Even with the popularity of LEED, a lack of definition for a green building has complicated 

measurement and analysis of the benefits of green buildings. These complications were 

described in a report completed to fulfill section 2830 of the National Defense Authorization Act 

for fiscal year 2012 (National Research Council, 2013, p. vii). Per the report, the Act required 

that the National Research Council report analyze cost-benefit, return on investment, and longterm payback of the energy-efficiency and sustainability standards used by the U.S. Department 

of Defense (DoD). 

The federal Guiding Principles (GPs) for High Performance Sustainable Buildings are similar to 

other green building systems. Like other green building systems, to gain the status of being a GP 

building, a set of requirements must be met. There is a set of GPs for existing buildings and a set 

for new construction and major renovation. The GPs were developed to further clarify what 

needed to be done in order to meet the requirements of Presidential Executive Order 13423, 

“Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy, and Transportation Management,” in Section 2, 

Part (f) and Executive Order 13514, “Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and 

Economic Performance,” Section 2, Part (g) (iii). 

For LEED and Green Globes the user can select which requirements to meet. These systems are 

structured such that if performance metrics, in particular, energy is not met, the building will not 

be able to obtain a certification. In contrast, all the GP requirements must be met in order to 

obtain GP status. Living Building Challenge is similar to the GPs in that the building cannot 

attain full status unless all requirements are met, but Living Building Challenge allows for 

temporary exceptions for market limitations (Wang, Fowler, & Sullivan, 2012, p. 3.5). In 

addition, an agency can decide how to verify that the GP’s are met. LEED, Green Globes, and 

Living Building Challenge all require third-party verification by a trained certifier to attain full 

status as a green building. 

2. Gaps in Measuring Building Certification Systems

The NRC report evaluated the DoD sustainable building standards, and identified several gaps in 

definition and measurement, some of which include (emphasis added): 

 “The diversity in building design and multitude of factors that contribute to any 

building’s performance make it difficult to isolate the specific factors that contribute to 

energy use, water use, or other performance measures,” (2013, pp. 3-4).

 “There are no national baselines from which to measure the performance of multiple 

factors associated with high-performance or green buildings...The Commerical Buildings 

Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS) is the only national data source for detailed 

characteristics and energy use of U.S. commercial buildings.” The report also states that 

deficiencies in the CBECS database has well-documented deficiencies, (2013, p. 4).

 “There are no national databases for water use, operations and maintenance, indoor 

environmental quality, or worker productively as it relates to buildings. Baselines for 
15

comparing those factors are typically developed differently for individual studies,” (2013, 

p. 4).

 “There is no standard protocol for conducting research on high-performance or green 

buildings, although some studies do use similar methodologies or evaluation methods,” 

(2013, p. 4).

The report concludes that “together all of these factors hinder objective comparisons across 

studies and preclude definitive, fully documented findings. The subjectivity inherent in making 

comparisons across research studies instead requires judgments based on a ‘preponderance’ of 

evidence,” (2013, p. 4). This data suggests that findings about green building benefits are 

limited. 

Wang, N., Fowler, K., & Sullivan, R. (2012) identified that 2,671 buildings had signed up to 

participate in Green Globes; 31,696 for LEED; and 87 for Living Building Challenge (p. 4.11). 

With thousands of buildings presently considering certification as a green building, the 

opportunity to test different methods that can address data gaps is incredible. For example, with 

regards to the gap in research protocol, if a research protocol is developed, it can be tested on 

buildings that are in currently design and seeking certification. Within the next five years—a 

conservative estimate for the time it takes for a typical building design to go from concept to 

completion (National Research Council, 2013, p. 70) —the green building community could 

apply results of the research. Furthermore, green building systems have strong mechanisms to 

incorporate changes. Recognized green building systems have rigorous documentation 

requirements and active mechanisms by which to revise requirements.

3. Measurement and Metrics

3.1. LEED as a Baseline for Green Building

As popular as it is, LEED may not be able to serve as a sufficient definition for green building 

measurement. A recent report concludes that “although there are hundreds of publications 

related to high-performance or green buildings, relatively few are well-designed empirical 

studies. Of these, several focused specifically on LEED-certified buildings; none focused on 

Green Globes-certified buildings,” (National Research Council, 2013, p. 4). This implies that 

research can be applied to LEED facilities, but the lack of research limits comparisons to other 

building systems and methods. In addition, this NRC report identified other data problems in the 

studies that it evaluated, stating that “other factors that made the task more complex included 

issues related to qualitative and quantitative measurements of building performance, measured 

data versus modeled data for energy and water use, and the inclusion of a mix of buildings types 

in most empirical studies,” (p. 4).

3.2. Federal Guiding Principles as a Baseline for Green Building

Another recent report has demonstrated how third-party2systems compared to the federal GPs. 

Wang, Fowler, & Sullivan (2012) showed how closely the GPs align with third-party systems. 

The analysis comparing new construction certification systems with the GPs showed that:

 Green Globes can be used to meet 25 out of 27 GP requirements, 

 LEED can be used to meet 20 out of 27 GP requirements, and

 

2

“Third-party” refers to the characteristic that the requirements to certify the building must be verified by someone 

who has no vested interest in the outcome of the certification.
16

 Living Building Challenge can be used to meet 14 out of 27 GP requirements

(pp. iii-vi)

The same report (pp. ix-x) showed a similar relationship between third-party green building 

systems and the GPs for existing building systems: 

 Green Globes Continual Improvement of Existing Buildings (CIEB) can be used to meet 

22 out of 28 requirements, 

 LEED Existing Buildings Operations and Maintenance (EBO&M) can be used to meet 27 

out of 28 requirements, and 

 Living Building Challenge can be used to meet 17 out of 28 requirements. 

This relatedness between the GPs and the evaluated building systems suggests that the GPs are 

subject to the same baseline and measurement concerns as other green building systems. 

3.3. Traditional Green Building Benefits

Despite the challenges of measuring the benefits of green buildings, the NRC report (2013) 

concluded that “the evidence from the literature search indicates that high-performance or green 

buildings can result in significant reductions in energy and water use,” (p. 7). On average, green

buildings reduce water use by 8 to 11 percent (p. 68), and “on average, used 5 to 30 percent less 

energy than conventional buildings,” (p. 68). However, the same report also notes that realized 

benefits can also be affected by geographic region, climate zone, building type, and the skill of 

facility managers (pp. 7-8). Also, not every green “certified” building will outperform every 

similar, “conventional,” non-certified building (p. 7). 

These findings suggest that the choices the user of the system makes can affect the benefits, even 

if the building is certified. With all else being equal, an average green building will save more 

money during its life-cycle than an average “conventional” building. However, this report 

suggests that owners investing in green certification systems may not have the data they need to 

calculate the full life-cycle cost savings of their green building.

3.4. Potential Green Building Benefits

Section 2 of this paper, Gaps in Measuring Building Certification Systems, lists some of the 

limitations of evaluating the benefits of green building. One challenge identified was the 

inability to measure other benefits. While green building certification may “also result in 

improved indoor environmental quality, improved worker productivity, and lower operations and 

maintenance costs...the evidence is very limited,” (National Research Council, 2013, p. 9). An 

area of focus for filling data gaps is in the area of maintenance and operations. The report 

mentioned that the majority of property that the DoD owns is more than 40 years old (p. 22). 

Other agencies, such as the Department of Energy, also own older facilities. Better data about 

how to apply green building systems to produce the best outcomes for maintenance and 

operations may provide the most immediate benefit for agencies that must maintain older 

properties. 

Quantifying the benefits of improved indoor environmental quality and worker productivity can 

also improve outcomes for federal agencies. The NRC report states that green buildings affect 

indoor environmental quality, and that existing evidence suggested that “high-performance 
17

buildings result in improvements in some aspects of indoor environmental quality...” (p. 68). 

While difficult to measure and quantify, the impacts of indoor environmental quality and worker 

productivity can outweigh other savings if labor is significant to the cost of operations. Some 

studies have started to measure indoor environmental quality and worker productivity by 

evaluating: worker satisfaction in LEED and green buildings vs. conventional buildings; worker 

satisfaction with thermal comfort; satisfaction with air quality; perceived productivity; and 

perceived health (National Research Council, 2013, pp. 64-66). 

4. Conclusion

The NRC report suggests “development of a body of empirical research for any building-related 

topic takes many years: it typically takes at least 5 years to program, design and construct a 

building, which will then be operated for 30 years or longer,” (2013, p. 70). However, green 

building certification is a market reality and has proven its appeal as a strategy to save money 

and improve working conditions in new and existing buildings. 

On average, a building owner who uses green building certification is more likely to reduce lifecycle costs than an owner who chooses not to. Furthermore, a green building system can be used 

as tool to reduce other life-cycle costs, such as costs associated with maintenance and operations, 

workplace health, and productivity. However, the full benefit of a green building remains 

unknown. The continued use of green building systems provides a unique opportunity for ANSI 

and NIST to address measurement and data gaps. Given the relatively short amount of time it 

takes to design and build facilities, even shorter amount of time to modify behavior in existing 

buildings, and the tens of thousands of buildings seeking green building status, relevant data can 

have an immediate and widespread impact on the world’s built environment.

5. References

National Research Council. (2013). Energy-Efficiency Standards and Green Building 

Certification Systems Used by the Department of Defense for Military Construction and 

Major Renovations. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

Wang, N., Fowler, K., & Sullivan, R. (2012). Green Building Certification System Review. 

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Operated by Battelle for the U.S. Department of 

Energy. Washington, D.C.: U.S. General Services Administration.
18

[This page is internationally left blank]
19

Bertera, William J., Institute for Sustainable Infrastructure

Sustainability and How We Value It

Abstract

Sustainability in infrastructure development is not an option...it is an imperative. It is especially 

important that we not only build projects right, but that we build the right projects...with 

attention to the social, economic and environmental variables in infrastructure decision making. 

Measurement and standards are extremely important...too important to leave as a technical 

discussion among experts. We need to find ways to actively engage the public so that they will 

be sufficiently informed to influence the allocation of scarce resources.

Keywords

Sustainability, Triple bottom line, Sustainable infrastructure, Sustainable practices, Metrics

The measurement science required to help policy makers make good decisions about investment 

in sustainable infrastructure is critical in the face of increasing demand for scarce resources, 

changing demographics, the absence of geopolitical stability and the growing evidence that 

externalities on a cosmic scale are affecting issues associated with quality of life in ways that 

ordinary citizens can see for themselves.

Issues of changing weather patterns are the most recognizable manifestations of global warming, 

but there are others that are reflected in the human condition and its reaction to cataclysmic 

changes unknown to our species in its time of this planet. The science is becoming clear and the 

threats demonstrable. Yet the terms of the public debate become more opaque as time goes on, 

with fear and uncertainty the controlling conditions. 

Jurisdictions at the state and local levels have enacted statutes prohibiting even the mention of 

sustainability as if pretending the reason for sustainable practices either does not exist or will go 

away if we ignore it. Finding ways to make both the problem and solutions manageable in the 

minds of the general public is essential if political leaders are to seriously address the matter. 

Traditional cost-benefit analysis and like measurement schemes are not likely to be up to the 

challenge.

What makes people focus is attention to those things in their every-day lives that matter...things 

that the Triple Bottom Line focuses upon...value systems and societal priorities, environmental 

considerations and economics. This suggests that just focusing on costs without attention to 

benefits creates disincentives to proactive decision making...forces us to pay attention to tactics 

rather than strategies...the hear and now rather than the distant tomorrows.

Doing good is important of course, but is not enough. We need to be able to demonstrate that 

doing good is not only in our interest, but that it makes good business sense. This is as true for 

public sector projects as it is for those in the private sector. Profit margin is important for going 
20

concerns, but return on investment is equally important for public sector entities, though that 

return will certainly be vastly different than a simple surplus on the bottom line.

Back to the triple bottom line and measuring and valuing subjective variables. LCA does a great 

job in measuring things we can grab hold of, especially over time, but all of political science is 

about the basis on which decisions really get made...the things that matter that are hard to 

measure and value and sometimes, even to articulate.

Monetizing the easy variables associated with sustainable investments, i.e., resource allocation, 

only takes us so far. We need to be able to place values on those variables that are less obvious 

and that relate to process, citizen satisfaction and the elusive quality of life paradigm. 

Inevitably, we need to find a way to value the important variables that cannot be monetized but 

which nevertheless often drive critical decision-making. And then we need to find a way to 

integrate those non-monetized variables with those that can be monetized to make a business 

case for sustainable investment. Academia is doing the same, notably at the Zofnass Program for 

Sustainable Infrastructure at the Harvard Graduate School of Design.

As long as infrastructure investment remains only a matter of cost, and not benefit over the life 

cycle, we will continue to have procurement-based decisions, in turn, based on delivery cost 

rather that societal return on investment.

We are making some headway. Several private sector companies have developed proprietary 

business case evaluators for their clients for assessing the benefit derived from added levels of 

investment in sustainable infrastructure; some public entities have done the same for their 

citizens, voters and tax payers. Recently, both companies and public agencies have developed 

models for assessing the value of sustainability. These initial models are developmental, but 

suggest the task is not beyond our capability.

Not everything can or should be monetized. Decision making about sustainability in 

infrastructure is as much an art as a science. The Consumer Confidence Index is a case in point. 

This highly influential report is the “result of measuring consumer perceptions” and little 

more...but it has a significant impact on the movement of capital, stock markets and on spending 

habits of consumers. Less precise in many ways than the Triple Bottom Line, it nevertheless 

drives decision-making.

And just as not everything should or can be monetized, all that can be monetized should not 

necessarily be totaled, and even when totaling is appropriate, we have to be careful about 

mindlessly combining metrics using different value systems. Social indexes and monetized 

indexes, when mixed, do not always yield useable or useful results. That is especially relevant 

when trying to measure sustainability and to value the results of that sustainability effort.

Scores can be deceptive not for what they tell us, but for what they exclude. And in that 

omission, traditional LCA has not always served fully. Focusing on costs without consideration 

of benefit over the life of the investment creates a distortion that almost always manifests itself 
21

negatively at the point of procurement...where costs are most obvious and benefits most 

elusive...especially when projected far into the distant future.

Decisions to create more sustainable infrastructure are not a new thing. The best practices that 

professions use to produce relevant and efficient goods and services have evolved over decades 

and stand the test of time. The very first project to have been rated by the Envision Sustainable 

Infrastructure Rating System earned a Gold designation for sustainability...and it was built 

before Envision was invented. It did so well not by happenstance, but because it was designed 

and constructed using precepts that had stood the test of time.

The added imperative of today and tomorrow is that there is less forgiveness in the system. 

Getting close is not good enough; getting it right the first time is increasingly a public priority. 

Measurement science and its application can help us assure that we do not miss anything that we 

take advantage not only of what is tried and true, but to look for new technologies, techniques 

and processes to continuously improve what we already know.

In this context, our metrics and how we measure become more important still, and how and in 

what form we make results available to decision makers critical. This information is not just of 

academic interest and our ability to weave it into understandable stories and experiences 

influences our public priorities and societal outcomes.

In all of this, defining sustainability becomes problematic because in the minds of the general 

public it implies longevity...making things last longer. It can of course do that, but the Bruntland 

Commission had something more strategic in mind in 1987 when it set the framework for not 

just a result, but also a way of thinking about the future. In this context it not only matters that 

we do the project right, but that we do the right project in the first place...that the result address 

the real problem and not only the symptom.

Returning to the science of measurement and its application to real world policy making, it is 

foolish to think that cost does not matter and that doing the right thing is always paramount. Cost 

should matter because resources are finite and demand for those resources growing. How a 

community prioritizes its allocation of those scarce resources is a primary function of 

government. The science of measurement can help us weight the options, but only if it remains 

relevant. Being right is only a part of the conversation; being listened to is more important still.
22

[This page is internationally left blank]
23

Caldas, Anne, ANSI

ANSI’s Role in the U.S. Standards and Conformity Assessment 

Infrastructure

Abstract

The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) is a private, non-profit organization that 

administers and coordinates the U.S. voluntary standards and conformity assessment system. 

Founded in 1918, the Institute works in close collaboration with stakeholders from industry, 

government, academia, consumers and others to identify and develop standards and 

conformance–based solutions to national and global priorities.

ANSI (www.ansi.org) is the sole U.S. representative and dues-paying member of the two major 

non-treaty international standards organizations, the International Organization for 

Standardization (ISO), and, via the U.S. National Committee (USNC), the International 

Electrotechnical Commission (IEC). The Institute is the sole accreditor of standards developers 

in the U.S. and is also actively engaged in accrediting programs that assess conformance to 

standards – including, among others, globally-recognized cross-sector programs such as the ISO 

9000 (quality), ISO 14000 (environmental) and ISO 50001 (energy) management systems. 

ANSI serves as a resource for information on standards and conformity assessment.

Keywords

Standards, ANSI, ANS, ISO, IEC, Process

1. What Is ANSI? An Overview

The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) is a private, non-profit organization that 

administers and coordinates the U.S. voluntary standards and conformity assessment system. 

Founded in 1918, the Institute works in close collaboration with stakeholders from industry and 

government to identify and develop standards and conformance–based solutions to national and 

global priorities.

Together, standards and the conformity assessment measures that ensure their effective use 

directly impact more than 80% of global trade – or over $3 trillion annually – by helping to 

increase efficiency, open markets, and reduce costs. And ANSI is the U.S. leader in fostering that 

potential for the benefit of businesses across every industry and consumers around the world. 

ANSI is not itself a standards developing organization. Rather, the Institute oversees the 

development and use of thousands of standards and guidelines by accrediting the procedures of 

standards developers and approving their documents as American National Standards. A list of 

ANSI-Accredited Standards Developers is available at www.ansi.org/asd. 

As an accreditation body, the Institute assesses the competence of these organizations – as well

as conformity assessment bodies in a variety of disciplines – in assuring marketplace trust and 

confidence that goods and services meet standards’ requirements. A summary of ANSI’s 

accreditation programs is available at www.ansi.org/accreditation.
24

With a long history as a trusted, neutral forum, ANSI bridges the gap between industry and 

government and enables information exchange and access among standards developing 

organizations, the general public and public-sector leaders, agencies, and legislators.

ANSI’s mission is to enhance the global competitiveness of U.S. business and the U.S. quality of 

life by promoting and facilitating voluntary consensus standards and conformity assessment 

systems, and safeguarding their integrity.

2. Domestic Activities

Responding to national priorities and areas requiring cross- sector collaboration are key focuses 

for ANSI’s activities. The Institute establishes ongoing standards panels, collaboratives, and 

partnerships as well as timely workshops to address standardization needs. These initiatives 

coordinate the efforts of the private and public sectors to identify gaps in existing standards and 

make recommendations for future work. They rely on the cooperation of stakeholders from 

across industries and sectors. 

Recent areas of standards coordination activity include:

 Energy efficiency

 Electric vehicles

 Homeland security

 Cybersecurity

 Nuclear energy

 Nanotechnologies

 ID theft

 Healthcare IT

3. International Engagement: ISO, IEC, and Other Standardization Organizations

Strong U.S. leadership in international standardization is critical for continued competitiveness 

in the global economy. Among efforts that strengthen that position, ANSI serves as the U.S. 

member of the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), the International 

Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) via the U.S. National Committee (all IEC activities are 

undertaken by the USNC, a committee of ANSI), the Pacific Area Standards Congress (PASC), 

and the Pan American Standards Commission (COPANT); and a member of the International 

Accreditation Forum (IAF) and the Pacific Accreditation Cooperation (PAC). The Institute 

represents U.S. interests in work with the European standardization organizations (CEN, 

CENELEC, ETSI); serves as a liaison to regional standardization organizations in Africa, Asia, 

and the Middle East; and fosters bilateral agreements with national standards bodies.

With the support of dedicated stakeholders and experts across all industries, ANSI participates in 

almost the entire technical program of both ISO and the IEC, and administers many key 

committees, U.S. Technical Advisory Groups (TAGs) and international Secretariats.

ANSI accredits U.S. TAGs to ISO committees, and delegates ISO and IEC committee 

Secretariats to appropriate U.S. organizations. And to further strengthen the U.S. voice and 

promote participation, ANSI offers guidance and support services to members serving as U.S. 

and USNC TAG Administrators and ISO and IEC committee Secretariats.
25

4. Accreditation Services

American National Standards www.ansi.org/psa

To help make standards development in the U.S. an equitable and open process that serves both 

industry and the public good, ANSI accredits standards developing organizations (SDOs) against 

a set of criteria to assure openness, balance, due process, and consensus in standards 

development – ANSI’s Essential Requirements (www.ansi.org/essentialrequirements). 

The Institute does not develop standards itself; rather, some 230 ANSI- accredited SDOs may 

submit their documents for approval as American National Standards (ANS). An ANS is a 

document that has been sponsored by an ANSI-accredited SDO and then approved by ANSI’s 

Board of Standards Review as meeting certain criteria regarding due process in its development. 

ANSI’s SDO accreditation and ANS approval processes work in tandem to safeguard the value 

of the ANS designation, and ANSI’s impartial audits oversee the integrity of this system. To 

date, there are more than 10,500 American National Standards, comprising the work of 

thousands of experts from hundreds of SDOs representing every industry sector. 

5. Conformity Assessment Activities

www.ansi.org/accreditation

Quality conformity assessment programs enhance confidence and trust in market transactions. 

ANSI administers a broad portfolio of third-party accreditation programs that recognize the 

competence of a range of conformity assessment bodies in accordance with guidelines and

requirements defined in international standards.

These programs are increasingly specified by local, state, and federal governments, and include 

organizations that:

 Certify products, personnel, processes, services, and systems

 Validate or verify greenhouse gas assertions

 Issue education and training certificates

In partnership with the American Society for Quality (ASQ), ANSI also serves the marketplace 

via the ANSI-ASQ National Accreditation Board affiliate’s accreditation services under the 

ACLASS and ANAB brands. ACLASS accredits testing and calibration laboratories, inspection 

bodies, and reference material producers. ANAB is the U.S. accreditation body for management 

systems and certification bodies. 

6. Sample Standards and Conformance Activities: Sustainable Construction and 

Manufacturing

A sampling of standards and conformance activities relevant to Sustainable Construction and 

Manufacturing include:

 ANSI Accreditation Programs, including accreditation of certification programs relative 

to building products and other related options: www.ansi.org/accreditation 

o A list of ANSI-Accredited Standards Developers, many of whose work 

incorporates sustainability in building codes and related standards is available 

here: www.ansi.org/asd. 

 ANSI held a Smart and Sustainable Cities Workshop in 2013 and issued a report that is 

available on ANSI’s website.
26

 The Energy Efficiency Standardization Coordination Collaborative (EESCC) is a crosssector group working to develop a standardization roadmap to advance energy efficiency 

in the built environment. Slated for publication in the summer of 2014, the EESCC 

Roadmap provides a national framework for action and coordination on energy efficiency 

standardization, charting more than 100 actionable recommendations to advance five 

areas of focus:

o Chapter One: Building energy and water assessment and performance standards 

o Chapter Two: System integration and systems communications 

o Chapter Three: Building energy rating, labeling, and simulation

o Chapter Four: Evaluation, measurement, and verification (EM&V) 

o Chapter Five: Workforce credentialing 

The EESCC is convened by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and led by 

co-chairs from the U.S. Department of Energy and Schneider Electric. More than 160 

experts from industry, standards and code developing organizations, energy efficiencyfocused organizations, educational institutions, and other groups have taken part in the 

roadmap’s development. The Roadmap is supplemented by the EESCC Inventory 

Database – a comprehensive, online source of information on standards, codes, 

guidelines, and conformity assessment programs that support energy efficiency in the 

built environment. For more information, visit www.ansi.org/eescc. (ANSI Contact: 

eescc@ansi.org )

 ANSI works with industry in assisting the Department of Energy’s initiatives related to 

the US CEEM and the Superior Energy Performance Program: 

http://www.ase.org/projects/us-council-energy-efficient-manufacturing and 

http://superiorenergyperformance.energy.gov/ 

 As the US member body to the ISO, ANSI is involved in a range of related activities 

including:

o ISO Advisory Group on Smart Cities (2014): 

http://www.ansi.org/news_publications/news_story.aspx?menuid=7&articleid=38

94 

o ISO/IEC Joint Technical Committee One, Information technology (JTC1):

o Study Group on Smart Cities (JTC1/SG1)

 Through the US National Committee of the IEC, ANSI represents the US in IEC 

activities. These descriptions of IEC activities may be of interest: 

o IEC/SEG1, IEC/SMB SEG1: http://www.iec.ch/etech/2013/etech_1113/tech1.htm

o IEC September 2011: http://www.iec.ch/etech/2011/pdf/etech_2011-09_LR.pdf 

o IEC May 2013 – Constructing Sustainable Infrastructure: 

http://www.iec.ch/etech/2013/etech_0513/wld-3.htm 

o IEC September 2011 – Sustainable Manufacturing: 

http://www.iec.ch/etech/2011/etech_0911/wld-1.htm 

 Other relevant activities include:

o NIBS High Performance Building Activities: http://www.nibs.org/?page=hpbc 

o Visit the websites of ANSI-Accredited Standards Developers for current 

information about relevant work: www.ansi.org/asd. Six ASDs also hold the 

status of ANSI Audited Designator and are allowed to designate their standards as 
27

ANS upon conclusion of their consensus process. These are: ASHRAE, ASTM, 

IAPMO, NFPA, NSF and UL.

o International Telecommunication Union Telecommunication Standardization 

Sector (ITU-T) Strategic Group 5 (SG5) Focus Group on Smart Sustainable Cities 

(FG SSC)

o European Committee for Standardization (CEN) / European Committee for 

Electrotechnical Standardization (CENELEC) / European Telecommunication 

Standards Institute (ETSI) Smart and Sustainable Cities and Communities 

Coordination Group (SSCC-CG)

7. Education and Training: Standards and Conformity Assessment

Designed for newcomers and longtime standards professionals alike, ANSI’s education and 

training programs offer a range of services that promote understanding of and participation in 

standards activities, and maximize the benefits of getting involved. For more information, please 

see www.StandardsLearn.org .

8. Why are standards and conformance so important?

Behind the scenes, standards make everyday life work. They establish quality and performance 

specifications for products, processes, personnel, and systems. Voluntary consensus standards 

are those developed through a process where all views are considered, and affected parties 

(including government, consumers, and business) have reached consensus on the contents. 

Hundreds of standards developing organizations (SDOs) and consortia are engaged in the 

creation and maintenance of voluntary consensus standards used in virtually every industry 

sector. These SDOs — and the experts who populate their committees — work to enhance 

quality of life and improve the competitiveness of U.S. businesses operating in the global 

marketplace.

Conformity assessment is a vital link between standards that define product characteristics and 

the products themselves. It provides demonstration that a product, process, system, person, or 

service fulfills the requirements identified in a specific standard. It can verify whether a 

particular product meets a given level of quality or safety. And it can provide information about 

the product’s characteristics, the consistency of those characteristics, and the performance of the 

product. Testing, inspection, and auditing of products and management systems is as important 

as the standard in ensuring that products and systems are safe and perform as expected.

“Today, more than ever, standards are an imperative undertaking. Standards are the 

building blocks for innovation and competitiveness. Our nation’s ability to compete and 

lead in a rapidly changing global economy is closely related to our leadership in the 

development and effective use of standards and standardization processes. Standards 

provide the common language that keeps domestic and international trade flowing. It is 

difficult to overestimate their critical value to both the U.S. and global economy.” 

– Patrick Gallagher, Director, National Institute of Standards and Technology, United 

States Standards Strategy, December 2, 2010

Standardization helps companies in every sector to strengthen their bottom line. Find out how at: 

www.standardsboostbusiness.org.
28

[This page is internationally left blank]
29

Carberry, John, Carberry EnviroTech - (Retired) DuPont Director of Environmental 

Technology

Metrics and Systems Issues When Analyzing Chlorine Use

Abstract

This paper is based on manufacturing experience, emphasizing environmental issues that started 

in the late 1980’s and is continuing. It is a brief synopsis of one of the issues we continually 

reviewed. Generally these issues were analyzed individuals from similar companies in a 

working group organized by the AIChE, the ACS or the American Chemistry (Industry) Council 

and frequently facilitated by various EPA “green” initiatives.

Keywords

Sustainable manufacturing, chemical, green initiatives

1. Objective

The objective of sustainable manufacturing is:

 To optimize (probably reduce) the global warming footprint of the use of chlorine across 

its entire “cradle-to-grave” life cycle from collection of salt for electrolysis through 

disposal of waste by-product hydrogen chloride AND disposal of chlorine containing 

end-use products.

It should be noted that 

 There is no attempt to include a secondary metric such as “toxic releases” on the 

assumption that the law will be enforced, and the hopeful assumption that the cost of 

obeying the law will somehow relate back to the energy and yield metrics for the use of 

chlorine.

 There is even less interest in including an even less directly connected metric such as 

social impact on employment. (For example, chemical plant operators are a significantly 

higher level job in terms of pay and benefits, than fast food servers, but there is a 

significant economic incentive to reduce the number of chemical operators.)

2. Present Supply, Use and Disposal Train

Chlorine is manufactured by primary companies (e.g., Dow) from salt by electrolysis. Chlorine 

manufacture is highly energy and capital intensive. Secondary manufacturers (e.g., DuPont) use 

chlorine as an “operator” to enable subsequent chemical operations or as an ingredient in the 

production of higher value chemicals. Market facing companies convert higher value chemicals 

to products which are sold. Companies such as DuPont, GE, and BASF are frequently secondary 

and market facing. There are less than 10 primary manufacturers of chlorine, dozens of 

secondary companies, perhaps thousands market facing companies, and hundreds of millions of 

end users. Use of chlorine as a chemical operator frequently generates by-product hydrogen 

chloride. That by-product is infrequently recycled, but rather is usually sold to a secondary 

market. At the end of their useful life, chlorine containing products are rarely recycled to their 

original use. (This author cannot presently think of a single example.) They are sometimes reused in lower value subsequent products with their own end-of-life challenges.
30

At the end of their useful life, most chlorine containing products are disposed of through 

wastewater treatment facilities, or landfills, or incinerators (with and without energy recovery). 

The quality of operation of these facilities is variable, particularly world-wide.

Material substitution, product and process optimization, and advanced treatment concepts are 

almost always superior to recycle.

3. Challenges

Most systems approaches appear to wish to consider multiple issues simultaneously. Developing 

a metric that equitably considers highly divergent sustainability issues has, thus far, seemed far 

too diffiucult and not particularly useful. For example, how would one numerically include and 

compile; 1) One thousand tons of CO2 equivalent global warming emission, 2) One hundred 

pounds of a modestly toxic, chlorine containing emission, and 3) Ten very high level “wage roll” 

jobs, all in a single metric.

Normalizing the data to account for different levels of chlorine production or use will probably 

be seriously challenging. Per unit of mass (of chlorine in this case) works well for a single 

product and a single use. However, varying uses may provide varying value to society and 

varying end products may require dramatically different mass to accomplish the same task. A 

leading example is the transition from “brute force” herbicides to bio-tech based alternatives. 

The alternatives are very much less toxic on a per-pound basis, and are used at application rates 

that are about 1/200th of that for their predecessors. However, on a per pound basis their energy 

demand and emissions may be 10-20x that of their predecessors.

Commonly accepted, valid data for any of the following challenges is difficult, time consuming 

and expensive, or just plain unavailable. Tracking the use of chlorine containing products 

becomes very difficult at the level of market facing companies and (at least seemingly) outright 

impossible at the end-user level. Reasonable estimates might be made. However, most market 

facing companies would strongly resist providing such detailed information.

Assigning the amount of energy associated with production of chlorine should be the most 

straight-forward for the primary manufacturer. Even then, difficult choices for allocation to 

other operations (e.g. co-generation facilities or the use of waste heat for another process) cause 

large uncertainty. Further downstream that problem is geometrically magnified at each 

subsequent level. Assigning “average” global warming impact for energy consumption is 

variable among regions in the US, and more-so world-wide.

There are at least two technologies for recycling hydrogen chloride back to chlorine that would 

reduce overall system energy demand but locally would increase the energy footprint of the user 

while decreasing that of the supplier by an even larger amount. In addition, those recycle 

technologies are also capital and (to a lesser degree) energy intensive. The user generally has a 

higher cost of capital than the supplier. Thus by-product hydrogen chloride is usually sold on the 

secondary market, even when upgrading is necessary, or even neutralized and discarded.

Different “approved” LCA methodologies give different answers. In addition, they all are 

dependent on choices made for technologies, yields, and allocation of impacts among coproducts. All these choices are usually at the discretion of the person or group doing the 
31

calculation. A high level of transparency of those choices is not common. A notable example 

that has been presented at national meetings is the difference in assessing the carbon footprint of 

bio-fuels using the “GHGenius Model” with Canadian data versus the same bio-fuel crop 

assessed with the “Biograce” model and EU data.

4. Proposal

Well run companies that have high quality technical workers would, over time, would reduce (at 

least) the energy and impacts of chlorine to sustainable levels if their business environment 

included:

 Environmentally sound, passively safe, terrorist resistant nuclear electrical power.

 Economically and environmentally sound bio-derived liquid fuels.

 Economically and environmentally sound emissions regulations, world-wide, uniformly 

enforced.

 World class, uniformly required, treatment and incineration (with energy recovery) 

technologies.

 A considerably reduced presence of activist and political grandstanding in this area.

Complex systems analysis protocols would not be needed. Simple economics would do the rest.
32

[This page is internationally left blank]
33

Castro-Lacouture, Daniel, Georgia Institute of Technology

Resource Management and Closed-Loop Systems: 

Advancing Sustainable Performance Metrics

Abstract

Sustainable performance metrics for buildings have been traditionally and intrinsically associated 

with green building rating systems. Such approach, however, has not fully considered the 

implications of interrelations among building components and systems, not only within its 

surroundings, but also as part of a larger system of systems. This extrapolation brings more 

complexity to the measurement of sustainability performance, as buildings become one element 

of the system rather than the system itself. Furthermore, this conventional approach has 

overlooked other holistic considerations that may have an impact on the measurement of 

sustainable performance. Such considerations include resource allocation for optimizing energy 

portfolios and the implications of closed-loops systems at different scales of the built 

environment. This paper presents these alternative approaches as a discussion toward a more 

holistic view that could have consequences in the metrics used to measure sustainability in 

building construction.

Keywords

Sustainable, Performance, Development, Metrics, Resource, Management

1. Background

In the last decade, sustainable performance metrics for buildings have been intrinsically 

associated with green building rating systems. Buildings have a significant impact on the 

environment because they are responsible for a large portion of carbon emissions (Keysar and 

Pierce 2007, Yudelson 2008) and use a considerable number of resources and energy (Pulselli et 

al 2007). The green building movement emerged to mitigate the impact of buildings on the 

environment and to improve the building construction process, bringing significant economic, 

financial, social, and environmental benefits (Thormark 2006, Ross et al 2006). The Leadership 

in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) rating system is a widely applied rating system 

used to determine the level of accomplishment of environmental goals. The LEED rating system 

is based on credits, evaluating specific requirements of the candidate building, and has 

established a strong credibility among experts (Pulselli et al 2007, Ding 2008). In fact, variations 

of the LEED system have been chosen in countries like México, Brazil, Canada, Colombia and 

India. Such approach, however, has not fully considered the implications of interrelations among 

building components and systems, not only within its surroundings, but also as part of a larger 

system of systems. This extrapolation brings more complexity to the measurement of 

sustainability performance, as buildings become one element of the system rather than the 

system itself. Until recently, rating systems started focusing on options for measuring 

sustainability at larger scales, such as LEED for Neighborhood Development, aimed at 

integrating the principles of smart growth, new urbanism, and green building (US Green 

Building Council, 2009). 
34

The concept of sustainable development has become an important objective in construction 

projects, requiring a continuous process to meet economic, environmental, and social targets 

(ALwaer and Clements-Croome 2010). When aiming to achieve these targets, construction 

practitioners need tools that can guide them to assess their project’s sustainability performance 

(Fernandez-Sanchez and Rodriguez-Lopez 2010). Indicators are recognized as useful tools to 

measure sustainable development (Ramos and Caeiro 2010) and performance across a range of 

sustainable principles (Singh et al 2009). A number of studies have been developed to identify 

sets of indicators. ALwaer and Clements-Croome (2010) proposed a consensus based model for 

measuring the level of sustainability for sustainable intelligent buildings. Fernandez-Sanchez and 

Rodriguez-Lopez (2010) developed a method to identify and select an indicator set for civil 

engineering projects. 

Although the existing sets of indicators assess sustainability performance, there is a need to 

integrate them into systems to provide more useful guidance for efforts to a transition towards 

sustainability (Singh et al 2009). By integrating indicators into models, the interrelationships and 

the overlapping dimensions of the criteria could be covered (Castro-Lacouture et al 2009). 

Models can be used to help identify the way in which activities are unsustainable and assist 

decision makers to determine which actions should or should not be taken (Singh et al 2009). 

Furthermore, models may give effective feedback (ALwaer and Clements-Croome 2010) which 

can provide useful evidence to support project management (Fernandez-Sanchez and RodriguezLopez 2010). This paper discusses two integrative approaches for sustainable development that 

are expected to advance existing indicators and metrics of sustainable performance.

2. Closed-Loop Systems and Resource Management

The potential of closed-loop systems based on biofuels, that is, to manage the liquid and solid 

waste from a community and recycle the carbon stream into energy of sufficient quality to power 

the same community in a sustainable manner, has been proven elsewhere (Scott et al 2010, 

Amaroa et al 2011). Using the example of algae technology, maximum reductions can be made 

with respect to resource utilization, while efficiencies are realized using green, conservationdriven design principles. Waste streams must be considered for opportunities for reuse, 

recycling, and treatment processes that maximize the extraction of resources. Novel sources of 

inputs may then be developed that take advantage of the holistic approach to resource

management. Primary residential waste streams include wastewater and municipal solid waste. 

In addition, thermal and other energy losses due to inefficiencies require additional demands on 

resource inputs. In addition to the current first-choice renewable energy generating technologies 

available to residential and even some commercial communities (e.g., solar photovoltaic, solar 

thermal, wind turbine, fuel cell), novel technologies are currently under development that may be 

able to address the desire for sustainable energy generation while, at the same time, address 

waste stream management issues through resource recovery. Among alternative energy sources 

for residential buildings, algae technology has emerged as a promising option due to its closedloop configuration and the ability to produce biofuel energy while reducing waste stream flow 

and capturing carbon. Furthermore, this technology has the potential of integrating resource and 

waste management, and can be complemented with other alternatives, such as photovoltaic, wind 

or fuel cells. A framework for integrating information from geographic information systems, 

building information models, construction schedules, construction cost estimates, and 

constructability reviews has been discussed elsewhere (Castro-Lacouture et al 2014). The 
35

integration is aimed at designing an algae-powered residential building environment at the level 

of urban neighborhood, in which the algae technology is taken as a design intervention to

promote energy performance and carbon reduction within the urban system. This framework 

couples the design intervention with impact simulations influenced by geographic contexts, 

construction considerations, and digital building technology. By extending the system boundary 

from a closed algae cultivation system to an open neighborhood-scale urban environment, urban 

renewable resources such as energy, water, material and carbon flows are connected to the algae 

cultivation process. The framework would further advance the possibilities for sharing 

information among planners, architects, engineers and construction managers for innovative

closed-loop sustainable energy systems in residential construction (Castro-Lacouture et al 2014). 

Figure 1 shows selected materials and energy inputs and outputs for a building.

This approach will address challenges such as cost, governmental incentives, regulatory barriers, 

or need of research and development that could overcome limitations for automating predesign,

design, construction and facility management. Impact on sustainability performance metrics can 

be discussed in terms of cost and life-cycle assessment.

Figure 1. Closed-Loop System Using Algae Biofuel (Castro-Lacouture et al 2014)

2.1. Cost Metrics

Constructability considerations for algal cultivation and processing to manage the liquid and 

solid waste from a house or residential community and recycle the carbon stream into energy, 

include the following:

 Investigating costs of installing and putting in operation the system, including the 

collection of wastewater (i.e. toilets, sinks, showers); delivery to the pond; transfer to the 

bioreactor; installation of bioreactor and all ancillary systems.

 Establishing a maintenance plan for all systems mentioned above and estimate training 

requirements for safe and ongoing operation.

 Calculating life expectancy of the system and estimate the replacement cost.
36

 Life Cycle Costs: Thorough analysis of entire value chain from a cost perspective; track 

and evaluate costing from the research and development phase of the system’s life, 

through to the decline and eventual conclusion of its life.

2.2. Life-Cycle Assessment Metrics

To evaluate the system’s environmental aspects and its potential impacts in general and 

specifically, the following steps are required:

 Assessing the raw materials or inputs needed to effectively operate the system and it’s 

probable releases to the environment.

 Investigating possible reuse, maintenance and waste management.

 Analyzing different deployment schemes for the system.

 Investigating the embodied energy of the system put in place and operating.

 Determining different forms of ownership for end users and their implications in initial 

and running costs, maintenance and upgrades.

 Establishing training levels and parameters for the different deployment schemes.

 Investigating the safety implications of installing such a system in a residential 

environment. For example: Maintaining a wastewater pond in proximity to residential 

dwellings is not the same as a storm water retention pond. 

 Experimenting and modeling issues of scalability. Siting concerns, size of reactor, size of 

waste water pond, distribution of energy produced, maintenance, handling of by-products 

and recycling.

3. Retro-Commissioning Portfolio for Communities

An investment strategy model for facility managers in allotting funds to the poorly performing 

buildings on a set community and at the same time forecasting the possible benefits of allotted 

investments under uncertainty has been proposed earlier (Augenbroe et al 2009). The investment 

strategy model is intended for use by facility and portfolio managers, to determine the best retrocommissioning investment portfolio for their campus under the given budget, optimization 

criteria and designated uncertainty in energy costs. 

For a given a set of portfolio buildings and an applicable range of retrofit, re-commissioning, or 

new energy saving technologies, the portfolio optimization tool will select the best combination 

of improvements within a given investment budget, time horizon and risk tolerance. The tool 

calculates the optimal investment portfolio under uncertainty, and driven by optimization criteria

of the decision makers, e.g. investment risk attitudes and/or commitment to “greenness”.

Benefits of investments are represented in terms of “Investment Return” and “Energy Savings”; 

where Investment return is the monetary value that will be saved in the operations, when a 

particular technology is deployed in the campus building, while Energy saving is the total energy 

saved by the modifying technology. Energy saving value can be considered as a measure of 

“Greenness”, which is more significant from a pure energy saving perspective than credits 

provided by any green building rating system. Energy saving in this case is translated as “amount 

of total energy saving for all selected options, within the period of the investment horizon, 

expressed in primary fossil energy units. Figure 2 illustrates the schematic diagram of the 

strategic investment model. 
37

As shown in the Figure 2, the core of this model is an existing energy performance assessment 

tool (Augenbroe et al 2009) that allows very fast and efficient assessment of the energy use of a 

building, and all its separate energy consumers: heating, cooling, lighting, pump/fans, hot water, 

humidification, and appliances plug load. This investment model is developed as a decision 

making shell around the performance assessment toolkit.

Figure 2. Schematic diagram of strategic investment model (Augenbroe et al 2009)

4. Discussion

As the construction industry moves toward sustainability, environmental criteria need to be 

considered in a systematic way when assessing sustainable performance. Sustainable

performance metrics for buildings have been traditionally and intrinsically associated with green 

building rating systems. Such approach, however, has not fully considered the implications of 

interrelations among building components and systems, not only within its surroundings, but also 

as part of a larger system of systems, such as neighborhoods, cities, or mega regions. 

Using the concept of sustainable development as continuous process to meet economic, 

environmental, and social targets, the use of green building rating systems needs to include 

modeling needs that arise from the needs of owners, decision makers, users, and the public, to 

assess impacts from the use of emerging energy technologies and systems. The case of algae 

biofuels serve as basis to illustrate how by closing the loop of waste streams, using a portion to 

power the building and another portion as feed, it is possible to not only complement existing 

energy alternatives such as photovoltaic or solar thermal, but also to address other sustainable 

living needs such as food, resource management, reuse or redirection of waste streams, etc.

For the case of the portfolio model for optimizing investments in retro-commissioning buildings, 

it was shown how the interactions among buildings and their marginal improvements could play 

a role in the metrics used to allocate resources. This can bring news perspectives to the way 

current green building rating systems measure its output values, not from an individual entity but 

as a component that interacts with other entities. 
38

5. References

ALwaer H., and Clements­Croome D.J., 2010, “Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) and Priority 

Setting Using the Multi-Attribute Approach for Assessing Sustainable Intelligent Buildings,” 

Building and Environment, 45(4), 799-807.

Amaroa, H.M., Guedesb, A.C., and Malcatac, F.X., (2011), “Advances and Perspectives in 

Using Microalgae to Produce Biodiesel,” Applied Energy, Special Issue of Energy from 

Algae: Current Status and Future Trends, 88(10), 3402–3410.

Augenbroe, G., Castro-Lacouture, D., and Ramkrishnan, K. (2009), “Decision Model for Energy 

Performance Improvements in Existing Buildings,” Journal of Engineering Design and 

Technology, Special Issue on Green Construction, 7(1), 21-36.

Castro-Lacouture, D., Sefair, J.A., Florez, L., and Medaglia, A.L., (2009), “Optimization Model 

for the Selection of Materials Using the LEED Green Building Rating System,” Proceedings 

of the 2009 ASCE Construction Research Congress, Seattle, Washington, USA, April 5-7, p. 

608-617.

Castro-Lacouture, D., Quan, S.J., Yang, P. P.-J., and Marshall, T., (2014), “GIS-BIM Framework 

for Integrating Urban Systems, Waste Stream and Algal Cultivation in Residential 

Construction,” Proceedings of the International Symposium of Automation and Robotics in 

Construction, Sydney, Australia, July 9-11, 2014, forthcoming. 

Ding, G.K.C., (2008), “Sustainable Construction: the Role of Environmental Assessment Tools,” 

Journal of Environmental Management, 8(1), 451-464.

Fernandez-Sanchez, G., and Rodriguez-Lopez, F., (2010). “A Methodology to Identify 

Sustainability Indicators in Construction Project Management - Application to Infrastructure 

Projects in Spain,” Ecological Indicators, 10(6), 1193--1201.

Keysar, E., and Pierce, A.R., (2007), “Decision Support Tool for Green Building: Facilitating 

Selection among New Adopters on Public Sector Projects,” Journal of Green Building, 2(3), 

153-171.

Pulselli, R.M., Simoncini, E., Pulselli, F.M., and Bastianoni, S, (2007), “Emergy Analysis of 

Building Manufacturing, Maintenance and Use: Em-Building Indices to Evaluate Housing 

Sustainability,” Energy and Buildings, 39(5), 620-628.

Ramos, T.B., and Caeiro, S., (2010), “Meta­Performance Evaluation of Sustainability 

Indicators,” Ecological Indicators, 10(2), 157-166.

Ross, B., Lopez-Alcala, M., and Small, III A.A., (2006), “Modeling the Private Financial 

Returns from Green Building Investments,” Journal of Green Building, 2(1), 97-105.

Scott, S.A., Davey, M.P., Dennis, J.S., Horst, I., Howe, C.H., Lea-Smith, D.J., and Smith, D.G., 

(2010), “Biodiesel from Algae: Challenges and Prospects,” Current Opinion in 

Biotechnology, 21(3), 277–286.

Singh, R.K., Murty, H.R., Gupta, S.K., and Dikshit, A.K., (2007), “Development of Composite 

Sustainability Performance Index for Steel Industry,” Ecological Indicators, 7(2), 565-588.

Thormark, C. (2006), “The Effect of Material Choice on the Total Energy Need and Recycling 

Potential of a Building,” Building and Environment, 41(8), 1019-1026.

U.S. Green Building Council, (2009), LEED for Neighborhood Development, US Green 

Building Council, http://www.usgbc.org/Docs/Archive/General/Docs3357.pdf (Accessed: 4 

April 2014).

Yudelson, J., (2008). The Green Building Revolution, Washington, D.C., Island Press.
39

Chapman, Robert, Joannie Chin, Sudarsan Rachuri, Joshua Kneifel, Andrew Persily, and 

Anthony Hamins, Engineering Laboratory, National Institute of Standards and Technology

Measurement Science for Sustainable Construction and Manufacturing:

A NIST Perspective

Abstract

The mission of NIST’s Engineering Laboratory (EL) is to promote U.S. innovation and industrial 

competitiveness in areas of critical national priority by anticipating and meeting the 

measurement science and standards needs for technology-intensive manufacturing, construction, 

and cyber-physical systems in ways that enhance economic prosperity and improve the quality of 

life. Sustainability is a recognized critical national priority—one that requires meaningful and 

rigorous measurement science for establishing suitable performance metrics. EL and its 

predecessor organizations have conducted sustainability-related research for over 20 years. This 

paper summarizes key elements of that research, beginning with BEES—Building for 

Environmental and Economic Sustainability—and EL’s service life prediction program. More 

recent research on net-zero energy buildings, manufacturing processes and standards, and cyberphysical systems is also described. The paper highlights EL’s vision for the future and how the 

results of the June 12-13, 2014 workshop on Measurement Science for Sustainable Construction 

and Manufacturing will help shape that vision and provide insights to other key industry 

stakeholders on potential opportunities for their sustainability-related research, development, and 

deployment efforts.

Keywords

Economic evaluation, life cycle assessment, material and energy efficiency, metrics, standards, 

synergies and interdependencies

1. Background

An environmentally conscious public is demanding products that are more sustainable. 

Manufacturers are seeking to meet the expectations of consumers and the demands of regulators 

while becoming more environmentally responsible. For consumers, regulators, and 

manufacturers alike, this requires that credible processes be implemented to accurately measure 

the environmental impacts of products (Lippiatt, 2013).

This paper describes the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s (NIST’s) Engineering 

Laboratory’s (EL) current and planned research aimed at meeting critical national needs for 

measurement science and standards for sustainable construction and manufacturing. 

Measurement science provides the technical basis for standards, codes, and practices and it 

includes: performance metrics; measurement and testing methods; predictive modeling and 

simulation tools; test and calibration protocols; and evaluation technologies, systems, and 

practices. Because sustainability-related research is inherently inter-disciplinary, certain sections 

of this paper describe other NIST research that supports or complements EL’s efforts.
40

2. Current Sustainability-Related Research

EL’s current sustainability-related research is focused in three areas: (1) construction; (2) 

manufacturing; and (3) cyber-physical systems. EL’s research in the construction arena is 

covered first followed by manufacturing and cyber-physical systems. Cyber-physical systems 

are integrated networks of information technology and engineered physical elements co-designed 

and co-engineered to create adaptive and predictive systems that respond in real time to enhance 

performance.

2.1. The Business Case for Sustainability

NIST develops unbiased, state-of-the-art measurement science that advances the nation’s 

technology infrastructure and is needed by industry to continually improve products and 

services. With that objective in mind, the Building and Fire Research Laboratory, one of EL’s 

two predecessor organizations, began development of Building for Environmental and Economic 

Sustainability (BEES) in 1994, with the goal of producing a rational, systematic technique for 

selecting environmentally preferred, cost-effective products. The BEES software takes a 

multidimensional, environmental life cycle approach, in that, it considers multiple environmental 

and economic impacts over the entire life—cradle to grave—of a product. Considering multiple 

impacts and life cycle stages is necessary because product selection decisions based on single 

impacts or stages could obscure other impacts or stages that might cause equal or greater 

damage. In other words, a multidimensional approach is necessary for a comprehensive, 

balanced analysis of environmental and economic impact. The BEES software, which applies 

the technique to 230 building products, is in widespread use today, with more than 24 000 users 

in over 80 countries (Lippiatt, 2013).

It is important to point out that BEES is product focused. The life cycle analysis approach taken 

in BEES is a “bottom up” process. Environmental flows are mapped to each of the 12 BEES 

environmental attributes. This produces a rigorous, science-based set of outcomes. For 

example, global warming potential is measured by CO2 equivalent emissions. Because buildings 

contain a multitude of products, a different approach is needed to measure building-level 

sustainability performance. A mapping of environmental flows to the National Income and 

Product Accounts—specifically the benchmark U.S. input-output tables—provides a mechanism 

to translate the BEES methodology to the whole building level. Combining this “top down” 

approach with the “bottom up” approach from BEES facilitates analysis through a hybrid 

modeling framework (Suh and Lippiatt, 2012). Those building components or systems that are 

crucial to the sustainability performance of the building are modeled with the bottom up life 

cycle analysis approach. All others are represented by their dollar values translated into 

environmental flows via the top-down, input-output approach. The hybrid modeling framework 

produces whole building environmental footprints for all 12 BEES environmental attributes.

The new software tool BIRDS—Building Industry Reporting and Design for Sustainability—

allows users to measure the sustainability performance of 11 prototypical new commercial 

building designs. Analyses are published covering 228 cities across the U.S. and for five 

different versions of ASHRAE’s energy standards (Kneifel, 2013). A version of BIRDS 

covering new residential buildings will be released in the near future. In addition to measuring 

environmental footprints for the “12 environmental impact categories,” BIRDS estimates lifecycle costs for each prototypical design, location, and energy standard combination.
41

2.2. Service Life Prediction

Developing the scientific basis for linking laboratory-based, accelerated-aging studies to field 

exposure studies is the goal of EL’s service life prediction program. While this is still a work in 

progress, tremendous strides have been made towards attaining that goal in two areas: polymeric 

materials and cementitious materials. The service life of a material is linked to sustainability in 

that a material that does not perform up to expectation or does not perform for its intended 

lifetime needs to be replaced more frequently, requiring additional environmental and economic 

resources 

Polymeric materials include coatings, sealants, and adhesives; they are widely used products that 

are critical in protecting a building’s interior spaces from adverse weather conditions—affecting 

energy consumption as well as occupant comfort—and the building envelope from moisture 

penetration. The NIST Integrating Sphere provides the ability to independently vary spectral 

irradiance, mechanical loads, temperature, and humidity with a high level of flexibility in 

designing artificial weathering experiments for polymeric materials (Chin et al, 2004). Smaller 

versions of the NIST Integrating Sphere device utilizing similar technology are currently being 

developed that are intended for commercial use by materials producers and researchers. EL’s 

research has resulted in ASTM’s C24 Committee on Building Joints and Sealants requiring all its 

weathering standards for sealants and building joints to include mechanical movement.

New results covering the concrete curing process have identified ways to reduce cracking, 

resulting in a significant increase in the useful life of concrete. Additional research on add 

mixtures and aggregates has shown how to reduce the carbon footprint of concrete—producing a 

ton of cement produces approximately a ton of CO2 emissions. Specifications on the use of fly 

ash as an add mixture produces a double benefit by reducing the carbon footprint associated with 

cement production and extending the service life of concrete. A comprehensive resource on 

EL’s cementitious materials research is the Virtual Cement and Concrete Testing Laboratory 

(VCCTL) software tool. This software provides a virtual testing laboratory environment that can 

be used by concrete scientists, engineers, and technologists for virtual testing of cement paste 

and concrete materials. With this software the user can: (1) create virtual materials, using 

carefully characterized cement powders, supplementary cementitious materials, fillers, and 

aggregates; (2) simulate the curing of these materials under a wide range of conditions; and (3) 

calculate their thermal, mechanical, and transport properties as a function of their processing.

2.3. Net-Zero Energy, High-Performance Buildings

Buildings account for 41 % of the primary energy consumption and 74 % of the electricity 

consumption in the U.S., while accounting for 40 % of the CO2 emissions (NSTC, 2008). To 

minimize the costs associated with building energy consumption, EL is developing and 

deploying the measurement science to move the nation towards net-zero energy, highperformance buildings in a cost-effective manner while maintaining a healthy indoor 

environment. A net-zero energy building is one that over the course of a year produces as much 

energy as it consumes.

EL’s research targets the objective of net-zero energy operation by: (1) reducing the heating and 

cooling loads within the building; (2) developing measurement science for efficient heating and 

cooling equipment; (3) advancing the measurement of onsite energy generation technologies, 

such as photovoltaics and micro-cogeneration; (4) evaluating the energy consumption, 
42

greenhouse gas emissions, economics, and sustainability from a whole-building perspective; and 

(5) promoting implementation of research results in building energy codes, standards, and 

practices.

A number of green building standards, model codes, and certification systems (LEED, Green 

Globes, IgCC, Standard 189.1) have been developed or are being developed to measure 

environmental performance (Suh et al, 2014). ASHRAE/IES/USGBC Standard 189.1, Standard 

for the Design of High-Performance Green Buildings (ASHRAE, 2011), is the only national 

consensus standard for the design of sustainable buildings (other than low-rise residential). The 

measurement science challenge related to Standard 189.1 and other building sustainability 

standards is the fact that design measures to achieve one goal of the standard may be counter to 

another goal. For example, some measures to increase energy efficiency can compromise indoor 

air quality (IAQ), or vice versa. Reduced window-to-wall ratios are sometimes advocated due to 

the improved thermal performance of the envelope. On the other hand, less daylight and reduced 

connection to the outdoors can reduce occupant satisfaction with the space. Another energy-IAQ 

example is higher outdoor air ventilation rates. Research has shown that increased outdoor air 

rates reduce occupant symptoms and other health complaints, provided that the outdoor air is 

clean and dry. But this additional outdoor air must be heated or cooled, which consumes energy. 

The challenge again is how to balance the IAQ improvements with the energy costs. In order to 

consider such tradeoffs, improved metrics are being developed for energy and indoor 

environmental quality as well as tools to compare the impacts on both.

The NIST Net-Zero Energy Residential Test Facility, a home similar to many in the greater 

Washington, DC area, is being used to demonstrate that it can produce as much energy from 

renewable energy resources as it consumes on an annual basis. It also serves as a test bed to: (1) 

measure in-situ performance of advanced components and systems; (2) quantify energy use 

reductions using embedded intelligence; and (3) compare actual installed performance to 

controlled laboratory measurements.

2.4. Manufacturing Processes and Standards

Assessments of sustainability in manufacturing require a foundation of reliable metrics for all 

aspects of these processes. At present, standards for these metrics are not well developed, 

measurement methods and tools for computing the metrics lack scientific foundation, and the 

data needed to compute supply chain sustainability are not readily available.

Recognizing these problems, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy has 

called for “accessible and affordable measurement systems and analytical tools for assessing and 

managing sustainability across the production process” (STPI, 2010). Constructing such systems 

and tools is beyond the expertise or economic interest of any single firm, industry, or business 

sector. The EL sustainable manufacturing program fills that gap by working to provide U.S. 

industry with the knowledge and tools it needs to improve its performance and competitiveness.

Research in this program has two broad thrusts. The first is concerned with developing sciencebased methodologies for characterizing, analyzing, and assessing the sustainability of individual 

processes and resources. Traditionally, this work has been done in an ad hoc manner for 

individual cases, with the consequence that methods devised for one industry sector rarely 

translate to another. This program, by contrast, is developing a generic, science-based and 
43

transferable approach to assessing sustainability. EL’s research combines computational and 

informational models of inputs and outputs with process models based on knowledge of energy 

and material transformations. This approach will result in a wide range of metrics that any 

industry can implement to address its particular needs.

The second thrust focuses on the development of an integration framework that will combine 

sustainability measurements for individual manufacturing processes into a generic information 

model with the ability to track the sustainability performance of all the processes in a 

manufacturing network. This information model will, for the first time, allow industrial 

managers to compute total sustainability performance throughout an entire supply chain.

The program works closely with ASTM Committee E60 on Sustainability to develop standards 

for measures of sustainability and tools to analyze and improve those measures. A new E60 

subcommittee on manufacturing has been established, with NIST leadership and technical 

contributions. The program also collaborates with a number of industrial partners, and is 

building a virtual testbed for sustainable manufacturing that will make possible more general 

evaluation of tools and methods than can be achieved through work with specific industries.

2.5. Green Button

Building on NIST’s century-long partnership with the electric industry, the Smart Grid program 

is embarking with key industry stakeholders on one of this generation’s grand challenges—

modernizing the electric power grid so that it incorporates information technology to deliver 

electricity efficiently, reliably, sustainably, and securely. Unlike the grid of the 20th century, 

which primarily delivered electricity in a one-way flow from generator to outlet, the modernized 

grid permits the two-way flow of both electricity and information. However, creating that twoway flow requires active participation by electricity consumers.

Green Button is a mechanism enabling electricity customers to securely download their own 

easy-to-understand energy usage information from their utility or electricity supplier. It is an 

industry-led effort that responds to a White House call-to-action: provide electricity customers 

with easy access to their energy usage data in a consumer-friendly and computer-friendly format 

via a “Green Button” on electric utilities’ websites (OSTP, 2013).

Armed with this energy usage information, consumers can use a growing array of new web and 

smartphone tools to make more informed energy decisions, optimize the size and costeffectiveness of solar panels for their home, or verify that energy-efficiency retrofit investments 

are performing as promised.

The Green Button initiative is designed to work with industry to support utilities and energy 

service providers where they are today, and also to lead the path forward towards more consumer 

engagement. Initially launched in January 2012, utilities committed to provide Green Button 

capability to nearly 12 million households in 2012. As of May 2013, 15 more major utilities and 

electricity suppliers signed on to the initiative. In total, these commitments ensure that more 

than 30 million households will be able to access their own energy information. And this 

number is continuing to grow as utilities nation-wide voluntarily make energy data more 

available in this common, machine-readable format.
44

3. Future Directions

NIST’s vision for the future is evolving around several cross-cutting themes. These include: 

innovative materials and the new classes of products they enable; additive manufacturing; 

distributed energy generation associated with net-zero energy, high-performance buildings and 

their interactions with the electric power grid; and the promise of increased resilience to natural 

and man-made disasters.

3.1. Designer Materials

Sustainability considerations can drive new materials and technologies for sustainable products, 

process innovation for sustainable manufacturing, and innovation and creativity in supply/value 

chain operations. Combining materials science principles and computational capabilities has 

resulted in quantitative conceptual design of materials. A design approach utilizing sciencebased mechanistic models combined with a small number of prototypes reduces the time and cost 

of product development, but also produces materials with more predictable behavior.

To address these needs, NIST has launched the Materials Genome Initiative; which will create a 

new era of materials innovation that will serve as a foundation for strengthening domestic 

industries in these fields. This initiative offers a unique opportunity for the U.S. to discover, 

develop, manufacture, and deploy advanced materials at least twice as fast as possible today, at a 

fraction of the cost. Essential to this effort is the development of a data infrastructure that will 

provide the needed data and tools to support this effort.

3.2. The Additive Transformation

Additive manufacturing (AM) refers to a class of emerging technologies for producing highlycomplex, customized components by building up materials to make objects based on a threedimensional (3D) computer model, typically built layer upon layer. Parts are fabricated directly 

from an electronic file representing the 3D part design that is virtually sliced into many thin 

layers and sent to an AM system where the layers are built up in sequence into a complete part. 

AM provides the agility needed to rapidly make innovative customized complex products and 

replacement parts that are not realizable by more traditional manufacturing technologies or are 

required to be produced in low volumes. It offers additional advantages, including reduced 

material waste, lower energy intensity, reduced time-to-market, and just-in-time production.

Several technical barriers exist, however, that prevent AM processes from reaching their full 

potential. The recent road-mapping activities for AM (The University of Texas, 2009; NIST, 

2013a) outline research recommendations in several areas to advance the industry and emphasize 

that the ability to achieve predictable and repeatable operations is critical. The issues with 

surface quality, part accuracy, fabrication speed, material properties, and computational 

requirements are significant barriers to and/or limitations for widespread implementation of AM 

processes throughout U.S. manufacturers. To mitigate these challenges, research is needed to 

focus on the problems associated with AM material characterization, real-time control of AM 

processes, qualification methodologies, and system integration for AM.

3.3. Smart Grid Interoperability Standards

EL’s Smart Grid program facilitates development and implementation of the measurement 

science underpinning modernization of the nation’s electric power grid; its aim is to improve 

system efficiency, reliability, and sustainability, by incorporating distributed intelligence, 
45

bidirectional communications and power flows, and additional advancements to create a smart 

grid. In response to a mandate given by Congress and the Administration, NIST, through its 

Smart Grid program and public-private Smart Grid Interoperability Panel, is leading the 

coordination and acceleration of smart grid interoperability and security standards in 

collaboration with the private sector (NIST, 2013b).

New measurement science and industry standards are needed to enable building systems and 

consumers to interact with a future smart grid, which supports the national goal to modernize the 

electric system by making it more robust and reliable. As building-scale renewable energy 

systems become more common, buildings will increasingly become generators of electricity as 

well as consumers. Future electric vehicles will be charged through plug-in connections 

managed by home and building automation systems. Utility-scale renewable generation systems 

will require responsive loads to match the fluctuations caused by varying wind and solar 

conditions. Consumers will need access to their own energy consumption data to make informed 

decisions about their energy consuming habits. For all these reasons, research is needed on the 

integration of building systems with the grid to insure the stability and success of the smart grid.

3.4. The Business Case for Sustainability Revisited

The BIRDS software tool provides a snapshot of both environmental performance and economic 

performance of prototypical new building designs. Expansion of the BIRDS analysis strategy to 

existing buildings—both commercial and residential—is underway. Existing buildings represent 

the vast majority of the nation’s building stock. Thus, even modest improvements in these 

buildings’ sustainability can have a major impact. However, additional research on the 

characteristics of existing buildings is needed to insure that the prototypes selected cover a large 

and representative cross-section of the nation’s stock of buildings. The comprehensive 

sustainability performance metrics and database that results will be embodied in a decision 

framework including sustainability measures, codes and standards options, and assessment and 

reporting tools to help building industry stakeholders develop business cases and policies for 

sustainability investment choices. Research is also needed on a user-friendly interface that will 

extend the BIRDS analysis concept to include a design tool for use by architects and engineers. 

A user-based design would allow architects and building designers to test the sustainability of 

their buildings at the early stages of design.

The hybrid approach used in BIRDS includes an input-output matrix of environmental flows 

linked to the National Income and Product Accounts. While the BIRDS tool is clearly a 

construction-related application, the input-output matrix and the associated North American 

Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes included within it permit industry-level analyses 

of industries other than construction to be performed. Current sustainable manufacturing 

research would benefit from a rigorous study of those manufacturing sectors and subsectors that 

represent environmental “hot spots;” these hot spots can subsequently be prioritized with the 

help of industry experts in terms of measurement science needs.

3.5. Interactions between Sustainability and Resilience

Developing and implementing sustainability strategies and improving the disaster resilience of 

communities both require systems-level thinking. Sustainability strategies that improve the 

service life of building materials and components, flexible supply chain management strategies 

for manufacturers, and improvements in the reliability and security of the electric power grid 

may also increase the resilience of communities to natural and man-made disasters. Although 
46

EL is also conducting research on the disaster resilience of communities, there are two promising 

research topics linking sustainability concepts to resilience that would benefit from focused 

research efforts.

Measurement science is needed to ensure sustainable and effective fire prevention, fire 

protection, and fire-fighting. Much of the world is moving towards sustainable construction, 

products, and processes. Green buildings and products, like all others, are subject to fire hazards. 

As the nation considers the disaster resilience of structures and communities, sustainability and 

sustainable solution approaches must be a primary consideration. Research is needed to close 

technical gaps in the interface between established fire safety practices and new “green” building 

technologies by developing test methods to assess green materials, products, and practices in 

terms of fire safety performance. Performance metrics are needed for the new building materials 

and methods with an emphasis on fire safety for green design. Early and reliable detection and 

suppression would reduce fire losses and reduce the risk to fire fighters and building occupants. 

Fire losses impact the building’s carbon footprint which needs to be considered as part of a 

comprehensive analysis of the total social cost of fire. There has been recent public interest in 

the environmental health and safety (EHS) associated with fire retardants in furniture. 

California’s Technical Bulletin 117 (State of California, 2000) flammability standard, the only 

U.S. regulation associated with furniture flammability, has typically been met by adding 

chemical fire retardants. At typical levels, experimental studies indicate that fire retardants 

provide only small improvements in burning behavior. Technical Bulletin 117 was recently 

revised (State of California, 2013). How industry will respond to meet the new test method 

remains to be seen. To address these challenges, new and innovative approaches to reduce 

material and product flammability are needed that carefully consider EHS effects.

As the “smart grid” becomes reality, the amount of distributed energy generation will grow in 

importance and potentially stimulate the creation of microgrids, which are grid architectures that 

can be uncoupled from the main grid and run independently. Microgrids also provide resiliency 

and power quality advantages to consumers and can contribute to overall stability of the grid. 

Future grid architectures involving fleets of stationary microgrids plus tactical mobile microgrids 

can play a critical role during disaster response involving wide-area electricity outages by 

enabling individual microgrids to continue to operate or to be brought back up before 

transmission lines and substations are restored. An important issue underlying the evolution of 

the smart grid is the way in which energy transfers back into the grid are compensated. Research 

is needed on this “transactive energy” aspect of the smart electric power grid to insure 

compensation to consumers and the return on investment to energy providers is fair and 

equitable.

4. Conclusion

This paper summarizes key elements of EL’s sustainability-related research. Particular emphasis 

is placed on the business case for sustainability and how the various EL research efforts provide 

the scientific and technical underpinnings for improvements in the sustainability of buildings, 

manufactured products, and manufacturing processes. The paper builds on those topics to 

highlight EL’s vision for the future. Finally, the paper opens the door for learning how the 

results of the June 12-13, 2014 workshop will help shape EL’s vision and provide insights to 
47

other key industry stakeholders on potential opportunities for their sustainability-related 

research, development, and deployment efforts.

5. References

American Society of Heating Refrigeration and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE), 2011. 

ANSI/ASHRAE/IES/USGBC Standard 189.1-2011, Standard for the Design of HighPerformance Green Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings. Atlanta, GA: 

American Society of Heating Refrigeration and Air-Conditioning Engineers.

Chin, J.W., Byrd, E., Embree, E., Garver, J., Dickens, B., Finn, T., Martin, J., 2004. “Accelerated 

UV Weathering Device Based on Integrating Sphere Technology,” Review of Scientific 

Instruments, 75(11):4951-4959.

Kneifel, J.D., 2013. Benefits and Costs of Energy Standard Adoption in New Commercial 

Buildings: State-by-State Summaries, NIST Special Publication 1165. Gaithersburg, MD: 

National Institute of Standards and Technology.

Lippiatt, B.C., 2013. “Science-Based Metrics for Product Sustainability Assessment,” in Treatise 

on Sustainability Science and Engineering, Jawahir, I.S., S.K. Sikdar, and Y. Huang (eds.). 

New York: Springer.

National Institute of Standards and Technology, 2013a. Measurement Science Roadmap for 

Metal-Based Additive Manufacturing. Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards and 

Technology.

National Institute of Standards and Technology, 2013b. Strategic R&D Opportunities for the 

Smart Grid: Advancing Measurement Science and Standards for Smart Grid Technologies. 

Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology.

National Science and Technology Council (NSTC), 2008. Federal Research and Development 

Agenda for Net-Zero Energy, High-Performance Green Buildings. Washington, DC: 

National Science and Technology Council, Committee on Technology, Subcommittee on 

Building Technology Research and Development.

Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), 2013. Expanded “Green Button” Will Reach 

Federal Agencies and More American Energy Consumers. Washington, DC: The White 

House, Office of Science and Technology Policy.

Science and Technology Policy Institute (STPI), 2010. White Papers on Advanced 

Manufacturing Questions. Washington, DC: Institute for Defense Analyses.

Suh, S., and Lippiatt, B.C., 2012. “Framework for Hybrid Life Cycle Inventory Databases: A 

Case Study of the Building for Environmental and Economic Sustainability (BEES) 

Database,” International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 17:604-612.

Suh, S., Tomar, S., Leighton, M., Kneifel, J., 2014. “Environmental Performance of Green 

Building Code and Certification Systems,” Environmental Science & Technology, 

48(5):2551-2560.

State of California, 2000. Requirements, Test Procedure and Apparatus for Testing the Flame 

Retardance of Resilient Filling Materials Used in Upholstered Furniture, Technical Bulletin 

117. North Highlands, CA: Department of Consumer Affairs.

State of California, 2013. Requirements, Test Procedure and Apparatus for Testing the Smolder 

Resistance of Materials Used in Upholstered Furniture, Technical Bulletin 117-2013. 

Sacramento, CA: Department of Consumer Affairs.

The University of Texas at Austin, 2009. Roadmap for Additive Manufacturing: Identifying the 

Future of Freeform Processing. Austin, TX: The University of Texas at Austin.
48

[This page is internationally left blank]
49

Colker, Ryan M., National Institute of Building Sciences

Achieving High-Performance Buildings: Metrics, Data and Tools

Abstract

Buildings are a significant element of the national economy and a significant user of natural 

resources. They also support numerous other high-performance attributes. Understanding the 

interactions and synergies across these attributes is important to realization of owner, occupant 

and community goals. Having tools to assist in optimizing and integrating these attributes is 

essential. Some tools already exist and additional ones are emerging. However, only through a 

concerted focus on holistic approaches that address both design and performance can 

sustainability and resilience goals be achieved. Interoperability across existing and new data sets 

will be essential to unlocking the value of such information and facilitate understanding of 

synergies. Investment in metrics, tools and technologies by federal agencies and building 

industry participants is required.

Keywords

High-performance, interoperability, Building Information Modeling (BIM), decision support, 

off-site construction, energy/water nexus

1. Introduction to High Performance

Buildings are a significant element of the national economy responsible for over $1 trillion of the 

nation's gross domestic product (GDP) and over 5.5 million jobs (BEDB 2011). They are also 

responsible for a large proportion of the nation's resource use—forty-one percent of all primary 

energy use, 70 percent of all electricity use, and 10 percent of national water use (BEDB 2011). 

In addition, the commercial building stock alone is responsible for carbon emissions that equal 

those produced by the entire economies of Canada and Mexico combined. However, 

sustainability and efficient resource use is not the only priority placed on buildings—they must 

provide safety from hazards, a conducive environment for the activities conducted within them 

and be cost effective for their owners.

The concept of a high-performance building captures all the performance requirements for a 

building and calls for the integration and optimization of such attributes to achieve a building 

that best satisfies the owner's intent and the use of the building. Within the Energy Independence 

and Security Act of 2007 (EISA), the U.S. Congress defined a high-performance buildings as, "A 

building that integrates and optimizes on a life-cycle basis all major high-performance building 

attributes, including energy conservation, environment, safety, security, durability, cost-benefit, 

productivity, functionality and operational consideration" (EISA, 2007). The National Institute of 

Building Sciences (Institute) Whole Building Design Guide (WBDG) provides further 

clarification and implementation strategies including focus on eight high-performance 

attributes—sustainability, safety/security, functionality, historic preservation, accessibility, 

productivity, aesthetics and cost-effectiveness (WBDG, 2014). 

Given the numerous building attributes designers, contractors, owners and operators must 

address along with the goals and requirements provided by federal, state and local governments, 
50

the ability to achieve the desired results is complicated. The availability of metrics, measurement 

protocols and other guidance will be essential to achieve high-performance buildings.

2. Measuring High Performance

The Institute's Consultative Council has been focused on defining high-performance and 

common metrics since 2010. The Council has identified numerous challenges in the quest to 

measuring and demonstrating achievement of high-performance buildings—not the least of 

which is the establishment of a performance results index (PRI), a consistent method for 

evaluating across multiple buildings (Consultative 2011). In establishing such an index, the 

underlying metrics should be consistent and measurable. A potential method for expressing the 

measured results for individual buildings and providing comparisons across buildings is 

illustrated in Figure 1.

However, many of the high-performance building attributes identified by Congress and 

referenced in the WBDG can only be assessed subjectively because there is currently no sciencebased way to evaluate a building’s performance in these areas. Not only does the building 

industry need to understand how to evaluate the subjective criteria, it must establish metrics and 

methods for assessing and labeling when high-performance attributes are achieved, which may 

require subjective evaluation. 

Technical resources and metrics already exist for some performance attributes. However, in other 

cases, additional standards and research are needed to provide the appropriate guidance. To 

measure the achievement of high performance requires having a set of baseline metrics to 

measure against. In some cases, the baseline can be the level of performance arrived at through 

the current building code. In other cases, the baseline could reflect the current performance of an 

existing building. 

This baseline performance level and additional levels of higher performance would reference 

current standards and other criteria as identified in the establishment of the baseline. For levels 

above the baseline, evaluators could use stretch codes and standards or a percentage of 

improvement beyond the current baseline. (Consultative 2012)

The U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) and the Department of Homeland Security 

(DHS) have embraced the concept of high-performance and have supported the development of 

tools that identify metrics and associated standards. GSA's latest update to their overall design 

criteria (P100) shifts from a prescriptive document to one focused on performance in a variety of 

the high-performance attributes (GSA, 2014).

As described by then Commissioner of the Public Buildings Service Dorothy Robyn, "In the 

new, performance-based P100, PBS defines the required end and leaves it to our professional 

partners to determine the best way to achieve it. . .The new P100 is more flexible in other ways 

as well. Whereas the old version specified just the minimum acceptable standard, the new P100 

specifies four acceptable performance levels, or tiers: a mandatory minimum tier and three tiers 

that correspond to increasingly higher levels of performance. This multi-tiered approach provides 

clear, standardized high-performance benchmarks across our portfolio, and allows a project 

manager to optimize desired results given a project’s own unique circumstances (Robyn, 2014)."
51

The methodology used by GSA is now being developed into a guide for use by the private sector. 

The National Performance Based Design Guide (NPBDG) is currently in beta form and currently 

addresses only a few of the high-performance attributes mentioned above (NPBDG, 2014). 

However, it is a first step in attempting to provide guidance and metrics for achieving highperformance.

While the new P100 and the NPBDG are a significant step forward (along with the DHS Owners 

Performance Requirements Tool), the ability to understand and take advantage of synergies 

across approaches to addressing high-performance is lacking. For example, how do decisions 

made that impact the insulation value of the building enclosure impact the ability of the 

enclosure to withstand hazardous events? Identifying and understanding these synergies will 

require additional research and data from actual buildings to provide meaningful results.

Figure 1. Methodology for Expressing Multi-Attribute Performance

3. Interoperability

The building industry has come relatively late to the Information Age. However, the past few 

years have seen a significant expansion in the availability of data and the devices that collect and 

generate such data. Despite this increase in availability of data, the ability to relate data across 

data sets is severely limited. For example, the Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption 

Survey (CBECS) produced by the Energy Information Administration (EIA), which is the most 

comprehensive survey of energy use by the U.S. building stock with information by building 

type and climate zone, cannot be linked with any other data set to potentially understand the 

correlation between building characteristics, energy use and indoor environmental quality or 

response to hazards. The Department of Energy is developing a taxonomy to help address 

interoperability across energy related data sets, but addressing interoperability across highperformance attributes has not yet occurred. 

In a study conducted in 2011, the Institute found that most data sets are inadequate to support 

achievement of high-performance building goals. In addition, it would be beneficial 
52

(both in terms of cost and time) to integrate the datasets that do exist and those developed in the 

future to the extent practical. This would require the development of standards and protocols for 

data collection, data quality, anonymization, metrics and definitions (NIBS, 2011).

While data availability at a macro level is important for understanding the state of the building 

industry at large and its progress toward established goals, data for individual buildings is also 

essential to assisting building owners, operators and designers in meeting both community and 

individual goals. Given the diversity of participants in the design, construction and management 

of buildings, their relationship with data is different—how it is used, how it is collected and how 

it is expressed. However, the value of data increases if it is collected and maintained over time. 

Supporting the interoperability of data across a building's life-cycle and providing access to 

various users at a time and a format that is usable to them is essential to capturing the value of 

data and avoiding inefficiencies associated with multiple rounds of data collection. Tools like 

building information modeling (BIM) can help facilitate interoperability at the individual 

building level.

4. Decision Support and Feedback

While having access to data and metrics around high-performance attributes is important for 

achieving project goals, the ability to make decisions based on such data and metrics is essential. 

However, the diversity of attributes to consider often makes such decisions dizzying. Decision 

support tools can help designers, owners and managers navigate the complex decision making 

process and identify optimum solutions based on the project need. As indicated above, the 

NPBDG is one such tool to facilitate identification of building attributes and assist the design 

team and owners in identifying the ideal outcomes and providing standards to measure such 

outcomes against (see Figure 2 for a sample piece of this resource). 

Utilization of a commissioning process to identify the owner’s performance requirements (OPR) 

and then verify the design and construction process deliver on those requirements is essential. 

When utilized effectively by design teams and owners, this will provide feedback to the design 

and construction team resulting in improved projects that deliver on the goals established at the 

beginning of the project. Today, feedback loops in the design and construction process are 

relatively short—often members of the design and construction team are on to their next project 

with little budget or resources to follow-up on completed projects. However, several changes 

within the industry are starting to drive increased feedback loops including new project delivery 

methods and outcome-based performance requirements. 

While not a decision support tool on its own, BIM is an important tool for facilitating decision 

making and allowing access to consistent information across the project life-cycle—particularly 

if based in open standards of interoperability. BIM must be the center of all high performance 

building projects because it is intended to be the repository of the information that all tools will 

use to optimize the attributes of the whole building (Smith, 2011).

For any decision support tool to be effective in optimizing a building’s performance the project 

owner must shift focus from a first-cost mentality to one based on life-cycle cost of the facility. 

While sustainability (and other high-performance attributes) certainly has a short-term 

component, the realization of many goals occurs in operations over the long-term. Recognizing 
53

these long-term benefits and incorporating them into the initial project decision making is 

essential. Having access data to support such decision making is important and again highlights 

the need for interoperable data sets with utility for a variety of stakeholders in the process (from 

finance and insurance representatives to designers, owners and operators).

Figure 2. Sample of NPBDG Criteria

5. Challenges

Within the building industry, several specific challenges and opportunities have been identified 

that should be addressed to support realization of high-performance building goals. Just a few are 

outlined here. 

5.1. Off-Site Construction

The promise of off-site construction has been discussed within the industry for decades, but its 

use has not taken off as one would expect. Several reasons have been identified—not the least of 

which is the availability of data from an unbiased source on the realization of many of the 

benefits touted for use of such a process. The current focus on sustainability coupled with 

increased pressure on project costs and schedules and the decreasing availability of skilled labor 

appears to indicate a perfect storm resulting in significant uptake in the process. 

The Institute’s newly formed Off-Site Construction Council has undertaken the task of being an 

unbiased resource to help advance achievement of high-performance buildings through the use of 

off-site construction techniques. The Council defines off-site construction as “the planning, 

design, fabrication and assembly of building elements at a location other than their final installed 

location to support the rapid and efficient construction of a permanent structure. Such building 

elements may be prefabricated at a different location and transported to the site or prefabricated 

on the construction site and then transported to their final location. Off-site construction is 

characterized by an integrated planning and supply chain optimization strategy (OSCC, 2014). 

5.2. Energy/Water Nexus

One current area in sustainability where optimization has come to the fore is the energy and 

water nexus. Significant amounts of water are used to generate energy and energy is used to 

procure, treat and pump water. Thermoelectric power generation, for example, accounted for 
54

41% of our nation’s total water withdrawals in 2005, according to the U.S. Geological Survey 

(USGS, 2009). Energy is consumed in the conveyance of water from the source to the point of 

treatment, the treatment process itself, the distribution of water to the point of use, the heating of 

water during use, and the wastewater treatment process. Of the energy consumed in the State of 

California, 19% is consumed in the movement, storage, treatment and heating of water (CEC, 

2005).

Addressing energy and water use holistically is necessary to optimize the reduction in energy 

use. Some research is currently underway in this realm, but it is woefully inadequate given the 

scope of the issue. While the plumbing industry is interested in reducing the quantity of water 

wasted in buildings, little research is being conducted to understand the implication of decreased 

water use on existing plumbing systems and the overall water infrastructure. Re-establishment of 

the plumbing research facility at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) 

would be a valuable step in measurement science and fundamental research in this area.

5.3 Design vs. Performance

The building industry is undergoing a significant transition in how projects are designed and 

delivered. The shift is from a strictly design focused methodology to one focused on providing a 

solid design backed up with effective performance. Numerous shifts are underway to support this 

new paradigm—design processes are becoming more integrated to include members of the 

operations and maintenance staff, contracts with performance requirements are emerging 

(whether as part of public-private partnership or outcome-based performance requirement), 

outcome-based requirements are being incorporated into codes, and standards are increasingly 

focused on performance and not prescriptive requirements.

Achieving a truly sustainable and resilient built environment depends on the actual achievement 

of results and not just an intention during design. Advancing the shift to a performance-based 

design process will require engagement of all building industry participants. Tools to facilitate 

such a transition must be developed and enhanced. This includes modeling tools that are used to 

help inform the design process but do not necessarily translate to actual performance (again 

access to real data will assist in such updates). 

6. Conclusions

Assuring that buildings—both new and existing—meet the variety of requirements placed on 

them by owners, occupants and the communities they serve is a complex task. Understanding 

these various requirements and being able to integrate and optimize them to achieve the desired 

results is necessary. While the desire to integrate and optimize such attributes is growing within 

the industry, the tools, techniques, technologies, metrics and other guidance to make it happen 

has not caught up. Investment in these types of resources by both the public and private sectors is 

essential. 

7. References

Buildings Energy Data Book, 2011. Department of Energy, Washington, DC. 

http://buildingsdatabook.eren.doe.gov/. 

California Energy Commission, 2005. California’s Water – Energy Relationship, Sacramento, 

CA.
55

Consultative Council, 2011. Moving Forward: Findings and Recommendations from the 

Consultative Council, National Institute of Building Sciences, Washington, DC. 

Consultative Council, 2012. Moving Forward: Findings and Recommendations from the 

Consultative Council, National Institute of Building Sciences, Washington, DC.

Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. U.S. Congress, P.L 110-140. 

GSA, 2014. P100: Facilities Standards for the Public Buildings Service, Washington, DC. 

http://gsap100.wbdg.org. 

NIBS 2011. Data Needs for Achieving High-Performance Buildings, Washington, DC.

NPBDG, 2014. National Performance Based Design Guide, National Institute of Building 

Sciences, Washington, DC. http://npbdg.wbdg.org.

Off-Site Construction Council, accessed May 27, 2014. http://www.nibs.org/?page=oscc.

Robyn, D., 2014. PBS Announces New, Performance-based Facilities Standards. GSA blog, 

Washington, DC. http://gsablogs.gsa.gov/gsablog/2014/03/14/pbs-announces-newperformance-based-facilities-standards-affects-all-new-construction-and-major-ra-projects/.

Smith, D.K. and R.M. Colker, 2011, “Why High Performance Buildings Require Building 

Information Modeling,” NEMA electroindustry, August 2011.

USGS, 2009. Estimated Use of Water in the United States in 2005.

WBDG Whole Building Design Guide, accessed May 23, 2014. Whole Building Approach, 

National Institute of Building Sciences. http://wbdg.org/wbdg_approach.php.
56

[This page is internationally left blank]
57

Cross, John, American Institute of Steel Construction LLC

Life Cycle Assessment Valuation: the Economic Precedent

Abstract

The development of a system of metrics for sustainable performance of the built environment is 

a daunting task. Even more daunting is the challenge of integrating the value represented by 

those metrics into the decision process of owners, designers and construction professionals. The 

linkage between definable metrics and the value associated with them must take into account the 

relative value of each impact category and the time spectrum over which they occur. This paper 

suggests that four questions are critical to this process: (1) Are the assessment categories 

currently being used in standard LCA analyses capturing the value difference between products 

flowing through dissimilar supply chains? (2) What common basis of value exists to assess the 

relative value of different environmental impacts? (3) How are impacts allocated over the service 

life of the product and subsequent product lives for recycled products? (4) How are the impacts 

associated with a virgin product transferred to subsequent products when the virgin product no 

longer has economic value? 

Keywords

Life Cycle Assessment, time series, impact categories, allocation

1. Background

The development of a simple system of metrics to measure sustainable performance of the built 

environment is a daunting task. Even more daunting is the challenge of integrating the value 

represented by those metrics into the decision process of project owners, developers, design 

professionals, general contractors, trade contractors and the ultimate occupants of the building. 

The current trend toward the use of Life Cycle Assessments (LCAs) for comparison of 

alternative products within an overall system such as a building in some ways parallels the 

development of current monetary practice related to financial transactions. Even though the 

stated purpose of a LCA is to compare like products (particularly variants of a single product), 

the LCA is being viewed as a means of measuring the relative value of alternative solutions of 

combined product systems or, in particular, one building design containing specific materials and 

products with an alternative building design containing a different set of product and material 

selections. This process is analogous to the economic selection of one product over another 

based on product cost. From a cost or economic perspective, if all else is assumed to be equal 

the less expensive product is chosen.

However, all else is never truly equal. This inevitable inequality between products was 

originally addressed through bartered transactions as an alternative to direct trades. Two 

individuals may have the desire to exchange cows, but what if one cow happens to be older than 

the other cow? The older cow would be of lesser value because of a shorter life span to produce 

milk. Yet both are cows, both are producing milk, both consume equal amounts of feed and both 

weigh the same amount. The solution was to add value to the older cow to compensate for a 

shorter period of milk production. The transaction moved from a simple exchange to a bartered 

transaction in which an old cow and a lamb were exchanged for the younger cow.
58

Over time value was assigned to certain transactional substitutes. The younger cow was no 

longer “priced” in terms of a similar product, but in terms of a measure of a common, valuable 

item that could then be exchanged for other items. Aristotle describe this nearly 3000 years ago:

When the inhabitants of one country became more dependent on those of another, and 

they imported what they needed, and exported what they had too much of, money 

necessarily came into use. For the various necessaries of life are not easily carried about, 

and hence men agreed to employ in their dealings with each other something which was 

intrinsically useful and easily applicable to the purposes of life, for example, iron, silver, 

and the like. Of this the value was at first measured simply by size and weight, but in 

process of time they put a stamp upon it, to save the trouble of weighing and to mark the 

value. 

So a system of currency with a defined metric enabling it to be related to value became a reality.

But soon currency became an economic entity in its own right with an inherent value, not just a 

barter value. Those who lacked currency sold possessions for it, labored to earn it or borrowed 

against a future commitment of repayment to gain it. Those who lent this new currency suddenly 

realized that they could demand more for repayment than the amount they had lent in the original 

transaction and the concept of interest and usury was born. And with it the common financial 

principle popularized today as “a dollar today is not the same as a dollar tomorrow.”

So why this over-simplified economic lesson in a paper dealing with the measurement of 

environmental impacts for sustainable construction? The simple answer is that the current 

process associated with performing LCAs and accounting for comparative environmental 

impacts is still at a stage that is the equivalent of early direct trades. No consistent measures of 

value categories exist. No mechanism exists for assessing the relative value of various impact 

categories. No currency exists to consolidate sustainability related metrics. And, most telling, 

no comprehensive recognition of the time value of the impacts is considered.

2. The Example of Structural Steel

The evaluation of the environmental impacts of structural steel compared to other materials and 

available production methods serves as an interesting illustration of this lack of maturity in the 

LCA process.

Steel is commonly produced through two processes. One process uses a basic oxygen furnace 

(BOF) and utilizes iron ore, coke, limestone and steel scrap as primary feedstock. The steel 

produced by a BOF is considered virgin steel originating from raw materials that are extracted 

through a mining process. The other process uses an electric arc furnace (EAF) to melt steel 

scrap which has been recovered from post-industrial and post-consumer recycling material flows. 

The economic cost of production is not the same for the two processes. The per ton cost of 

producing steel using BOF method is primarily dependent on the capital cost of equipment and 

the cost of labor, iron ore, coke and steel scrap (the steel scrap content of BOF steel is 25% to 

30%). The per ton cost of EAF production is primarily dependent on the capital cost of 

equipment and the cost of labor, steel scrap (the steel scrap content of EAF steel is 90% to 99%) 

and the cost of electricity. In most cases BOF production requires greater man-hours per ton and 
59

the cost of the feedstock materials, while variable, is greater than that of EAF production 

resulting in a lower economic cost of production for EAF material.

The environmental impacts measured on a cradle-to-mill gate basis for the two processes vary

significantly. Carbon equivalent emissions (greenhouse gases) for the BOF process range are 

roughly 2.5 times that of the EAF process. Variations also exist in the other commonly used 

impact categories.

All steel products used in construction (such as structural steel sections, steel deck, reinforcing 

bar, plate and pipe) can be produced using either method of production as can common consumer 

products such as steel cans, packaging, vehicle bodies and appliances. Every steel product must 

meet ASTM grade standards that specify not only minimum and maximum material strength 

parameters but also the metallurgical makeup of the product. As steel products must conform to 

a grade standard that is independent of production method, there is no functional difference 

between products produced using the BOF or EAF method.

All steel mills are product specific even though they can produce that product to the 

requirements of differing ASTM grades. For instance a structural steel mill can produce hotrolled structural sections that meet the requirements of ASTM A36 or ASTM A992, but the same 

mill cannot readily switch from producing hot-rolled structural sections to producing hot-rolled 

coil steel.

At the same time different products have different service lives. This not a function of the 

production method, but rather of the type of product produced. Structural steel sections and 

other steel products used in construction can easily outlast the service life of the building 

structure they are part of – typically assumed to be an average of 60 years. Steel cans made from 

coil steel may have an average service life of less than a single year. Steel used in vehicle 

manufacture survives for the life of the vehicle which on average for light vehicles in the US is 

11.4 years. 

At the end of the useful life of the building or the consumer product, the building is 

deconstructed or the consumer product is disposed of with the steel components entering the 

waste stream. As the waste is collected and processed an attempt is made to recover the steel 

content through magnetic separation and sorting for the purpose of recycling. The recovery rate, 

sometimes referred to as the recycling rate, of the steel varies by product. Construction 

components such as structural sections, deck and piping have a very high recovery rate of 98%, 

while reinforcing steel used in concrete construction has a recovery rate of 70%. The recovery 

rates for consumer products also vary by product type. The recovery rate for steel used in 

automobiles is 93% while the rate for cans is 71%. The recovery rate for a product and the 

ability of that product to be recycled into new steel with no loss of attributes is not a function of 

the process (BOF or EAF) used to produce the steel used in the product. 

Recovered steel from one steel product can serve as the recycled feedstock for a different steel 

product. Shredded automobiles can become hot-rolled structural steel sections. Reinforcing bar 

can become steel coil for appliances. And hot-rolled structural sections can become reinforcing 

bars.
60

In 2013 6.5 million tons of hot-rolled structural steel was produced in the United States. Of 

these 6.5 million tons, 5.5 million tons were used for domestic construction while 1 million tons 

were exported outside the United States. At the same time 400,000 tons of steel were imported 

from foreign structural steel mills. Unlike the rest of the world where structural steel is produced 

by both the BOF and EAF processes, all structural steel produced in the United States is 

produced using the EAF process. In terms of the two production methods 60% of all types of 

steel produced in the US are produced by EAFs while on a global basis only 30% is produced 

using the EAF process.

3. Key Questions

The fact that hot-rolled structural sections are only produced in the US using the EAF process 

with fully recycled feedstock materials (no iron ore, coke or limestone) and very little imported 

BOF product is used in the US raises several issues with LCA comparisons of building framing 

products that are very similar to the early challenges faced by economic transactions:

1. Are the assessment categories currently being used in standard LCA analyses capturing 

the value difference between products flowing through dissimilar supply chains such as 

between virgin products like wood and concrete versus a fully recycled product such as 

hot-rolled structural steel? Is the type of feed consumed by the older cow considered in 

the barter transaction?

2. What common basis of value exists to assess the relative value of different environmental 

impacts? Based on all the factors how many shekels is the younger cow worth? 

3. How are impacts allocated over the service life of the product and subsequent product 

lives for recycled products? How long will the younger cow live and how many calves 

will be produced and how long will the calves live...?

4. How are the impacts associated with a virgin product transferred to subsequent products 

when the virgin product no longer has economic value? How much can a calf be sold for 

in the future and how much is that worth to the seller today?

These questions have been raised and wrestled with over the past several years but no common 

agreement as to their answers has been reached. That is not surprising as our system of currency 

and financial trading has taken millennia to reach its current level of sophistication and 

arguments still occur over exchange rates and the manipulation of national currencies. In a 

sense, the sustainability community is attempting to do in a decade what has taken the economic 

system over 3,000 years to mature into. 

The purpose of this paper is not to answer these four questions, but to posit why answering those 

questions is critical for the proper evaluation of a construction product such as hot-rolled 

structural steel.

Question #1

Are the assessment categories currently being used in standard LCA analyses capturing the value 

difference between products flowing through dissimilar supply chains such as between virgin 

products like wood and concrete versus a fully recycled product such as hot-rolled structural 

steel? 
61

The current assessment categories used in the majority of LCA evaluations include (1) global 

warming potential; (2) ozone depletion; (3) ozone formation; (4) acidification; (5) non-renewable 

energy consumption; and (6) eutrophication. These are important and critical assessment 

categories, but are they the only assessment categories that matter? No, a large number of other 

assessment categories exist as well, including but not limited to: (1) depletion of elemental 

abiotic resources; (2) depletion of fossil abiotic resources; (3) smog; (4) respiratory emissions; 

(5) eco-toxicity; (6) land usage and (7) fresh water consumption. 

These additional categories are not considered in the vast majority of LCA analyses. Why? In 

some cases (smog) they are seen to be only of regional importance or in other cases (land 

resource usage) they are dismissed out of hand by the proponents of virgin material production 

as unquantifiable. While both assumptions are very questionable, it is more important to note 

that the lack of consistent agreement on impact categories will always result in marketplace 

confusion and disagreement between the proponents of various product types.

For example, the strength of recycled products is their limited use of depleteable resources and 

minimal land usage, yet these categories are set aside in favor of the use of a set of “least 

common denominator” categories that focus on the impacts associated with virgin products. It is 

often the case that recycled products have lesser or equal impacts than virgin products in the six 

categories currently being assessed, but the additional, incremental value brought by the recycled 

product is being ignored. The fact is that if all impact categories are not assessed, then the 

“value” of a product cannot be determined. If the “value” cannot be determined, then a 

meaningful product selection decision cannot be made. 

Need #1: Any measurement system put in place for sustainable construction must take into 

account all potential impact assessment categories.

Question #2 

What common basis of value exists to appropriately assess the relative value of different 

impacts? 

The inclusion of a wider group of assessment categories in the LCA process does not mean that 

all assessment categories are to be valued on an equal basis. 

The current trend among proponents of sustainable product selection is to dismiss “single 

attribute” products as unworthy of consideration as a sustainable product simply because they are 

seen as having a single, strong attribute. The statement is often made that steel is not sustainable 

simply because it is recycled and that rating systems and standards should not recognize the use 

of structural steel as making a sustainable contribution to the project. However, the argument is 

misstated. It should not be that about “single attribute” products, but rather about “single 

attribute assessment.”

As an alternative to a “single attribute assessment” model various rating systems, codes and 

standards have attempted to create a more holistic prescriptive approach to attribute assessment. 
62

ASHRAE 189.1 requires that a prescribed percentage of materials and products used in a project 

exceed a minimum of two compliance thresholds. The International Green Construction Code 

creates a meaningless metric using an apples plus oranges plus bananas approach adding up 

items like bio-based content, recycled content, recyclable content and indigenous materials on an 

equal basis to reach a prescribed total. Neither truly evaluates the relative value of each category 

and fails in the attempt to become a poor man’s prescriptive LCA.

But even a LCA fails in this regard. The LCA process assesses the relative impacts of 

comparative products within certain impact categories. It does not provide any mechanism of 

assessing the relative value of each category compared to other categories. In the case of the 

cows this would mean that the difference in age, weight, feed consumption, milk production, 

calving potential and current health would all be valued equally. Clearly that is not the case.

Some systems advocating LCA usage such as LEED V4 have attempted to address this problem 

by requiring that one specific LCA category (global warming potential) show a minimum 10% 

improvement, two other categories also show a minimum 10% improvement and no category 

show more than a 5% degradation. But even this does not reflect an actual weighting of the 

value of individual impact categories but only a statement of their relative priority. 

Need #2: The relative value of environmental impact categories needs to be defined before any 

sustainability “currency” can be coined.

Question #3

How are impacts allocated over the service life of the product and subsequent product lives for 

recycled products? 

This question has two aspects. 

The first is the comparison of the embodied environmental impacts of comparative products over 

the life of the building of which they are a part. This issue has been addressed to a certain extent 

by considering the overall impact of the product to include not only the embodied impacts but 

also the impacts that would be associated with the maintenance and replacement of the product if 

the life of the expected life of the product is less than the service life of the building. However, a 

critical consideration has been ignored in that future impacts are assessed the same as current 

impacts. There is no time value associated with environmental impacts. In financial terms, 

environmental impacts are not present-valued or future-valued. 

This is a complex issue. Is it better to have significant environmental impacts at the front end of 

a building’s service life with no future impacts due to a lack of need for maintenance or 

replacement or to spread out the environmental impacts of required maintenance and 

replacement activities over the service life of the building? Is it better to emit 50 tons of CO2e in 

the production of the material used in the project and have no additional material related 

emissions over a 60 year service life or to emit 20 tons of CO2e in the production of a different 

material, but anticipate maintenance and replacement activity every 10 years that would generate 

an additional 5 tons of CO2e per cycle? 
63

The second aspect of this question is particularly applicable to recycled products such as 

structural steel. Under current LCA methodologies either a credit or a burden is added to the 

cradle-to-mill gate environmental impacts to account for the reuse of previously produced steel. 

Virgin steel produced in a BOF receives a credit while steel produced from recycled feedstock in 

an EAF is assessed a burden. The calculation methodology is a bit obtuse but the end result is 

that the difference between the environmental impacts of the BOF and EAF processes are 

amortized over the expected life of the steel in the product based on the recovery rate of that 

product. For example (and the actual calculation methodology will provide slightly different 

results) if the difference between average BOF production and EAF production in terms of 

greenhouse gases is 1.4 tons of CO2e per ton of steel then that 1.4 tons of CO2e would be 

assessed as a burden to the EAF product but amortized over the number of times the virgin steel 

in the product would be recycled. 

For structural steel the recovery rate is 98%. That means 2% of the virgin steel is lost each time 

the product is recycled or, looking at it from the other perspective, the product would travel 

through 50 product cycles before all of the original virgin steel would be lost.

The critical question is whether this level amortization of impacts is an appropriate approach for 

assessing environmental impacts or whether there needs to be some form of present-valuing 

these future impacts. A dollar today is not the same as a dollar tomorrow.

Need #3: A time-value based methodology of combining present environmental impacts with 

future environmental impacts needs to be developed.

Question #4

How are the environmental impacts of a virgin product transferred to subsequent products when 

the virgin product no longer has economic value? 

Closely related to the discussion in question #3 is the issue of determining what portion of the 

environmental impacts of a virgin product should be transferred down the chain to subsequent 

products made from material recycled from the original product.

The assumption of the current methodology used by metal producing industries is that the 

production of a product from recycled scrap simply displaces the production of that same product 

from virgin material. Therefore the relative value in terms of environmental impacts is that the 

virgin product and subsequent products are equal. When considering steel this may be the case 

when the product supply chain for the specific product contains both BOF and EAF produced 

products. But if the supply chain for the specific product is solely based on recycled steel 

feedstock and adequate scrap exists to maintain production through only using EAFs then this 

assumption is not valid as no displacement of virgin product occurs. Such is the case of 

domestically produced and consumed hot-rolled structural steel sections.

In addition, no steel product is produced for the sole purpose of being recycled into another steel 

product. Each steel product is produced based on the economic incentive of selling that 
64

particular product at a profit without concern for its future economic value as scrap. For the 

purchaser of the product the real cost of the product may be the current cost of the product less 

the present value of the scrap value of the product at the end of its life, but that is not the 

producer’s economic justification for the original production of the product.

The answer to this issue of assessing environmental impacts associated with virgin production 

has two extremes. At one end of the spectrum all impacts associated with the production of the 

virgin product are assigned to the virgin product. At the other end of the spectrum, the virgin 

product is treated simply as an equal in a series of product cycles. Neither extreme seems 

appropriate. One potential answer may be based in factoring in the marketplace demand for the 

scrap material at the end of the product’s life and allocating virgin impacts between initial and 

subsequent products based on the ratio of the product’s selling price to the value of the scrap at 

the end of life. 

Need #4: A methodology needs to be determined to equitably allocate environmental impacts 

between virgin production and subsequent recycled material based production.

4. Conclusions

The monetary system that supports the trading of goods and services has evolved and matured 

over several millennia. It is not surprising that the development of a functional system of 

assessing metrics relating to the new economy of sustainability is still a future, yet critical goal. 

Any such system must take into account the full spectrum of environmental impacts, the relative 

value of those impacts, the time value of those impacts and address the economic distinction 

between virgin and recycled material production.

5. References

American Institute of Steel Construction, 2014. Structural Steel: An Industry Overview.

American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc., 2011. 

ANSI/ASHRAE/USGB/IES Standard 189.1-2011, Standard for the Design of High-Performance 

Green Buildings.

Aristotle (384 BC – 322 BC). Politics, Book 1.

International Building Council, 2012. International Green Construction Code.

United States Green Building Council, 2013. LEED Version 4.
65

Davidson, Cliff I., Syracuse University, and Shahzeen Z. Attari, Indiana University 

Metrics of Sustainability in Human Development:

How Well Do People Understand the Impacts of their Activities?

Abstract

In this paper, we apply the results of current research to point out the importance of developing 

metrics for how well people understand the impacts of their daily activities and household 

decisions. The research shows that people generally have a poor understanding of their impacts 

related to energy use and energy savings. Overall, people underestimate the amount of energy 

they use and energy they could save by a factor of 2.8. Furthermore, the underestimate is greatest 

for use of appliances with the highest energy consumption. These findings suggest that additional 

research on metrics of people’s understanding of their own impacts is important, along with 

research on what can be done to educate people and help them change habits that run counter to 

societal transition toward sustainability.

Keywords

Behavior, decision heuristics, energy, households, impacts, metrics

1. Background

Current methods of constructing buildings and infrastructure as well as modern manufacturing 

operations are known to be unsustainable. In particular, we know that continuing with “business 

as usual” activities will increase risks of various types. Rising prices of many building materials, 

eroding coastlines, and more frequent flooding due to stronger storms and increasing area of 

impermeable surfaces are all evidence of these risks. Such observations have accelerated interest 

in measuring society’s move toward sustainability. Yet quantitative measures of change toward a 

more sustainable state are still in the early stages of development.

One area critically important to societal change toward sustainability is human behavior. Any 

movement in the direction of a more sustainable society will require changes in behavior: people 

are likely to have smaller living spaces, fewer personally owned household appliances, and 

shorter distances to school, shopping, work, and play. Making the transition is expected to be 

difficult: people are naturally resistant to change, especially change that they don’t understand 

and may strongly disagree with.

To make progress on enabling societal change, we need metrics of what people understand and 

what they don’t understand about the impacts of their activities. This is a necessary first step in 

making preparations for the difficult decisions ahead when change will become a necessity. In 

this paper, we begin by defining types of metrics of sustainability to provide a context for the 

unconventional metrics we describe related to human behavior. We then apply data from current 

research to assist in suggesting future work related to measuring people’s understanding of how 

their personal decisions and activities impact environmental, economic, and social sustainability.
66

2. Types of Sustainability Metrics

According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2003), we move toward greater 

sustainability when we “maintain or improve the material and social conditions for human health 

and the environment over time without exceeding the ecological capabilities that support them.” 

Note that “sustainability” is a long-term goal, while “sustainable development” is the process of 

moving toward that goal (Clift, 2000).

One study of sustainability proposed four categories of systems for which the assessment of 

sustainability can be applied (Sikdar, 2003). Type I refers to Global Systems, where problems of 

climate change, the ozone hole, world-wide resource shortages, and other global-scale problems 

exist. Type II focuses on regional systems. The regions of interest can be defined by natural 

boundaries such as ecosystems or watersheds, or they can be defined by human boundaries such 

as cities or countries. Type III considers sustainability at the company scale, addressing use of 

resources and production of wastes by individual firms. Finally, Type IV considers the 

sustainability of specific products and technologies, even though their effects may involve spatial 

scales larger than their immediate surroundings due to extensive supply chains, long-distance 

shipping, and widespread transport of wastes.

In addition to varying spatial scales, sustainability can be characterized by the number of 

dimensions a metric refers to. Figure 1 illustrates the three dimensions of sustainability, showing 

the economic, environmental, and societal aspects.

Some metrics are strictly one-dimensional. The attitude of a supervisor toward his or her 

employees is an issue in social sustainability, while the number of years a company has been 

operating at a profit is a measure of economic sustainability. On the other hand, consider a 

manufacturing process where water is a necessary input, and the output wastewater must be 

treated before release to the environment. The amount of water used to manufacture each product 

can be considered a metric of sustainability of the process. The amount of water used per product 

has an economic impact on the company, both from purchasing the water and from treating the 

wastewater. But in addition, the extent of treatment (or lack of treatment) can have an effect on 

the receiving waters and could possibly cause environmental damage. Therefore this is a twodimensional metric. Another example of a two-dimensional metric is the cost of manufacturing a 

product. This cost affects both its purchase price on the open market and the economic viability 

of the company. Since the purchase price of the product influences who can afford to buy it, the 

cost of manufacturing a product has both economic and social sustainability implications. Figure 

2 shows the possible 2-D interactions.

Some metrics encompass all three dimensions. The amount of fossil fuel used over a period of 

time is a key driver of our economy, and it impacts the environment through pollutant emissions 

as well as the release of carbon. But in addition, the supply of fossil fuels is finite, and our 

continued use is likely to affect the amount of non-renewable energy available for future 

generations which impacts social sustainability. Similarly, the amount of a metal used in 

manufacturing, e.g., copper, is also a three-dimensional metric for the same reasons. By 

extension, we reason that the amount of any non-renewable resource used over a period of time

is a three-dimensional metric
67

Figure 1. The Three Dimensions of Sustainability

Figure 2. Two-Dimensional and Three-Dimensional Metrics of Sustainability

3. Metrics Related to Human Understanding

Human behavior is the key determinant of moving toward or away from sustainability in all three 

dimensions. Economic sustainability is influenced by an individual’s career choices, purchasing 

decisions, and financial investments. Social sustainability is determined in part by how people 

interact with others, how they participate as members of organizations, and what decisions are 

made by the leadership of organizations. And environmental sustainability is a direct result of 

lifestyle decisions such as where to live, what form of transportation to use, what to buy, and 

how to spend free time. But how well do people understand the influence of their actions on 

sustainability? We can get a rough idea by examining people’s perceptions of one activity, 

namely their use of energy. Energy use is one of the key factors affecting sustainability: most 

forms of energy involve combustion of hydrocarbons which impacts climate change, and current 

energy use is dominated by non-renewable hydrocarbon sources. Relevant to the theme of this 

workshop, the construction industry uses large amounts of energy in constructing buildings and 

infrastructure; cement production accounts for about 5% of the total global carbon dioxide 

emissions (World Resources Institute, 2014). Furthermore, the design of buildings has a major 

effect on their use of energy for space heating and cooling over their lifetime. Thus metrics of 

Environmental

Sustainability

Economic 

Sustainability

Social 

Sustainability

Economic 

Environmental Social

Ecoefficiency

2-D 

SocioEconomic

2-D 

Socioecological

2-D 

Sustainable

3-D
68

people’s understanding of their energy use are of considerable value in knowing how to design 

buildings and infrastructure for a sustainable future.

Attari et al. (2010) conducted a national on-line survey of perceptions of energy use and energy 

savings from a variety of devices and activities. Since this workshop is concerned with 

construction and manufacturing, we focus on results of the survey related to building heating and 

cooling as well as use of household appliances. Subjects were asked to estimate the energy used 

by appliances, and additionally were asked to estimate the energy saved by household activities. 

The questions related to energy used by appliances were as follows (partial list):

“A 100-watt incandescent light bulb uses 100 units of energy in one hour. How many units of 

energy do you think each of the following devices typically uses in one hour?”

 A compact fluorescent light bulb that is as bright as a 100-watt incandescent light bulb

 An electric clothes dryer

 A portable heater

 A room air conditioner

 A central air conditioner

 A dishwasher

The questions related to energy saved by household activities were as follows (partial list):

“Turning off a 100-watt incandescent light bulb for one hour saves 100 units of energy. How 

many units of energy do you think each of the following changes will save?”

 Replacing one 100-watt incandescent bulb with equally bright compact fluorescent bulb 

that is used for one hour would reduce energy use by how many units?

 Replacing one 100-watt kitchen bulb with a 75-watt bulb that is used for one hour would 

reduce energy use by how many units?

 Drying clothes on a clothes line (not using the dryer) for one load of laundry would 

reduce energy use by how many units?

 In the summer: turning up the thermostat on your air conditioner (making your home 

warmer) by 5oF for one hour would reduce energy use by how many units?

 In the winter: turning down the thermostat on your heater (making your home cooler) by 

5oF for one hour would reduce energy use by how many units?

 Changing washer temperature settings from “hot wash, warm rinse” to “warm wash, cold 

rinse” for one load of laundry would reduce energy use by how many units?

The results for these twelve questions from the survey of Attari et al. (2010) are shown in Figure 

3. Note that accurate perceptions would follow the dashed line with a 45o slope. The perceptions 

of energy used or saved for devices and activities with low energy consumption (light bulbs, 

changes in summer thermostat) are not far from the true average values. However, perceptions 

for higher energy devices such as air conditioners, washers, dryers and dishwashers are 

significantly underestimated. In fact, the perceptions of energy used or saved from all devices 

and behaviors in the original study were low by a factor of 2.8 compared to the true values. 

Attari et al. hypothesize that the shape of the curve could be due in part to two possible heuristics 

for thought processes. The first is the “availability heuristic” (Tversky and Kahneman, 1973), a 

judgment process in which the frequency of an event is judged according to the ease with which 
69

specific instances of the event come to mind, e.g., extreme weather events. It is assumed that 

similar thought processes apply to judging the amount of energy used or saved from these 

devices and activities. The second is the “anchoring and adjustment heuristic” (Tversky and 

Kahneman, 1974), in which an individual starts at a reference value or “anchor,” in this case a 

100-watt incandescent bulb, and then adjusts his or her judgment in the desired direction. The 

adjustment is usually smaller than it needs to be, and hence the individual overestimates values at 

the low end and underestimates values at the high end, resulting in a curve which is “flatter” than 

it should be. Such a trend is seen in Figure 3.

Winter thermostat

Space heater

Room AC

Dishwasher

Actual energy used (Wh)

Central AC

CFL

Dryer

Replace incandescent

with CFL

Lower wattage bulb

Summer thermostat

Line-dry

clothes

Washer

temperature

setting

Figure 3. Results of the Survey of Attari et al. (2010) [in which subjects were asked to estimate 

the amount of energy used by various devices and the amount of energy saved by certain 

activities. Average values from the published literature, assumed to be “true” values, are shown 

on the x-axis, while average values from responses to the survey (N = 505) are shown on the yaxis. All values are given in watt hours]
70

4. Discussion and Conclusions

The results of the Attari et al. (2010) survey suggest that people are likely to have only limited 

understanding of their energy use as they go about their daily activities. Even those individuals 

who desire to reduce their energy consumption may be unaware of how to do so effectively. 

Additionally, recent work shows that people also have limited understanding of water use

(Attari, 2014), where water use is underestimated by a factor of 2 on average with large 

underestimates for high water use activities. Thus, we suspect that individuals also have limited 

knowledge of how they can reduce material use, emissions of carbon, and in general how to 

adjust their lifestyles to become more sustainable.

Metrics of people’s understanding or lack of understanding of the effects of day-to-day activities 

are thus shown to be important. Making progress on sustainability is likely to be enhanced by a 

combination of public education about impacts of devices and activities as well as education 

about ways to reduce these impacts. This has implications for the construction and 

manufacturing industries. People may be more willing to live and work in buildings that are less 

material, water, and energy-intensive if they are aware of the benefits associated with such 

buildings. They may also be willing to change their activities in buildings if they realize that 

such changes will reduce the use of materials, water, and energy. The same is true for 

manufactured products: people may desire to change their buying habits toward more sustainable 

products.

However, it must be cautioned that making changes in daily activities is known to be difficult for

people, even those who want to change (Attari et al., 2011). The force of habit can be extremely 

strong. Research is needed not only on metrics of human behavior that influence sustainability, 

but also on ways to encourage change and achieve long-term stability in lifestyles that are more 

sustainable than at present. 

5. References

Attari, S. Z. (2014). “Perceptions of water use,” Proceedings of the National Academy of 

Sciences, Vol. 111(14), pp. 5129-5134.

Attari, S.Z., Michael L. Dekay, Cliff I. Davidson, and Wandi Bruine de Bruin, 2010. “Public 

Perceptions of Energy Consumption and Savings,” Proceedings of the National Academy of 

Sciences, Vol. 107(37), pp. 16054-16059.

Attari, S.Z., Michael L. Dekay, Cliff I. Davidson, and Wandi Bruine de Bruin, 2011. “Changing 

Household Behaviors to Curb Climate Change: How Hard Can It Be?,” Sustainability, The 

Journal of Record, Vol. 4(1), pp. 9-11.

Chapman, G. and E. Johnson, 2002. Incorporating the Irrelevant: Anchors in Judgments of Belief 

and Value, in Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment, T. Gilovich, D. 

Griffin, and D. Kahneman, editors, Cambridge University Press, New York, pp. 120-138.

Clift, R., 2000. Forum on Sustainability, Clean Products, and Processes, Volume 2(1), p. 67, 

Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany, May.

Sikdar, Subhas, 2003. “Journey toward Sustainable Development: A Role for Chemical 

Engineers,” Environmental Progress, Volume 22(4), pp. 227-232.
71

Tversky, A. and D. Kahneman, 1973. “Availability: A Heuristic for Judging Frequency and 

Probability,” Cognitive Psychology, Vol. 5(2), pp. 207-232.

Tversky, A. and D. Kahneman, 1974. “Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases,” 

Science, Vol. 185, pp. 1124-1131.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2003. National Risk Management Research Laboratory, 

Cincinnati, Ohio.

World Resources Institute, http://www.wri.org/search/site/cement, Accessed May 2014.
72

[This page is internationally left blank]
73

Dise, David E., Rassa Davoodpour, and Eric R. Coffman, Montgomery County, Maryland

Vegetative Roofs and Rainwater Harvesting Systems on Montgomery 

County, Maryland Facilities - Long Term Data Needs

Abstract

Montgomery County, like many major jurisdictions is subject to stringent federal regulations 

under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). These requirements are 

enforced through the Municipal Separate Storm System (MS4) Permit. In addition, the County 

has implemented a series of local legislative mandates to expand green building in the public and 

private sectors. To comply with these local needs, Montgomery County has opted to implement 

extensive efforts to control storm water on-site and improve the quality of effluent. The County 

has incorporated vegetative roofs into many building designs. The County’s flagship is the 

Equipment Maintenance and Transit Operations Center (EMTOC) includes over 4 acres of 

vegetative roof, much of which is connected to water recovery systems. Through the process, the 

County encountered numerous regulatory barriers to implementing these cutting edge systems. 

Furthermore, as a public entity, additional research from federal and other unbiased credible 

organizations will help bolster the business case for future vegetative roofs.

Keywords

Green Roof, International Plumbing Code, Water Reuse, Social Cost of Carbon, Vegetative roof, 

water conservation, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)

1. Background

In 2006, Montgomery County implemented a series of regulations to expand green building 

practices across the community. Specifically, requiring new and renovated private buildings over 

10,000 square feet to achieve certified under the United States Green Building Council (USGBC) 

Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) rating system or equivalent. A key part 

of this package focused on leadership of government agencies through higher standards (LEEDSilver) for facilities substantially funded through local public funds. 

Simultaneously, the County is facing one of the most aggressive MS4 permits in the Country. 

The County’s permit requires a series of management practices to reduce the volume and 

improve the quality of effluent from non-point sources into the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. 

Between regulation of new construction and the requirements of the permit, the application of 

LEED in the County has shifted from the more typical approach to one focused on both energy 

and sustainable sites as local priorities.

The Montgomery County Department of General Services (DGS) has included vegetative roofs, 

storm water capture and reuse into a number of its key facilities. One of the most advanced is the 

County’s Equipment Maintenance and Transit Operations Center (EMTOC). EMTOC is a 

collection of thirty buildings. EMTOC is a cornerstone of the County’s Smart Growth Initiative 

and was designed to address the needs of the County’s public transportation network for decades 

into the future. As a whole the County has installed many vegetative roofing systems including 
74

additional systems located at White Oak Recreation Center, a New Animal Shelter. Vegetative 

roofing systems are part of most upcoming County projects.

2. Equipment Maintenance and Transportation Operations Center

EMTOC was designed to achieve LEED Gold and among other energy saving and 

environmentally preferable features includes 4 acres of vegetated roof. The County’s decided to 

install a vegetated roof to address multiple environmental challenges faced by the surrounding 

community including reducing energy consumption, reducing the amount of storm water that 

flows into the County’s watershed, reusing captured water to reduce the need for water and 

sewer. The County believes using purified potable water for purposes like flushing toilets is a 

waste of a valuable resource. Treated rainwater harvesting system and proper use of it allows 

reduction in storm water runoff and associated pollution and supports the Environmental Site 

Design (ESD) mandates for a comprehensive approach to planned developments. This minimizes 

the impact on streams, rivers and the Chesapeake Bay. 

2.1. Description of System 

Extensive vegetated roofs are designed to be lightweight and maximize the performance and 

environmental benefits a green roof produces. EMTOC’s system features a layer of growing 

media that is 6-inches deep or less and has simple irrigation and drainage systems. Vegetated 

roofs slow and reduce runoff from rainfall. As storm water filters through the soil and is taken in 

through plant root systems, pollutants are absorbed reducing the volume of pollutants that enter 

nearby streams. Water that is not used by the roof plants or released to the atmosphere is filtered 

and is to a Rain Water Harvesting System (RWHS) for flushing toilets, hose bibs, and washing 

buses. The cost of constructing the vegetated roof and rainwater harvesting system was 

approximately $2,000,000 and approximately $5,000 in maintenance costs annually. The system 

is expected to reduce water consumption 30 to 40%.

2.2. Results

EMTOC’s RWHS is designed to meet the MDE Class IV water quality requirements including 

the requirements listed in Tables 1 and 2 with turbidity shown in Figure 1.
75

Table 1. Targeted Requirements

Standard Criteria Design Approach Preliminary 

Results (April 

Sample)

Biological Oxygen 

Demand (BOD)

10 

milligram/liter

Filtration system will remove 

particulate matter down to 10 

microns.

UV filter is expected to address 

any remaining organic material.

None Detected

Suspended Solids or 

Nephelometic 

Turbidity (NTU)

2 NTU average 

daily/ no to 

exceed 4 NTU

Green roof will filter out 

significant particulates. 

Cascade facilities will remove 

debris above 280 microns

Porous filter will remove debris 

to 10 microns

2 to 6 NTU with 

several spikes.

E. Coli Most 

Probable Number

0 Eradicated by UV filter < 1 Most 

Probable 

Number

Total Nitrogen 10 

milligram/liter

Not expected to be exceeded 

based on design. Remote 

monitoring installed.

0.7 

milligram/liter

Total Residual 

Chlorine

0.5 to 4 

milligram/liter

Chlorine may be introduced 

from flushing due to municipal 

water supply.

Not expected to exceed 0.5 mg/l

0.7 

milligram/liter

Table 2. Maintenance Requirements

Monthly Quarterly Semi Annually Annually

Monitor

E Coli

PH

Nitrogen

Residual Chlorine

Nuisance Impacts

Weeding

Pruning

Inspect and wash 

cascade filters

Inspect storage tanks

Inspect and clear 

debris from roof 

drains

Inspect and clear 

debris from roofs

Service ultraviolet 

light filter

Inspect controls for 

function

Inspect pumps, valves 

for function

Inspect signage

Conduct cross 

connection/backflow 

prevention inspection.
76

Figure 1. Total Dissolved Solids vs. Rainfall Volume

3. Challenges and Research Needs

Montgomery County’s experience with vegetative roofs and water reuse systems have been 

positive and the business case has been bolstered by strong regulatory drivers such as the MS4 

permit combined with relatively high energy and water costs. Montgomery County has 

encountered several issues with vegetative roofs and water reuse systems that inhibit 

deployment. These include (1) regulatory issues and (2) quantifying the full range of benefits 

that accrue over the life of a system.

3.1. Regulatory Issues

Awareness of local water, sewer and permitting authorities is a key challenge to implementing 

vegetative roofs coupled with rainwater harvesting systems. Montgomery County, in the design 

of the project had to pursue an extensive waiver process with the local water and sewer authority, 

specifically the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission (WSSC). The WSSC Plumbing and 

Fuel Gas Code did not recognize non-potable water use. As the authority responsible for the 

public potable water system, WSSC’s interest in ensuring reasonable standards was 

understandable. As a follow-up WSSC requested that the County provides extensive 

performance data to qualify for a waiver. Ultimately, WSSC amended the locally adopted 

plumbing code to include specific standards for certain non-potable water systems but other 

communities certainly struggle with the same issues. Federal research efforts could help collect 

and disseminate data on the safety and performance of non-potable water systems, particularly 

those systems coupled with vegetative roofing systems. Centralizing data from existing systems 

and use this results of these existing systems to justify streamlining of the International Plumbing 
77

Code and local codes to ensure reasonable requirements and clear processes for installing similar 

systems. 

3.2. Social Cost of Carbon

In May 2014, Montgomery County became the first community in the nation to incorporate the 

social cost of carbon into calculations related to the energy consumption of planned public 

buildings and energy savings projects. Under the legislation, for all new capital improvement 

projects and retrofits, the County will need to estimate the social cost of carbon implications of 

both facility energy consumption as well as mitigation measures such as energy efficiency and 

renewable energy projects. The County is currently developing its administrative procedures to 

estimate the impacts of carbon from energy consumption and the impact avoided through energy 

efficiency projects. Reliable models of green roof performance will be essential to advancing the 

accuracy of these calculations.

3.3. Assessment of Air Quality Benefits

On-site energy savings from a green roof are relatively easy to estimate using conventional 

energy modeling and monitoring techniques. Similarly, translating water savings to energy 

savings due to reduced potable water use can be estimated with reasonable accuracy. However, 

while some work has been completed highlighting the direct air quality benefits due to nitrogen 

uptake of green roofs. 

3.4. Solar Integration

Green roofs and solar photovoltaic systems often compete for the same roof space, specifically 

large, flat roofs capable of supporting significant weight. Few studies have been published that 

evaluate the relative total societal benefit to help designers choose between these two 

technologies. Also data identifying performance changes in both the green roof and solar 

photovoltaic system, when co-located would help drive synergies between these technologies. 

3.5. Amenity Value on a Community Scale

Green roofs influence resident perceptions of their community; the value of this is not well 

understood. Collecting data on resident, business and other community perceptions in 

communities with a large density of green roofs, combined with those without would help 

expand interest in scaling up deployment.

3.6. Green Roofs and Wildlife Interactions

Many communities have struggled with wildlife interactions with green roofing infrastructure. 

Often interactions are positive with the roof providing habitat for various species. However, 

occasionally vegetative roofs attract wildlife that are a local nuisance or degrade green roof 

performance (e.g., increase fecal matter impacting E.Coli levels) Mitigation and deterrents are 

well studied. However, efforts to design green roofs to attract desirable or native wildlife are not 

well understood. Tracking the density of rare birds, pollinating insects, or other biological 

indicators may help justify advanced green roofs using native plans to preserve biodiversity.

4. Conclusion

Vegetative roofs and water reuse systems are becoming more common on local government and 

private buildings. However, additional research is needed to ensure regulatory barriers can be 

resolved in a timely manner that addresses concerns about non-potable water. In addition, 

additional quantification in both environmental benefits, particularly air quality and carbon, 

along with fair economic valuation would help ameliorate regulatory and budget barriers.
78

5. References

Montgomery County Council Bill 5-14 Social Cost of Carbon.

Clark C., Adriaens P., Talbot B., Green Roof Valuation: A Probabilistic Economic Analysis of 

Environmental Benefits.
79

Eckelman, Matthew J., and David Fannon, Northeastern University

Information Barriers and Enablers for 

Sustainable Buildings and Construction

Abstract

New modeling capabilities and standardization of data formats and reporting protocols is helping 

to increase the availability of performance information for those who design, construct, operate, 

and own buildings. Whole-building assessments that examine multiple indicators of 

performance using a life cycle paradigm are now common, but are still limited to single 

buildings. Widespread use of these tools will require efforts to overcome the many barriers that 

remain to effective monitoring and dissemination of building data, particularly during 

construction. These include an exclusive focus on cost, mismatches in incentives to track and 

report material and energy use, and the very structure of project delivery methods. At the same 

time, the development of open platforms for building data coupled with reporting requirements 

serve to increase our knowledge of building performance and improve design and operation. 

Several research areas are suggested, including adapting lessons from sustainable manufacturing.

Keywords

Building informatics, life cycle, green building standards, open data, performance metrics

1. Background

This is a transformative time in the assessment of sustainable buildings and construction. Many 

technologies and policies are coming online that could enable rapid, high-fidelity assessment of 

building sustainability; from materials to construction processes to building performance. There 

is ample opportunity to improve the quality and utility of building assessments by providing 

more location or building-specific information over a wider range of metrics more quickly than 

can has been done up to this point. Such ‘forward guidance’ will help fulfill the very purpose of 

these assessments, which is to inform building design and construction practices and codes.

There is much debate about what precisely makes a building sustainable, but early research and 

development focused on energy use, particularly after the energy crisis in the 1970s. This era 

witnessed accelerated development of energy-efficient building technologies and building energy 

use models, notably by the Center for Building Science and Lawrence Berkeley National 

Laboratory. Early on, there was recognition that building energy use should also consider 

embodied energy, that is, the energy needed to produce and transport building materials and fuel 

construction equipment and tools, thus considering the entire building life cycle (Bekker 1982). 

Several case studies subsequently quantified the percentage of life cycle energy use contributed 

by each stage, finding between 65-95% due to the use phase, depending on the building design, 

construction requirements, and intended use (Cole and Kernan 1996, Adalberth 1997, Cole, 

1998, Keoleian et al 2000, Scheuer et al 2003). There was also recognition that energy use was 

not the only important metric to consider and that water use and indoor air quality among others 

were critical factors in evaluating buildings (Guggemos and Horvath 2006).
80

The founding of the U.S. Green Building Council and the development of the LEED® standard 

served both to popularize green buildings and, importantly, to codify a range of technologies and 

practices that green building had come to encompass. LEED has been hugely successful, with 

nearly 3 billion square feet of certified projects in the United States and updating of its standards 

now in its fourth cycle. Although the LEED system has been extensively critiqued, one of the 

most important comments from an engineering point of view is that it relies largely on semiquantitative, categorical, or yes/no questions, which makes it difficult to analyze life cycle 

building performance across a range of metrics in a quantitative manner. This is the general goal 

of life cycle assessment (LCA), which has been applied for many years to the building and 

construction sector. 

LCA is an integrated modeling framework that attempts to capture all direct and indirect 

emissions and impacts associated with a product, in this case a building. As with embodied 

energy methods, LCA encompasses building materials, construction, use, and end-of-life phases 

of a building, but for multiple metrics across resource use, environmental impacts, and human 

health concerns. One of the most ambitious early LCA case studies was conducted by Keoliean, 

Blanchard, and Reppe (2000) of a residence in Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA, encompassing major 

home systems including walls, floors, roof/ceiling, foundation/basement, doors/windows, 

appliances/plugs, sanitary/piping, and finishes. In the early days, conducting this kind of whole 

building assessment was extremely time-consuming and difficult, necessitating the use of life 

cycle inventory databases that described how individual materials and components were 

manufactured and transported. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) was 

a pioneer in this area with the development of the Building for Environmental and Economic 

Sustainability (BEES) model. This allowed analysts to model a building with pre-defined 

materials and components. Construction processes were not well-represented in many life cycle 

impact assessment methods, and in cooperation with academic institutions and industry partners, 

the Athena Sustainable Materials Institute developed a suite of tools that allowed users to 

consider a wider range of building designs and construction techniques, which remains to this 

day one of the most widely used toolboxes for whole-building life cycle assessment. With 

building energy efficiency improving, the relative contribution of the construction phase to life 

cycle impacts has increased, and newer construction techniques such as pre-cast concrete panels 

(Bilec et al 2006) and modular designs (Quale et al 2012) have also been evaluated.

Despite these significant efforts and advances in building assessment capabilities, the number of 

individual buildings that have been assessed using LCA and similar tools is quite small and 

usually after construction has been carried out. The primary barriers to wider implementation of 

comprehensive building assessments relate to bottlenecks or blockages in the flow of information 

among the actors involved in building design and construction, and in the way resource use (such 

as energy and water) in buildings is monitored, billed, and reported.

2. Information Barriers

In general, one of the most significant barriers to evaluating sustainability in the building and 

construction sector is the lack of information sharing and reporting. Other than cost, very little 

project data is shared by all the relevant stakeholders, or circulates in closed feedback loops to 

inform iterative decision making about any criteria other than first cost. Because each project is 
81

unique, a “prototype at full scale,” there are limited opportunities to apply lessons learned from 

one project to others.

In part, these information barriers stem from the traditional project delivery structure, in which 

the design team (generally contracted to the architect) and the construction team (trades handled 

as subcontracts under a general contractor (GC)) each contract with the owner individually, but 

not to each other. This legal structure tends to limit bilateral communication to formal channels 

while promoting division, hierarchy and risk avoidance over collaboration, information exchange 

and problem solving. For example, under this structure, a specialist engineer will use drawings 

and specifications to describe a finished end state for the project that achieves the “design intent” 

performance, but cannot direct or interrogate the “means and methods” of building construction 

used to achieve that end. Meanwhile, the subcontractor who will ultimately perform the work 

cannot offer suggestions or ask questions about intention based on years of experience, and must 

guess at the performance goal based only on the selection and arrangement of physical 

components. Decisions about material selection and arrangement lie with the design team, while 

control of the suppliers, equipment, and techniques of construction lies with the contractor and 

subcontractors, making it essentially impossible to extract an accurate bill of materials or 

transportation fuel use, much less to use that data during the design process to aid decision 

making. Once construction begins, even simple questions or directives must be passed back and 

forth through a laborious Request for Information (RFI) process, mandated by the legal liability 

and too often abused to profit, postpone, or posture. 

The only information that regularly (though not always reliably) moves through the hierarchy is 

cost: with subcontractors’ estimates of material and labor rolled into the GC’s larger project 

estimate. Unfortunately, relying on the financial signal results in odd incentives in the design 

process, including designers who pad or oversize specifications to leave room in the budget for 

reductions later, and multipliers added to each stage of a cost estimate. Even during the 

inaccurately-named “value engineering process” when stakeholders seek to reduce costs, the data 

that drives the costs remains stubbornly hidden. 

The past several decades have witnessed increased interest in alternative project delivery 

methods such as Construction Managers, Design-Build Contracts, and Integrated Project 

Delivery (IPD), as owners seek to ameliorate the limitations of the traditional model. In addition 

to structural and communications improvement, these new models often apply lessons from 

manufacturing (e.g., Lean Production, Six Sigma) to construction, with direct cost, quality and 

time benefits, and some indirect sustainability ones. As surgeon and author Atul Gawande 

describes in his book The Checklist Manifesto on complex tasks (Gawande 2010), the 

construction industry has developed construction management systems based around detailed 

checklists and timelines specifically to ensure communication among subcontractors and with 

the GC, inspectors, and owners. Currently this approach focuses on project delivery and cost 

performance, affecting sustainability only inasmuch as it is ‘checklistable’ (e.g., the LEED rating 

system). However, this method could extend to any other systematic measure of sustainability. 

In conjunction with, and often enabling these new models of practice, new digital tools under the 

broad label Building Information Modeling (BIM) are enabling easier information sharing. 

While many legal and technical issues remain, efforts to locate all the relevant project data in a 
82

single database promise new opportunities. For example, a new app called TallyTM developed by 

KieranTimberlake as a plugin for Autodesk’s popular Revit BIM suite. Designers embed 

information about products into the model, and the tool performs rapid quantification of building 

the materials and calculates the embodied energy as well as other environmental impacts. Future 

development of tools like this, as well as the libraries on which they rely, could make rapid, 

iterative LCA ubiquitous in building design and allow architects and engineers to evaluate 

potential savings ahead of time, and integrate with other building performance simulations for 

other metrics, such as energy consumption.

Unfortunately, the same situation of information barriers extends beyond the construction of 

buildings, into the much longer—and more environmentally significant—period of occupation 

and use. Some higher-performing buildings do monitor critical indicators of performance, and 

some municipalities have begun mandatory reporting of these data (Altomonte and Schiavon 

2010). However, systematic monitoring of energy and other sustainable metrics, as well as 

regular, reliable surveys of occupants and with feedback to inform the occupants, building 

operator, construction team and designers remains the exception. In most buildings, owners or 

tenants simply pay the aggregated utility bills and respond to the occasional complaints from 

occupants about temperature, lighting or other issues. These conditions will continue until a 

major problem or crisis, a substantial renovation or the eventual end of life prompts a major 

change or demolition. Virtually all information is lost at the end of building life. Few if any of 

the parties present at the construction will remain or return for the destruction: no “post-mortem” 

or autopsy will inform design or construction practices, and any ambition for organized 

deconstruction or reuse may have been lost over time.

3. Information Enablers

Given the problems caused by limited information flow, a range of new technologies, polices, 

and approaches promise—and in some cases are already enabling—quicker, more 

comprehensive, higher-fidelity sustainability assessments for buildings. One of the important 

contributions of the LEED rating system has been to publish the scorecards of most projects on 

the website http://www.usgbc.org/projects, offering case-studies of successful designs, enabling 

research as to the efficacy of various sustainability metrics, and prompting examination about 

ways buildings might improve. The recently-adopted LEED v4 extend the reporting beyond 

design by requiring projects to report aggregate energy and water consumption for at least five 

years, with minimum monthly resolution.

This dataset complements voluntary efforts such as the Department of Energy’s EnergyStar 

Program and open Building Performance Database, and also municipally-mandated energy use 

reporting, now on the books in cities like New York and Boston. While these efforts offer many 

benefits about disclosure and opportunities for research and study, they also point the way 

towards future requirements to monitor and report other attributes of building environmental 

performance. They may also presage increased efforts to measure environmental impact during 

construction, particularly aspects that directly affect local citizens.

Ultimately, these efforts point towards the long-promised idea of so-called smart buildings, in 

which sensors and controls monitor and adjust building performance, while informing occupants 

and perhaps even influencing their behavior. The increased availability of low-cost networks, 
83

and the rapidly reducing cost of electronic sensors and actuators have moved this idea from the 

realm of fiction and experiment to an everyday reality. Products like the Nest thermostat offer 

not only increased performance at the building level, but aggregate information from thousands 

of buildings to promote systemic efficiency. Unfortunately, this flourishing of information and 

data runs the risk or remaining in walled information gardens based on individual corporate 

interest enforced through proprietary systems, formats, and user agreements. The possibility of a 

free and open standard for building data, such as that proposed by UC Berkeley’s sMAP protocol 

(Dawson-Haggerty et al 2010) or the Building Energy Data Exchange Specification (BEDES) 

used by DOE will also promote the dissemination of building data for public use.

4. What Can the Construction Sector Learn from the Manufacturing Sector?

The manufacturing sectors in the U.S. are highly efficient, both in terms of economic, energy, 

and materials. There are obvious differences between manufacturing and construction, the most 

striking of which is that manufacturing strives for uniformity, producing many copies of an 

identical product with zero differences (considered defects), whereas in construction each 

building is a prototype, typically constructed according to a different design, on a different site, 

and by a different crew than others. The development of pre-fabricated panel or modular 

building practices has pushed at least some construction to factories with precision equipment, 

inventory space, and highly-skilled crews who produce standard units with quality control and 

testing measures, taking advantage of some manufacturing practices, but there are other areas 

where construction can learn from decades of engineering advances in manufacturing.

Manufacturing has benefitted tremendously from the field of industrial engineering, which has 

served to minimize waste, reduce production times, optimize layouts and sequencing, improve 

asset utilization, and most importantly, enable information flows up and down the process and 

supply chain. Supply chain management systems for manufacturing centralize information about 

both suppliers and the materials and component systems that they supply. Tracking systems use 

ubiquitous bar codes or, more recently, RFID tags to monitor how products move through 

logistics and distribution chains, and for some products even where they end up after they come 

out of use. Sophisticated optimization tools are used to maximize material usage and minimize 

waste, as this is clearly seen to benefit the bottom line of the manufacturer. 

There is great potential to take advantage of the material and energy-related management 

systems that have been developed for manufacturers, to improve both the performance and the 

transparency of the construction sector. A general example typifies the prospective gains: it is a 

truism in manufacturing that waste equals money and this has driven analysis of waste 

generation to the process, equipment, and worker level; yet, in the construction sector, there is 

rarely any information about waste other than the total tonnage of material hauled off the job site 

and the common lack of vertical integration removes financial incentives for savings of any kind. 

In fact, construction estimates based on material and labor often include a percentage-based 

multiplier for profit. Thus not only does the subcontractor or GC who controls the material use 

not share the owner’s financial incentive to limit material use, there is a perverse incentive to 

increase the material consumed, and therefore the profit earned on top of it.
84

5. Conclusions

New applications and technology are helping overcome barriers to information sharing and 

improve our understanding of life cycle building performance. Additional efforts in a few key 

areas will boost sustainable construction efforts, specifically (1) Construction management 

platforms for sharing resource information in addition to cost. This could be a logical outgrowth 

or addition to the Building Information Modeling approach being used in design. It could also 

continue the work of groups like the Lean Construction Institute to apply industrial engineering 

methods from manufacturing to the building industry; (2) Targeting of efficiency incentives to 

specific buildings, based on analysis of reported data with more and finer-grained data; and (3) 

Linking different types of benefits in efficiency projects (energy benefit of water efficiency).

6. References

Adalberth, K. 1997, “Energy use during the life cycle of single-unit dwellings: Examples,” 

Building and Environment, vol. 32, issue 4, pp. 321-329. 

Altomonte, S., and Schiavon, S. 2013, “Occupant satisfaction in LEED and non-LEED certified 

buildings,” Building and Environment, vol. 68, pp. 66-76.

Bekker, P. C. F. 1982, “A life-cycle approach in building,” Building and Environment, vol. 17, 

issue 1, pp. 55-61.

Bilec, M., Ries, R., Matthews, H. S., and Sharrard, A. L. 2006. “Example of a hybrid life-cycle 

assessment of construction processes,” Journal of Infrastructure Systems, vol. 12, issue 4, pp. 

207-215. 

Cole, R. J. 1998, “Energy and greenhouse gas emissions associated with the construction of 

alternative structural systems,” Building and Environment, vol. 34, issue 3, pp. 335-348. 

Cole, R. J. and Kernan, P. C. 1996, “Life-cycle energy use in office buildings,” Building and 

Environment, vol. 31, issue 4, pp. 307-317. 

Dawson-Haggerty, S., et al 2010, “sMAP: a simple measurement and actuation profile for 

physical information,” In Proceedings of the 8th ACM Conference on Embedded Networked 

Sensor Systems (SenSys '10). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 197-210

Gawande, A. (2010). The checklist manifesto: how to get things right, Metropolitan Books, New 

York.

Guggemos, A. A. and Horvath, A. 2006, “Decision-support tool for assessing the environmental 

effects of constructing commercial buildings,” Journal of Architectural Engineering, vol. 12, 

issue 4, pp. 187-195. 

Keoleian, G. A., Blanchard, S., and Reppe, P. 2000, “Life-cycle energy, costs, and strategies for 

improving a single-family house,” Journal of Industrial Ecology, vol. 4, pp. 135-56. 

Quale, J., Eckelman, M. J., Williams, K. W., Sloditskie, G., and Zimmerman, J. B. 2012, 

“Construction matters: Comparing environmental impacts of building modular and 

conventional homes in the United States,” Journal of Industrial Ecology, vol. 16, pp. 243-

253.

Scheuer, C., Keoleian, G. A., and Reppe, P. 2003, “Life cycle energy and environmental 

performance of a new university building: Modeling challenges and design implications,” 

Energy and Buildings, vol. 35, pp. 1049-1064.
85

Fiksel, Joseph, The Ohio State University

A Systems Approach to Sustainability and Resilience Based on the Triple 

Value Model of Coupled Human-Natural Systems

Abstract

A comprehensive systems approach is essential to enable progress toward global sustainability. 

Despite well-intentioned efforts, global resource consumption and waste generation continue to 

grow. Classical steady-state models of sustainable systems are inadequate to support effective 

policy and decision-making. We need to better understand the dynamic, adaptive behavior of 

coupled human-natural systems, so that we can improve their resilience in the face of unforeseen 

disruptions including natural disasters or technological failures. However, modeling of complex, 

self-organizing systems such as ecosystems and global supply chains is a formidable challenge. 

Integrated modeling techniques, exemplified by the Triple Value framework, can help to 

anticipate the impacts of major shifts such as climate change and the associated human 

responses. By exploring potential future scenarios, we can develop a more robust approach to 

sustainability assessment, beneficial intervention, and resilience enhancement.

Keywords

Sustainability, Resilience, Systems, Indicators, Life-cycle, Supply Chains, Communities

1. Background

Efforts to improve the sustainability of industrial practices, such as creating “greener” buildings 

or “greener” products, must account for potential life-cycle impacts on environmental, social, 

and economic systems. It has become increasingly unrealistic to evaluate the sustainability of a 

particular industry or company without considering upstream systems for provision of energy 

and materials as well as downstream markets. Thus, setting the boundaries for meaningful 

analysis has become a formidable challenge. A robust approach is needed that enables decision 

makers to understand how complex, coupled human-natural systems, including industrial supply 

chains, can be designed to achieve both short-term continuity and long-term ecological integrity. 

Moreover, in view of increasing global volatility, the concept of sustainability must be expanded 

to consider the resilience of human and natural systems. We define resilience as the capacity for 

a system to survive, adapt, and flourish in the face of turbulent change; this notion applies 

equally to communities, ecosystems, and industrial enterprises. Companies need to grow, just as 

natural organisms do, but the challenge of sustainability is to increase shareholder value without 

increasing material throughput. An equally important concern is business continuity. Resilient 

systems are able to flourish in the face of uncertainty and unforeseen disruptions, even natural 

disasters. In contrast, traditional engineering practices have tried to anticipate and resist 

disruptions, but may be vulnerable to unforeseen factors. Perhaps the most cost-effective 

approach is to design systems with inherent resilience by taking advantage of fundamental 

properties such as diversity, efficiency, adaptability, and cohesion (Fiksel, 2003). 

Over the last two decades, there has been a significant shift in the awareness of sustainability and 

resilience issues on the part of government, industry, and the general public. Leading 
86

manufacturers in the U.S. and abroad have begun to emphasize sustainability in their internal 

business processes, investor relations, and customer value propositions. Yet, paradoxically, the 

more efficient companies become in terms of resource utilization, the more rapidly the economy 

grows; this “rebound effect” results in a net increase in the ecological footprint of industrial 

society (Fiksel, 2006). The rapid growth of China, India, and other Asian economies will likely 

exacerbate this problem. To compound the challenge, the increasing connectedness of the global 

economy introduces “systemic” risks that may cascade into major disruptions. (WEF 2014)

The premise of this paper is that pursuit of global sustainability and resilience requires a systems 

approach to develop effective policies and intervention strategies. Without a full understanding 

of system implications, there is a risk of unintended consequences; for example, adoption of 

innovative technologies based on renewable resources (such as bio-based fuels) may have hidden 

adverse side effects upon agricultural productivity. Adopting a systems approach will help to 

support wise decision making by identifying critical indicators of change and shedding light on 

the intricate linkages among environmental, economic, and social systems.

2. Systems Thinking

Sustainability challenges cannot be addressed in isolation, because most problems are highly 

interdependent and most solutions have hidden consequences. For example, increasing the use 

of biomass for fuel production may lead to crop shortages and increased food prices in Mexico, 

while increased use of fertilizer to boost crop yield will increase nutrient runoff and degradation 

of surface waters. Similarly, there is a “nexus” between energy and water resources—we need 

water to generate energy and energy to convey water. Government agencies including EPA, 

DOE, USGS, and USDA, must work together to understand these complex relationships using 

scientific tools such as life cycle assessment, and to develop coherent sustainability policies. 

It is helpful to adopt a view of ecosystems and industrial systems alike as dynamic, open systems 

that operate far from equilibrium, exhibiting non-linear and sometimes chaotic behavior. The 

complexity, dynamics, and non-linear nature of these interdependent systems imply that the 

notion of “sustainability” as a steady-state equilibrium is not realistic. Forces of change, such as 

technological, geopolitical, or climatic shifts will inevitably disrupt the cycles of material and 

energy flows. Therefore, achieving sustainability will require the development of resilient 

management and governance processes that mirror the adaptive behavior of ecological systems.

A “system” can be defined as an interrelated set of components that form a structure and perform 

a function. Systems range from biological systems (e.g., ant colonies) to engineered systems 

(e.g., electric power grid) to social systems (e.g., professional networks). “Systems thinking” is a 

holistic approach for understanding the dynamic interactions among complex economic, 

environmental, and social systems and for assessing the potential consequences of various 

interventions, such as new policies, new technologies, and new operating practices. There is vast 

and growing literature on systems thinking, and the environmental and ecological sciences have 

been an important domain of application. (Holling, 2001)

Application of systems thinking generally requires the use of models to characterize the structure 

and dynamics of the systems in question. In the field of sustainability, models are essential to 

investigate the interdependence, feedback loops and dynamic behaviors of complex, adaptive 
87

systems including biological and socioeconomic systems. The Triple Value (3V) Model 

described below was initially formulated as a conceptual model, but evolved into a template for 

development of computer-based models based on system dynamics. (Sterman, 2000) These 

models build upon a platform known as Threshold 21 (T21), which has been used by the World 

Bank and others for sustainability assessment, and more recently was adapted to analyze energy 

and environmental policy options in the state of Ohio. (Cimren et al, 2010)

3. The Triple Value Framework

The Triple Value (3V) framework, depicted in Figure 1, is a systems approach that captures the 

dynamic linkages and flows of value among industrial, societal, and environmental systems 

(Fiksel 2012). Industrial and societal systems are coupled by economic market transactions, 

including delivery of goods and services as well as financial investments, enabling growth in 

both shareholder value and community prosperity. However, the natural environment is the “life 

support system” for both industry and society. When markets fail to account for economic 

externalities, such as gradual degradation of critical natural resources, the result is a loss of 

opportunity for future generations; this is sometimes called an “inter-temporal market failure” 

(Binswanger & Chakraborty). Research in the fields of natural resource economics and 

ecological economics seeks to prevent such market failures through explicit valuation of 

ecological goods and services and recognition of the limits on natural capital.

The 3V framework has proved useful for exploring the potential future benefits of innovative 

policies, technologies and practices. Detailed 3V computer models have been developed to study 

the dynamic couplings among industrial systems (energy, transportation, manufacturing, food 

production, etc.), societal systems (urbanization, mobility, communication, etc.) and natural 

systems (soil, atmospheric, aquatic, biotic, etc.), including the flows of information, wealth, 

materials, energy, labor, and waste. One such example is an application of systems thinking to 

the problem of excessive nutrients in the Narragansett Bay watershed, undertaken by Region 1 of 

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In consultation with a broad range of regional 

stakeholders, EPA developed a system dynamics model called Narragansett-3VS (Triple Value 

Simulation) to help policy makers explore solutions that would improve the sustainability and 

resilience of the Bay in the face of growing population and climate change. (Fiksel et al, 2014)

A simplified overview of the Narragansett-3VS model structure is shown in Figure 2. The 

system dynamics approach involves identifying causal links between key indicators, so that the 

probable effects of future changes can be estimated, at least roughly. For example, increased 

nutrient loadings may cause algal blooms, which may cause impairment to aquatic ecosystems, 

which in turn may adversely affect fishing and tourism. Figure 2 also depicts some of the 

potential interventions that have been simulated, including wastewater treatment, best 

management practices (BMPs), low-impact development (LID), and green infrastructure (GI). 

The model features a user-friendly, dashboard-style visualization interface that enables users to 

construct alternative intervention scenarios aimed at reducing adverse nutrient impacts to the 

watershed. The model then simulates over a 40-year time horizon the expected changes in a 

variety of economic indicators such as tourism revenue, social indicators such as beach visits, 

and environmental indicators such as stormwater overflows. EPA and its regional partners are 

actively utilizing this model to support strategic dialogue about alternative water resource 
88

management policies with diverse groups including technical experts, policy makers, and 

citizens. There is an important caveat: “All models are wrong, but some models are useful.”

Figure 1. Overview of the Triple Value Framework 

Figure 2. Simplified View of Narragansett-3VS Simulation Model Structure

Environment (natural capital)

waste and emissions may 

degrade the environment

ecological goods

and services are 

utilized in industry

ecological goods

and services are 

utilized in society

some waste 

is recovered 

and recycled

emissions may 

harm humans

Society

(human capital)

Industry 

(economic capital)

economic value

is created for 

society

labor is utilized in industry

Stormwater

runoff

Fishing & 

Tourism

Surface water 

conditions

Fish kill 

likelihood

Dissolved 

oxygen

Watershed 

GDP 

Aquatic 

ecosystem 

impairment

Wastewater 

treatment

Municipal tax 

revenue

Nutrient 

loadings 

Disposable

income

Atmospheric 

deposition

Agricultural 

fertilizer use

Near-shore 

turbidity 

Property 

values

Resident 

beach visits

Septic 

tanks & 

cesspools

Algae 

blooms

Climate 

change

Pathogen 

loadings

Rain

Economy

Society

Energy 

demand

Finfish & shellfish 

abundance

Recreational 

fishing

Environment

Legend

Sustainability

Indicator 

Causal link 

Potential

Intervention 

Emissions & VMT 

reductions

BMPs

Aquaculture

ISDS 

improvements

Waterway 

engineering

Improved 

treatment

CSO tunnels

LID and GI
89

4. Conclusions

Sustainability is a systems problem requiring collaborative solutions. Only through a coordinated

global effort with participation from all sectors of society can genuine progress be achieved. The 

disappointing results of the recent “Rio + 20” UN conference suggest that such coordination will 

not be easy. Indeed, global warming issues are perhaps the most tractable, since emissions 

dissipate in the atmosphere and do not concentrate geographically. There are a number of other 

pressing ecological issues—soil resilience, biodiversity, water quality, forest conservation—that 

involve interactions among complex local and regional systems. Therefore, an important priority 

for advancing the study of sustainable systems is development of modeling and decision making 

approaches that enable dynamic, adaptive management rather than static optimization. The 3VS 

model described above represents a promising example. To this end, it will be valuable to 

establish consensus on key indicators for improvement of sustainability and resilience in 

economic, ecological and societal systems. More generally, there is a need for increased 

transdisciplinary research, public communication, innovative policy development, and effective 

partnerships between government, business, and the scientific community.

5. References

Binswanger, H.C. and R.N. Chakraborty, “Economics of Resource Management,” University of 

St. Gallen, Institute for Economy and the Environment. European Commission, October 

2000.

Cimren, E., A. Bassi, and J. Fiksel, “T21-Ohio, a System Dynamics Approach to Policy 

Assessment for Sustainable Development: A Waste-to-Profit Case Study,” Sustainability. 

Vol. 2. pp. 2814-2832, 2010.

Fiksel, J., “Designing Resilient, Sustainable Systems,” Environmental Science & Technology, 

December 2003, pp. 5330-5339.

Fiksel, J., “Sustainability and Resilience: Toward a Systems Approach,” Sustainability: Science, 

Practice, and Policy, Vol.2, No. 2, pp. 14-21, 2006.

Fiksel, J. “A Systems View of Sustainability: The Triple Value Model,” Environmental 

Development, June 2012.

Fiksel, J., R, Bruins, A. Gatchett, A. Gilliland, and M. ten Brink. “The Triple Value Model: A 

Systems Approach to Sustainable Solutions.” Clean Technology and Environmental Policy, 

June 2014.

Holling, C.S. Understanding the Complexity of Economic, Ecological, & Social Systems, 

Ecosystems, Vol. 4, 2001.

Sterman, J.D. Business Dynamics–Systems Thinking and Modeling for a Complex World. 

McGraw-Hill, 2000.

World Economic Forum. Global Risks Report, 2014. Geneva, Switzerland.

Acknowledgements

The author is gratefully for the support of many talented collaborators, including Andrea Bassi, 

Gary Foley, Alan Hecht, Lek Kadeli, Ira Leighton, Eric Ruder, and Marilyn ten Brink.
90

[This page is internationally left blank]
91

Flanagan, William P., GE Global Research, General Electric Company

Sustainable Manufacturing from a Life Cycle Perspective

Abstract

Sustainable manufacturing implies a focus beyond the manufacturing stage, as the choice of 

manufacturing technology can influence environmental impacts across the entire life cycle of the 

part, component, product, or system that is being manufactured. For example, new 

manufacturing processes may enable different or novel materials or structural design choices that 

can reduce environmental impact while improving performance. Efforts focused on sustainable 

manufacturing should therefore consider all aspects of the life cycle to ensure that manufacturing 

processes are delivering net environmental improvement for the part, component, product, or 

system application. In many cases there may be trade-offs, and LCA can and should be applied 

to understand, quantify, and explore process, materials, and design alternatives to ensure that 

sustainable process and technology decisions are being made.

Keywords

Life Cycle Assessment, Life Cycle Costing, Sustainable, Additive, Manufacturing, Products

1. GE and Sustainability

The General Electric Company has a business strategy to create new value for customers, 

investors and society by solving energy, efficiency, and water challenges. We believe that our 

society has been presented with a false choice – great economics or great environmental 

performance. The real answer is that through innovation we can design and deliver both. And as 

a result, GE will grow faster and win. And it’s working.3

GE has been involved with environmental life cycle assessment (LCA) since 2008. GE’s 

Ecoassessment Center of Excellence (COE) was founded to assess the environmental impacts of 

products and technologies throughout their entire lifespan, from raw materials extraction through 

reuse, recycling, or disposal at the end of product life. The center works closely with GE 

Corporate Environmental Programs, GE Ecomagination, and many of the GE business units on 

life cycle management strategies that include qualitative approaches as well as quantitative LCA 

studies ranging from screening to detailed assessments in support of new product development, 

product evolution, and commercial and marketing activities.

Over the past several years, LCA efforts have been applied to a variety of GE product categories 

including gas and steam turbines, generators, wind turbines, thin film solar, aeroderivative gas 

engines, Jenbacher gas engines, biomass gasification, membrane ultrafiltration, nano-structured 

ferritic alloys vs. nickel super-alloys (i.e., powder metallurgy vs. cast and wrought forging), jet 

fuel from bio-oils, micro LNG, smart meters, single-use process technology for 

biopharmaceutical manufacturing, +PLUSPAKTM vials for contrast agent solution, blood 

pressure cuffs, DurathonTM energy storage systems, composite materials for aircraft engine fan 

blades, appliances and appliances recycling, lighting, locomotives, and component re-

 

3 http://www.ge.com/globalimpact/ecomagination.html
92

manufacturing. Insights gained from these studies have been selectively used to inform 

commercial and product development strategies as well as customer and policy engagement.

GE’s experience driving sustainability-related projects within a business context has led to 

insight around enabling principles that it feels are important to consider when formulating 

product and technology sustainability strategies:

1. Be strategic and selective. Application of LCA, and more specifically the collection of 

inventory data to support LCA or supply chain initiatives, can be resource intensive. 

While LCA is a very powerful tool that can provide deep and valuable insight, it must be 

applied strategically and selectively to ensure maximum benefit.

2. Leverage screening and streamlined approaches. Insights can be gained by applying 

screening or streamlined approaches early in product development. The reduced time, 

effort, and expertise required to conduct screening approaches offers the potential for 

cost-effective application to a wider spectrum of product development activities. 

Screening approaches should serve as a funnel to identify those opportunities requiring 

further analysis using more sophisticated quantitative approaches.

3. Focus on value creation. For any initiative to thrive within industry, it must create value. 

There are many opportunities to create value from sustainability-based initiatives, 

particularly those focused on energy and resource efficiency.

2. Emerging Sustainability Drivers

Global environmental pressures continue to increase. The planetary boundaries concept suggests 

that we have already exceeded the safe operating range for humanity in 3 of 9 planetary 

ecosystems (rate of biodiversity loss, climate change, and human interference with the nitrogen 

cycle)4. In addition to these issues, our economy is consuming critical material resources at 

unsustainable rates. Over the course of the 20th century, fossil fuel use increased by a factor of 12 

(which may not be surprising)5. Perhaps more surprising is the fact that material resource use 

during this same period increased by a factor of 34. Global population is anticipated to reach 9 

billion by the year 2050 (up from 7 billion in 2011)6, and a much greater proportion of the 

populated world will be economically developed. The demand for food, fuel, and fiber may 

increase by 70% by the year 2050 (meanwhile 60% of major ecosystems are already degraded or 

are being used unsustainably). At current growth rates, we’ll need the equivalent of more than 2 

planets to provide the needed resources. For human society to exist on just one planet, the World 

Business Council for Sustainable Development estimates that we’ll need a 4-10x increase in 

resource efficiency.

Governments and markets are responding. We have seen a marked increase in environmental 

legislative policy focused on the life cycle of materials, products, and technologies. Policy 

instruments extend beyond traditional emissions and energy efficiency targets and now include 

the development of eco-design requirements for an expanding range of product categories7, and 

 

4 Rockstrom et al., “A safe operating space for humanity,” Nature 461(24): 472-475, 2009.

5 Roadmap to a Resource Efficient Europe, European Commission COM (2011) 571 final, Brussels, September 

2011.

6 World Population to 2300, United Nations, 

http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/longrange2/WorldPop2300final.pdf

7 http://ec.europa.eu/energy/efficiency/ecodesign/eco_design_en.htm
93

the introduction (or expansion) of green public procurement policy.8 Within the European Union, 

green public procurement requires traditional life cycle costing (LCC) supplemented by 

environmental procurement criteria, but emerging policy language signals the intent to more 

formally incorporate the cost of environmental externalities into life cycle costing 

methodologies. Based on these and other developments, process and technology development 

will need to increasingly align with sustainability drivers to ensure longer-term market vitality. 

3. Streamlined LCA/LCC in Defense Acquisitions

The US Department of Defense has recently introduced draft guidance incorporating streamlined 

LCA/LCC into the acquisitions process, with the ultimate intent of enabling purchasing decisions 

based on total cost of ownership9. The methodology includes direct and indirect costs as well as 

external costs (i.e., environmental cost to society), and is based on traditional life cycle costing 

combined with environmental life cycle assessment. GE Aviation and several other companies 

have recently begun piloting the proposed DoD methodology on a variety of projects. GE 

Aviation and GE Global Research are applying the methodology to additive manufacturing of 

fuel nozzles for the CFM LEAP next-generation high-bypass turbofan jet engine. Traditional fuel 

nozzle designs are manufactured via forging & machining processes. Additive manufacturing 

processes offer the potential for novel fuel nozzle designs that result in reduced life cycle 

environmental impact and total cost of ownership due to:

 Reduced part weight:

o Reduced fuel consumption over the life of the aircraft system

o Increased mission range or payload capacity

 Net lower raw material consumption

 Enhanced performance

Environmental life cycle assessment and life cycle costing will be essential in understanding the 

net benefit and trade-offs associated with moving towards additive manufacturing, both from an 

environmental and cost perspective. The specific benefits and trade-offs may be unique to each 

application, but the development and implementation of practical assessment tools will help 

ensure that manufacturing capability developments are aligned with the sustainability 

requirements of our people and our planet.

4. Sustainable Manufacturing

Sustainable manufacturing implies a focus beyond the manufacturing stage, as the choice of 

manufacturing technology can influence environmental impacts across the entire life cycle of the 

part, component, product, or system that is being manufactured. For example, new 

manufacturing processes may:

 enable different or novel materials choices

 have different material and energy efficiencies

 have less (or more) manufacturing emissions and wastes

 enable unique part geometries or other features affecting performance

 offer enhanced repair-ability, re-usability, or recyclability at end of life

 

8 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/gpp/index_en.htm

9 http://www.ndia.org/Divisions/Divisions/Manufacturing/Documents/319A/7_Yaroschak-14801-

Sustainability%20in%20Acquis.pdf
94

The possibility of different or novel materials choices may:

 impact supply chain impacts

 impact manufacturability

 offer enhanced performance properties (e.g., thermal, mechanical, lifetime)

 offer additional end-of-life options (e.g., recyclability, re-usability)

Efforts focused on sustainable manufacturing should therefore consider all aspects of the life 

cycle to ensure that manufacturing processes are delivering net environmental improvement for 

the part, component, product, or system application. In many cases there may be trade-offs, and 

LCA can and should be applied to understand, quantify, and explore process, materials, and 

design alternatives to ensure that sustainable process and technology decisions are being made.

5. Recommendations for NIST

Incorporate a life cycle perspective when addressing each of the four workshop themes or 

associated research objectives. A life cycle perspective can consist of qualitative and quantitative 

aspects (either or both).

1. Measurement science: The field of life cycle assessment (including related forms of 

sustainability assessment) has experienced issues related to conflicting definitions, 

metrics, and indicators along the way. For example, the term ‘carbon footprint’ means 

different things to different people. There are a variety of ecolabels or other 

environmental standards, some incorporating a life cycle perspective and others not; 

some prescriptive and others performance-based. Harmonization of conflicting or 

disparate programs and standards is always a worthwhile goal. Take care to understand 

the landscape of existing definitions, standards, indicators and ratings before 

implementing new programs in these areas.

2. Systems: A systems-oriented approach is essential when considering issues related to 

sustainability, as there are many interconnected issues and activities along the value chain 

and across economies and environmental impact categories. This vision paper has already 

articulated the need for a life cycle perspective when focusing on sustainable 

manufacturing, which serves as a good example of a focus area that is tightly connected 

to many other systems.

3. Planning, design and supply chain: Incorporate a life cycle perspective early in the 

planning and design stages to ensure that the appropriate systems-level thinking is 

incorporated early in the decision-making process.

4. Economic, environmental and social aspects: Ultimately, the previous three themes play 

out on a world stage dominated by economic (market-drivers) and social aspects 

(behaviors). Market-drivers can be influenced through regulatory process or a variety of 

policy initiatives but are often largely driven by market dynamics acting at a local level 

(i.e., individual purchasing entity). Social aspects (behaviors) can be influenced through a 

variety of complex societal / cultural adaptations, but again are often most influenced by 

local factors (i.e., cost, convenience).
95

Futornick, Kathi, Mt. Hood Community College, Oregon

Greening the Supply Chain: Direct Influences on 

Sustainability Reporting and What We Measure

Abstract

During the 1990’s, there emerged the basis for a series of regulations that would address risks 

associated with products and articles manufactured anywhere in the world and placed into 

European markets. The United States, which had been a world leader in environment, health and 

safety, was now playing catch-up as did other industrialized nations. These regulations hit at the 

Life Cycle of products from materials used in their manufacturing to risks associated with the 

users through to final disposal or reuse. The nature of these regulations requires manufacturers 

to identify toxic materials in their articles including subassemblies. Subassemblies come in 

through the Supply Chain and industry now needed to look closely at the integrity of the 

suppliers’ Material Certifications. From here emerged two major issues: (1) how leading 

industry would ensure integrity of data reporting under the new regulations; (2) how the 

relationship of industry to the Supply Chain would evolve into a role of collaboration and 

partnerships. This paper provides a framework for how these two issues play a relevant role in 

defining corporate and facility sustainability practices and introduces a basic approach to dealing 

with an increasingly complex system.

Keywords

Sustainability, Codes of Conduct, Ethics, Outcome-Based Performance, Compliance

1. Background

David Packard, Founder of Hewlett Packard stated with respect to the purpose of business, 

that...

profit is what we do – it is a measure of our contribution and a means of selffinanced growth – but it has never been the point in and of itself. The point is, in 

fact, to win, and winning is judged in the eyes of the customer and by doing 

something you can be proud of. There is symmetry in logic in this, if we provide 

real satisfaction to real customers – we will be profitable. 

The United States and other industrialized nations have traditionally focused on compliance with 

laws, regulations, and industry standards to support the growing demand for a sustainable 

environment, whether that has been the built environment or the natural environment. Metrics to 

define the outcome of sustainable practices have evolved from prescriptive to performance 

based, from singular measurements to consideration of holistic and interrelated systems. Laws, 

regulations, and industry standards have created a “silo” approach to doing business and our 

traditional approaches have not kept pace with the societal demand for sustainable practices and 

immediate transparency. 

Four decades of environmental regulations, and yet in the 2014 State of Green Business report, 

published by GreenBiz in partnership with Trucost plc, the report, which measures the global 

progress of large, publicly traded companies in addressing a myriad of environmental challenges, 
96

reveals little meaningful progress across most metrics, including greenhouse gas emissions, 

water use, waste disposal and other pollutant impacts.

“While more and more companies are undertaking a growing number of initiatives to reduce 

their environmental impacts, there’s very little progress to show for it. Company initiatives are 

not having an impact at the scale needed to address such challenges as climate change and the 

availability of water and natural resources,” said Joel Makower, GreenBiz Group executive 

editor and the report’s principal author.

“The environmental impacts of business – air pollution, biodiversity loss, ecosystem degradation 

and water scarcity – are threatening the ability of our finite stock of natural capital to deliver 

sustainable growth,” said Richard Mattison, CEO of Trucost. “The challenge for business is to 

identify growth models that result in reduced environmental impact.”

In looking back at more than 40 years of environmental laws and regulations, industry has 

recognized the limitations of those requirements and realized how complex and interconnected 

the impacts are. That can make measuring progress more difficult and identifying leading 

indicators more elusive. However, the challenges of air pollution, water scarcity, climate 

change, and social injustice facing industry are not optional for companies to thrive.

We live in a world with rapidly changing markets and products, innovation, government and 

industry requirements, and stakeholders who demand accountability and transparency. Rapidly 

changing markets and social forces are rewriting the roles and responsibilities of business. 

Stakeholders expect businesses to be “good citizens” and responsible stewards of their 

communities and environment while, at the same time, their businesses grow and seek profit. 

In the publication, Business Ethics, A Manual for Managing Responsible Business Enterprise In 

Emerging Market Economics (U.S. Department of Commerce, International Trade 

Administration, 2004), the authors suggest that while businesses are dependent on good public 

governance for their growth and success, they are also “authors of their own destiny”. 

Enterprises that take responsibility for their decisions and actions, and impacts on their internal 

culture and external communities, will be best positioned for long-term growth and improved 

prospects for future generations.

Since the early 1980’s, governments, global businesses, standards organizations, NonGovernmental Organizations (NGO’s), and society collaborated about the role of business as 

responsible stewards. New laws, regulations, standards, and operating practices emerged. 

During the 1990’s new leaders surfaced and enterprises not part of the dialogue either played 

catch-up or ran the risk of being left behind. 

The European Union (EU) advanced the concept of “safe” products for its communities with 

extended producer responsibility (EPR) principles for the sustainable life cycle management of 

products. Important generic elements of EPR include:

 Product category or waste stream focus

 Standards for competing producers

 Assignment of responsibility for life cycle management, including product take-back and 

phase-out of hazardous materials

 Producer flexibility and accountability (e.g., through producer responsibility 

organizations) in program design and implementation
97

 Transparency for the public (e.g., clear labeling of products)

 Performance requirements and deadlines

 Regular monitoring and reporting of progress

The EU’s End of Life Vehicles (ELV) Directive (2000), Restriction of Hazardous Substance 

Directive (2002), Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals 

(REACH) (2006) are just a few examples of EU Directives directly related to the EPR. 

Industries world-wide have focused on understanding the impacts of EU product legislation to 

their enterprises, collecting data to meet requirements of both the EU Directives and customer 

requests and by working with their Supply Chain collaboratively and at times, in partnership, to 

ensure integrity of their data. 

There are certain common denominators throughout the business enterprise: product 

stewardship, product quality, transparency, workplace health and safety, protection of the 

environment, conservation of natural resources, protection of workers, and compliance with 

laws, regulations, and industry standards. Historically, each of these elements has been managed 

in a “silo”, a framework engendered through specialization and optimization. Each has 

essentially been its own dynamic and in most cases, interrelationships among the elements have 

been discouraged either through laws and regulations or an enterprise’s organizational structure.

With the advent of EU’s Directives, other nations such as China, Norway, Japan have adopted 

similar legislation thereby forcing multi-nationals to consider the long-term impacts of what they 

produce and market, and to gather information to conform to the requirements of this new 

legislation. To not do so, can mean that markets will no longer be available to their products. 

Therefore, industry has invested millions of dollars in assessing the risks of their products, 

reporting to the EU and other countries with similar legislation, and assisting their Supply Chain. 

The “silo” approach to managing regulation gave way to a system approach to address thousands 

of data points from toxicity, to safety, life cycle, energy, Conflict Minerals etc. 

Peter Senge suggests a system approach to organizational success in his book The Necessary 

Revolution: How Individuals and Organizations are Working Together To Create A Sustainable 

World (Senge et. al., 2008). Senge’s Systems Thinking approach to long-term sustainability 

requires a holistic view to effectively redesign products, processes and business models. No one 

element can effectively address the whole. In the case of environmental compliance, laws and 

regulations, they made the environment “less bad” but did they optimize resources to make it 

better? How can - how is industry optimizing resources, often times limited resources, to make 

measurable improvements?

Many leading companies are reporting on sustainability through Corporate Sustainability Reports 

(CSR) while others through reviewed, transparent organizations such as the Global Reporting 

Initiative (GRI). But what is sustainability? Sustainability is a collective term leading to one 

outcome - progressive improvement to sustain future life. Sustainability, for some companies, 

includes corporate responsibility, and other elements such as environment, worker health and 

safety, a green supply chain, risk management, employee community involvement, corporate 

philanthropy, and social impacts. In a 2013 Ernst and Young/Boston College study on 

companies reporting on sustainability using the GRI (Global Reporting Initiative) framework, the 
98

top four motivations for reporting included transparency, competitive advantage, risk 

management, and stakeholder pressure. Industry’s stakeholders have demanded sustainable 

practices but that is not one of the top motivations for reporting based on the Ernst & 

Young/Boston College study. Is there a misalignment between corporate sustainability metrics 

and the needs of the stakeholders? Are we asking the right questions? Are we pulling the right 

levers? Where do the drivers, the processes, and the stakeholders fit into this scheme of metrics, 

outcomes and outputs? 

2. Authors of Their Destiny

The metrics that are being measured and tracked by industry are either required by regulation or 

expected via stakeholder pressure. But even so, leading industry groups have “authored their 

own destiny”. Leading industries have responded to product requirements and reported on 

chemicals in their products, energy (use, embedded and efficiency), life cycle, recycle/reuse 

through multi-variable laws and regulations. But they have also focused in on their Supply 

Chain and developed programs to mentor, assist and ensure consistency and accuracy in 

reporting. 

What is the Supply Chain? The Supply Chain is not a uniform structure with identical 

capabilities and motivations. The Supply Chain ranges from the small shop to large 

conglomerates. Each has strength in their products but not necessarily in the infrastructure that 

made their products. Not all within the Supply Chain can respond with equal deliberation to 

global requirements for data validation or Material Certifications in response to their customers 

requests. 

Over the years industry groups have developed Supply Chain requirements and Code of Conduct 

to help raise the Supply Chain to the standards of their customers. Certain codes focus on 

internal operations of their members such as the chemical industry’s Responsible Care Program, 

while others focus on the supply chain, such as The Electronic Industry Citizenship Coalition 

(EICC).

Codes of Conduct can play an important role in the development of industry standards, and 

further define and refine these standards. As an example, the EICC approaches its supply chain 

code holistically. The EICC establishes standards to ensure that working conditions in the 

electronics industry supply chain are safe, that workers are treated with respect and dignity, and 

that business operations are environmentally responsible and conducted ethically. The Code 

outlines standards for Labor, Health and Safety, business ethics and elements of an acceptable 

system to manage conformity to the Code. For example:

Labor: Those who commit to the Code are committed to uphold the human rights of workers, 

and to treat them with dignity and respect as understood by the international community. The 

standards include: (1) Freely Chosen Employment; (2) Child Labor Avoidance; (3) Working 

Hours; (4) Wages and Benefits; (5) Humane Treatment; (6) Non-Discrimination; (7) Freedom of 

Association. 

Health and Safety: Participants commit to minimize the incidence of work-related injury and 

recognize management systems such as IHSAS 18001 and ILO Guidelines on Occupational 
99

Safety and Health. The standards include: (1) Occupational Safety; (2) Emergency 

Preparedness; (3) Occupational Injury and Illness; (4) Industrial Hygiene; (5) Physically 

Demanding Work; (6) Machine Safeguarding; (7) Sanitation, Food and Housing.

Environmental: Participants recognize that environmental responsibility is integral to producing 

world class products and support management systems such as ISO 14001 and the Co 

Management and Audit System (EMAS). The standards include: (1) Environmental Permits and 

Reporting; (2) Pollution Prevention and Resource Reduction; (3) Hazardous Substances; (4) 

Wastewater and Solid Waste; (5) Air Emissions; (6) Product Content Restrictions.

Ethics: Participants, in order to meet social responsibilities must uphold the highest ethical 

standards, which include: (1) Business Integrity; (2) No Improper Advantage; (3) Disclosure 

Property; (4) Intellectual Property; (5) Fair Business, Advertising, and Competition; (6) 

Protection of Identity; (7) Responsible Sourcing of Minerals; (8) Privacy; (9) Non-Retaliation. 

Management System: Participants must adopt/establish a management system that is related to 

the EICC and be designed to ensure (a) compliance with applicable laws; (b) conformance with 

the EICC; (c) identification and mitigation of operations risks to the EICC. It shall facilitate 

continual improvement. The management system elements are to include: (1) Company 

Commitment; (2) Management Accountability and Responsibility; (3) Legal and Customer 

Requirements; (4) Risk Assessment and Risk Management; (5) Improvement Objectives; (6) 

Training; (7) Communication; (8) Worker Feedback and Participation; (9) Audits and 

Assessments; (10) Corrective Action Process; (11) Documentation and Records; (12) Supplier 

Responsibility. 

In addition to the Code, the EICC also provides tools and resources to its members to support 

their success. The tools are focused on both the corporate environment and the facility 

environment, recognizing that there are different drivers at each level of the organization. 

This is just one example of data collection currently underway that brings together several 

elements of sustainability. 

3. Recommendations

The following recommendations are offered:

1. Define Outcomes: What is the purpose of a sustainability standard and who will this 

apply to? Industry has invested millions of hours and money in sustainability and 

regulatory reporting. How is this different and can the efforts be built upon? Are there 

elements in the current system that can be recycled and reused?

2. Maximize Current Programs:

a. Data Assessment: Assess data that is currently being collected for regulatory 

purposes, Supply Chain requirements etc. to determine whether these are leading or 

lagging indicators, data relevant to measuring progress towards a sustainable future. 

This should be conducted at the corporate and facility level. They are different. At 

minimum this would include the elements in the Codes of Conduct cited above and 

life cycle.
100

b. Data Management: Determine a framework where data can be maximized and 

reused/recycled. Ensure that tools are provided that are uniform and have simple 

interfaces.

3. Management System: The importance of a systems approach is crucial to capturing the 

interrelationships and interdependencies of the issues across the value stream. These 

interdependencies should also reflect on a business model - the main drivers identified in 

the Boston College report, and optimize the business model around several inputs: the 

shareholder (economic), environment, health and safety, and social aspects. 

Consideration may also be given to improving the existing ISO 14001 Management 

System with the additions of Worker Feedback and Participation, Supplier 

Responsibility, Improvement Objectives – adding in some of the elements from the 

EICC.

4. Conclusions

In an interview with Senge (Bloomberg BusinessWeek, 2010), Senge states that for the past 140 

years the shareholder has been protected, and with good reason. But today, he questions whether 

that still makes sense. Senge argues that we have a surplus of financial capital but yet great 

shortages of natural capital, human capital, and social capital. We have optimized our business 

model around one input. 

Laws, regulations and standards have played an important role in making the environment and 

health and safety “less bad”. Sustainability however, has sought to establish principles of 

continuous improvement to make the world better for present and future generations. Are all 

components of a robust program being used i.e. laws, regulations, industry standards, corporate 

responsibility commitments? Have we separated the elements of sustainability to the point 

where we have failed to recognize the interrelationships, and have measured only a part of an 

input/outcome?

Industries have embraced the concept of sustainability, have subscribed to reporting mechanisms 

with transparent outputs to prove to stakeholders that they are making progress. That progress 

has waned over the past few years but is it because of a lack of progress? Are there other factors 

such as not identifying the correct drivers or has the system become too complex, too abstract to 

measure accurately? 

Is more of the “same” needed – more laws, more regulations, more standards? Or do we need to 

look in a different direction, to different mechanisms to supplement the programs in place? Can 

the standards for sustainability build on the Codes of Conduct developed by industries? They are 

holistic in their approach; they are interrelated and personal – personal in that a failure would be 

directly felt by the industry both individually and collectively. And they are measurable and 

verifiable. 

5. References

www.ey.com/us/climatechange (Ernst and Young/Boston College GRI report download)

www.eicc.info (Electronic Industry Citizenship Coalition)

www.icca-chem.org (Responsible Care)
101

http://www.ey.com/US/en/Services/Specialty-Services/Climate-Change-and-SustainabilityServices/Value-of-sustainability-reporting 

Evans, Donald, 2004, Business Ethics: A Manual For Managing A Responsible Business 

Enterprise In Emerging Market Economies, U.S. Department of Commerce. 

http://www.ita.doc.gov/goodgovernance/adobe/bem_manual.pdf 

Senge, Peter, Bryan Smith, Nina Kruschwitz, Joe Laur, Sara Schley, 2008, The Necessary 

Revolution: How Individuals and Organizations are Working Together To Create A 

Sustainable World, Random House, New York.
102

[This page is internationally left blank]
103

Jawahir, I. S., F. Badurdeen, and K. E. Rouch, University of Kentucky

Towards Implementing and Advancing Sustainable Manufacturing: 

A Metrics-based Evaluation of Product and Process Sustainability

Abstract

This paper presents some promising strategic directions for implementing and advancing 

innovative sustainable manufacturing in industries for accelerated growth and economic 

development with an overview of the recent work completed by researchers at the Institute for 

Sustainable Manufacturing (ISM) in the University of Kentucky under a NIST-sponsored project 

on developing metrics for sustainable products and processes. A integrated “products – processes 

– systems” approach to sustainable manufacturing is shown with a justification for embarking on 

sustainable manufacturing through a metrics-based evaluation of sustainable products and 

processes to serve as the basis for achieving systems sustainability. A new evaluation method for 

quantifying the sustainability contents of sustainable products and processes through the use of a 

Product Sustainability Index (ProdSI) and Process Sustainability Index (ProcSI) is then 

presented with an implementation strategy followed by a summary of work with outlook.

Keywords

Manufacturing, Products, Processes, Metrics, Innovation

1. Background

1.1. Sustainability Interactions: Innovation – Manufacturing – Education and Training

Innovation plays a pivotal role in economic growth and societal and environmental wellbeing as 

it connects sustainability and manufacturing effectively and emphasizes the need for education 

and training for nurturing and promoting innovative approaches in industrial production. 

Sustainability as the driver for innovation: Numerous studies and in-depth analysis of 

sustainability concepts and applications have shown that sustainability is a driver for innovation. 

The most notable among these studies include an early work published in the Harvard Business 

Review which presents a five-stage approach with central challenges and competencies required, 

and the innovation opportunities discussed for each stage (Nidumolu et al., 2009): Stage 1: 

Viewing compliance as opportunity; Stage 2: Making value chains sustainable; Stage 3: 

Designing sustainable products and services; Stage 4: Developing new business models; and 

Stage 5: Creating next practice platforms. A more recent MIT study (Kiron et al., 2013) shows 

that many companies are generating profits from sustainability. This study recommends five 

practices to accomplish this: (1) Need to change the business model; (2) Leading from the top to 

integrate the effects; (3) Measuring and tracking sustainability goals and performance; (4) 

Understanding the customer expectations for sustainability in terms of value and cost; and (5) 

Collaborating with individuals, customers, businesses and groups beyond the boundaries of the 

organization. Sustainable value creation has thus become the focus of all sustainability studies.

Innovation promotes accelerated growth in manufacturing: It is well-known that innovation in 

industrial production with advancement of product and process technologies leads to 

technological advances with competitive advantage, and this promotes accelerated growth in 
104

manufacturing. Sustainable products and processes are known to be innovative, and they 

contribute to societal and environmental benefits, too.

Manufacturing is the engine for wealth generation and societal well-being: National economy 

of any country heavily depends on the manufacturing capacity and the diversity of products and 

processes developed for its population, and for marketing to other nations. Developed and 

developing nations have shown the pivotal role of manufacturing in job creation, societal wellbeing and national economic advancement. 

Societal well-being and economic growth heavily depend on the level and quality of education 

and training: Education and training of workforce are essential elements for economic and 

social growth of any nation. Such education and training programs in sustainability are also a 

strategic requirement for nations, communities and individuals. 

1.2. Sustainable Manufacturing

Definitions

There are numerous definitions and descriptions for sustainable manufacturing (US Department 

of Commerce, 2009; NACFAM, 2009; NIST, 2010; ASME, 2011; NSF 2013; ASME 2013). 

However, almost all such definitions fall short of showing the connectivity among the above 

integral elements, particularly connecting sustainability with innovation and value creation. 

Sustainable manufacturing offers a new way of producing functionally superior products using

innovative sustainable technologies and manufacturing methods through the coordination of 

capabilities across the supply chain. Thus, integrated sustainable manufacturing enables

sustainable value creation for all stakeholders. Sustainable manufacturing deals with three 

integral elements: products, processes and systems. To achieve sustainable production, each of 

these three integral elements is expected to demonstrate: (a) reduced negative environmental 

impact; (b) offer improved energy and resource efficiency; (c) generate minimum quantity of 

wastes; (d) provide operational safety; and offer improved personal health, while maintaining 

and/or improving the product and process quality (Jayal et al., 2010).

Product and Process Innovation for Sustainable Manufacturing

Developing innovative products, processes and systems is a significant aspect of sustainable 

manufacturing, and it involves a holistic approach to manufacturing different from the traditional 

manufacturing practices where the quality and performance characteristics are measured and 

quantified independently, often with no consideration of the effects of other integral elements. 

The emerging holistic and integrated approach requires all stakeholders to work together on 

common objectives with total commitment. To enable innovation in sustainable manufacturing, 

innovation must be embraced at the product, process and systems levels with close interactions 

among each other (Jawahir et al., 2013a). System innovation can be built on the foundation of 

product and process innovation.

2. Sustainability Elements at Product and Process Levels

Since there are multiple streams of energy, materials/resources and waste/emission involved at 

different stages over a product’s life, the total life-cycle must be considered in order to evaluate a 

product’s sustainability score for comparison between different designs, or between different 

production strategies. Graedel (1998) presented an extensive study of streamlined life-cycle 

analysis (SLCA) methods, including matrix approaches using target plots, and considering five 

major product life-cycle stages: pre-manufacture; manufacture; product delivery; use; and 
105

recycling. Subsequently, a simplified total life-cycle of a product was introduced including four 

key life-cycle stages – pre-manufacturing, manufacturing, use and post-use (Jawahir et al., 

2006). To achieve multiple product life-cycles with the goal of near-perpetual product/material 

life, it was shown that design and manufacturing practices for next-generation products must 

consider these product life-cycle stages using a more innovative 6R approach (Reduce, Reuse, 

Recycle, Recover, Redesign and Remanufacture) with transformation from lean to green to 

sustainable manufacturing (Joshi et al., 2006). A comprehensive systems approach can then be 

developed to cover products, processes and systems to enable sustainable value creation.

Product sustainability: Several researchers have considered the environmental performance and 

the associated economic and societal effects of products, largely intuitively, and offering limited 

quantitative descriptions. Thus, these analyses mostly remain non-analytical and less scientific. 

The need for quantitative modeling of product sustainability continues to grow. Consideration of 

a total and comprehensive evaluation of product sustainability can lead to reduced consumer 

costs over the entire life-cycle of the product, while the initial product cost could be slightly 

higher in some cases. This benefit is 

compounded when a multiple lifecycle approach is adopted on the basis 

of continuous material flow. Recent 

research on product sustainability 

evaluation shows a consistent trend 

towards the long-range development of 

a product sustainability rating system 

for all manufactured products. This 

rating would be expected to represent 

the “level of sustainability” built in a 

product by taking into account all 

major contributing sustainability 

elements and their sub-elements. Work 

by Fiksel et al. (1998) is among the 

earliest in attempting to quantify 

product sustainability in terms of 

economic, environmental and societal 

elements affecting the product. 

Subsequent work shows the six major 

product sustainability elements, along 

with numerous sub-elements -- see 

Figure 1 (Jawahir et al., 2006). 

Design for 

Environmental 

Impact

Design for 

Recyclability/

Remanufacturability

Design for 

Societal 

Impact

Design for 

Functionality

Design for 

Manufacturability

Design for 

Resource 

Utilization 

and 

Economy

Design for 

Sustainability 

(DFS)

Regional and 

Global Impact

Energy Efficiency/

Power Consumption

Assembly

Service Life/ 

Durability

Social Impact

Figure 1. Major elements and sub-elements of 

product design for sustainability 

(Jawahir et al., 2006)
106

Process sustainability: The primary 

objective of identifying and defining the 

various contributing elements and subelements of manufacturing process 

sustainability is to establish a unified, 

standard scientific methodology to 

evaluate the degree of sustainability of a 

given manufacturing process. This 

evaluation can be performed irrespective 

of product life-cycle issues, recycling, 

remanufacturability, etc., of the 

manufactured product. Manufacturing 

processes are numerous, and depending on 

the product being manufactured, method of manufacture, and their key characteristics, these 

processes differ very widely. In an early work it was shown that sustainability of a

manufacturing process can be evaluated in terms of six major interacting elements 

(Wanigarathne et al., 2004) -- see Figure 2. The motivation for recent sustainability studies of 

manufacturing processes comes from recent efforts in developing a manufacturing process 

sustainability index. The idea in developing this concept is to separate the manufacturing process 

from the global picture of sustainability, and to develop it up to the “level of acceptance” for 

common practice in industry. 

3. A Metrics-based Approach for Evaluating Product and Process Sustainability

In a recent NIST-sponsored project, the researchers at the University of Kentucky developed a 

metrics-based approach for evaluating the sustainability content of a manufactured product using 

a five-level hierarchical structure, and this led to the derivation of a Product Sustainability Index 

(ProdSI), beginning with metrics through to sub-clusters, clusters and sub-index to index. This 

hierarchical structure, with identified relevant metric clusters, is shown in Figure 3 (Jawahir et 

al., 2013b).

Sustainable Manufacturing

Processes

Operational Safety

Environmental

Friendliness

Personnel Health

Manufacturing Cost

Energy Consumption

Waste Management

Figure 2. Major elements of process 

sustainability (Wanigarathne et al., 2004)
107

Figure 3. The hierarchical structure of product sustainability evaluation method 

with metric clusters (Jawahir et al., 2013b)

A total of 13 product clusters were developed, each with measurable metrics, applied to relevant 

life-cycle stage. The evaluation product sustainability can be made using the following integrated 

expression shown in Equation (1):

 (1)

Metric clusters with measurable example metrics, along with the corresponding life-cycle 

stage(s), are shown in Figure 4 (Jawahir et al., 2013b).

Product Sustainability Index 

(ProdSI)

Economic

Initial Investment

Overhead Expense

Benefits and Losses

Environmental

Material Use and Efficiency

Energy Use and Efficiency

Natural Resource Use and Efficiency

Waste and Emissions

Product End of Life

Societal

Product Quality and Durability

Functionality

Product EOL management

Product Safety and Health

Regulations and Certification

 





















 







    

13

9

3

1

8

4

3

1

3

1

i

i

C

c

i

w

i

i

C

i

c

i

w

i

C

c

i

ProdSI Ec Ev So w

SC M w j

C SC w j

m

n k k

sc

m j j

 

 





Metrics Clusters Example Metrics Unit

(D/L dimensionless)

PM

(pre- mfg.)

M

(mfg.)

U

(use)

PU

(post- use)

Residues Emissions Rate (carbon-dioxide, sulphuroxides, nitrous-oxides etc.) mass/unit √ √ √ √

Energy Use and Efficiency Remanufactured Product Energy kWh/unit √ √ √ Maintenance/ Repair Energy kWh/unit √ Product End-of-Life Management Design-for-Environment Expenditure $/$ (D/L) √

Material Use and efficiency Restricted Material Usage Rate mass/unit √ √ √ Water Use and Efficiency Recycled Water Usage Rate gallons/unit √ √ √

Cost Product Operational Cost $/unit √

Innovation Average Disassembly Cost $/unit √

Profitability Profit $/unit √

Product Quality Defective Products Loss $/unit √ Warranty Cost Ratio $/unit √

Education Employee Training Hours/unit √ √ √

Customer Satisfaction

Repeat Customer Ratio (D/L) √ √

Post-Sale Service Effectiveness (D/L) √ Product End-of-Life Management Ease of Sustainable Product Disposal $/unit √

Product Safety

and Societal Well-being

Product Processing Injury Rate incidents/unit √ √ √

Landfill Reduction mass/unit √ √ √ √
108

Figure 4. Product sustainability metric clusters, example metrics and relevant 

product life-cycle stages (Jawahir et al., 2013b)

Similarly, the previously identified 

six major sustainability elements 

(Figure 1) of manufacturing 

processes are also organized into a 

metrics-based system to evaluate 

the process sustainability. Metrics 

involved in a three-level process 

sustainability evaluation for the 

energy cluster are shown in Figure 

5. Figure 6 shows the clusters and 

sub-clusters used in deriving the 

Process Sustainability Index 

(ProcSI).

Figure 6. Clusters and sub-clusters developed for the ProcSI method (Jawahir et al., 2013b)

The overall Process Sustainability Index (ProcSI) is determined through using Equation (2):

 (2)

Figure 7 shows examples of the overall results from the implementation of the newly proposed 

sustainability evaluation methodology for manufactured products and manufacturing processes 

in terms of ProdSI and ProcSI scores at sub-index levels. The overall ProdSI and ProcSI scores 

(on a scale of 0 – 1, or 0 –10) can be derived with appropriate weighting. Details of the overall 

evaluation of product and process sustainability, including the derivation of Equations (1) and 

Process Sustainability Index 

(ProcSI)

Machining cost

Direct cost

Indirect cost

Capital cost

Energy 

consumption

Production

Maineinance

Transportation

Facilities

Renewable energy

Environmental 

impact

Energy

Water

Restricted Material

Disposed Waste

Noise Pollution

Waste management

Consumables

Packaging

Used Raw Material

Scrap Parts

Operator safety

Injuries Working environment 

conditions 

(safety)

Personal Health

Physical Load 

Index (PLI)

Abseenteism rate Working environment 

conditions 

(health)







   





             

2 3

2 2

2 1

1 9

1 8

1 5

1 4

1 0

1 2

6

1 2

1

3

1

4

1

5

1

6

1

6

1

i

i

s c

i

i

i

s c

i

i

i

s c

i

i

i

s c

i

i

ProcSI Ci C C w SC w SC w SC w SC SC w M j

j

m

n

 j 

Line Level

In-line energy consumption

Workstation Level

Energy consumption of machine operations

Energy consumption of communication / controlling system

Energy consumption of 

illumination

Energy consumption of inline transportation

Operation Level

Energy consumption of the centrifuge

Energy consumption of the main spindle motor

Energy consumption of the coolant supply pump

Energy consumption of the oil pressure pump Energy consumption of the mist collector, cooler and control unit Energy consumption of the servos

Figure 5. Structure of the three-level metrics involved 

in process sustainability evaluation for the energy 

cluster (Jawahir et al., 2013b)
109

(2), with aggregation and normalization, along with three industry-based case studies, are welldocumented in the project report (Jawahir et al., 2013b). 

Figure 7. Examples of product and process sustainability evaluation results

4. Implementing Product and Process Sustainability Metrics

There has been considerable effort in the manufacturing industry in recent years to develop and 

implement various sustainable manufacturing practices with corporate commitment to 

sustainability, including dedicated educational and training programs in place. However, the 

effectiveness of these activities has been somewhat limited, and the progress in implementing 

sustainability concepts in product manufacturing is rather slow due to the complexities involved 

in identifying relevant tools and techniques for measuring and quantifying the numerous 

sustainability elements in manufactured products and manufacturing processes. Metrics-based 

evaluation of sustainable products and processes offers an opportunity for embracing sustainable 

manufacturing, with clearly quantifiable outcome in terms of economic and environmental 

benefits and societal wellbeing. Effective implementation of sustainable manufacturing practices, 

with measurable and quantifiable metrics, can significantly improve manufacturing operations 

through product/process quality enhancement and productivity improvement. 

Case studies were undertaken to validate the new methodology in manufactured products and 

manufacturing processes from three participating manufacturing companies representing three 

major segments of the manufacturing industry (GE-Aviation, representing aerospace industry; 

Toyota Motor Manufacturing, representing automotive industry; and Lexmark International, 

representing the consumer electronics industry).

Product/process metrics can be further developed to formulate relevant standards for evaluating 

the sustainability levels of manufactured products and manufacturing processes. Regulatory 

compliance with such new standards would be expected to open up opportunities for developing 

new and innovative product/process technologies, thus can pave the way for significantly 

advancing the field of sustainable manufacturing. A thorough understanding of sustainability 

principles in manufacturing, with total life-cycle and 6R considerations, is expected to form the 

basis for such innovative approach. Education and training would play a major role in 

implementing sustainable manufacturing principles in industry for products and processes. 

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

Machining

cost

Energy 

consumption

Waste management

Environmental Impact

Personnel Health

Operator 

safety

Clusters

Economy 6.50 Society 8.00

Environment 9.00

(a) ProdSI (b) ProcSI
110

5. Summary and Outlook

This paper summarizes the work recently completed at the Institute for Sustainable 

Manufacturing (ISM) under a NIST-sponsored research project involving development of 

relevant metrics and evaluation technics for sustainable products and sustainable manufacturing 

processes. Relevant metrics were identified under sub-clusters and were placed within various 

clusters, and through normalization and aggregation methods, with suitable weighting applied, 

these metric clusters are placed under the three major sustainability elements (environment, 

economy and society), also known in this work as sub-index, and the sustainability contents of 

manufactured products and manufacturing processes were evaluated. Case studies were 

conducted to validate the new methods for evaluating sustainable products and processes.

Significant challenges are involved in implementing metrics-based evaluation of products and 

processes. It is hoped that the proposed metrics-based sustainability system can be used as a 

basis for developing new sustainability standards for manufactured products and manufacturing 

processes, and for advancing the field of sustainable manufacturing.

6. References

ASME Sustainable Manufacturing Open Research Forum: Preparing for a New Business 

Imperative, ASME, June 18, 2013, Washington, DC.

ASME Sustainable Products and Processes Strategic Plan, ASME, February 2011.

Fiksel, J., McDaniel, J., and Spitzley, D., 1998, Measuring Product Sustainability, J. Sustainable 

Product Design, pp. 7-18. 

Graedel, T.E., Streamlined Life-cycle Assessment, 1998, Prentice-Hall, New Jersey, USA.

Kiron, D., Kruschwitz, N., Haanaes, K., Reeves, M., Goh, E., 2013, The Innovation Bottom 

Line, MIT Sloan Management Review Research Report, Winter 2013.

Jawahir, I.S., F. Badurdeen and K.E. Rouch, 2013a, Innovation in Sustainable Manufacturing 

Education, (Keynote Paper), Proc. 11th Global Conference on Sustainable Manufacturing 

(GCSM) (Ed: G. Seliger), Berlin, Germany, pp. 9-16. 

Jawahir, I.S., Badurdeen, F. and Rouch, K.E., 2013b, Metrics-based Evaluation of Product and 

Process Sustainability and Case Studies, NIST Project Final Report, Institute for Sustainable 

Manufacturing, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA.

Jawahir, I.S., Rouch, K.E., Dillon, O.W., Jr., Joshi, K.J., Venkatachalam, A., Jaafar, I.H., 2006, 

Total life-cycle considerations in product design for manufacture: A framework for 

comprehensive evaluation, (Keynote Paper), Proc. TMT 2006, Barcelona, Spain, 1-10.

Jayal, A.D., Badurdeen, F., Dillon Jr., O.W., Jawahir, I.S., 2010, Sustainable Manufacturing: 

Modeling and Optimization Challenges at the Product, Process and System Levels, CIRP 

Journal of Manufacturing Science and Technology, 2: 144-152.

Joshi, K., A. Venkatachalam and I.S. Jawahir, 2006, A New Methodology for Transforming 3R 

Concept into 6R Concept for Improved Product Sustainability, Proc. IV Global Conference 

on Sustainable Product Development and Life Cycle Engineering, São Carlos, Brazil.

NACFAM: 

http://www.nacfam.org/PolicyInitiatives/SustainableManufacturing/tabid/64/Default.aspx

Nidumolu, R., Prahalad, C.K., Rangaswami, M.R., 2009, Why Sustainability is Now the Key 

Driver of Innovation, Harvard Business Review, September 2009, 3-10. 

NIST Report: Sustainable Manufacturing: Metrics, Standards, and Infrastructure – NIST 

Workshop Report, (Editors: S. Rachuri et al.), NIST, April 2010.
111

NSF Report: Sustainable Manufacturing Advances in Research and Technology (SMART) 

Coordination Network: Output from the Roadmap Workshop on Sustainable Manufacturing, 

Compiled by IMTI, Inc.; Report on NSF-sponsored Workshop, Cincinnati, Ohio, August 15-

16, 2013; Document Released on September 8, 2013.

US Department of Commerce: http://www.trade.gov/competitiveness/sustainablemanufacturing

Wanigarathne, P.C., J. Liew, X. Wang, O. W. Dillon, Jr. and I. S. Jawahir, 2004,“Assessment of 

Process Sustainability for Product Manufacture in Machining Operations”, Proc. Global 

Conf. on Sustainable Product Development and Life Cycle Engineering, Berlin, Germany, 

September 2004, pp. 305-312.

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge the funding for the work presented in this position paper by 

NIST through a grant (Award No: 60NANB10D009) during 2010-13. Also, special thanks are 

extended to the three manufacturing companies (GE-Aviation, Toyota Motor Manufacturing and 

Lexmark International) who participated in this project by providing specific case studies and 

testbed development.
112

Kasal, Bohumil, Carolo-Wilhelmina University, Braunschweig, Germany

International Perspectives on Metrics

Abstract

This papers attempts to summarize some of the international (European) standards covering the 

assessment of sustainability of buildings. While some parameters are quantifiable and can be 

objectively measured, many are speculative in character and can only be estimated.

Keywords

Metrics, sustainability, Europe, Germany, LCA, standards

Sustainable construction and manufacturing are a part of the complex issue of maintaining the 

living standards and conditions of the industrially developed world and simultaneously allowing 

underdeveloped countries to achieve acceptable living conditions. The definition of “acceptable 

living conditions” is not clear and will not be discussed here. In this paper, I will focus on 

technical issues and make an attempt to relativize my statements at the end of the text. I will also 

focus on the European experience in the context of construction systems. 

To decide whether or not a structure is sustainable or to which degree sustainability can be 

defined, one needs to define a set of parameters that can be measured and evaluated in a 

quantitative fashion. Such a set of parameters, however, varies in time and space and is affected 

by non-technical factors such as energy costs, demographics, economic models, and even 

politics. Very few structures are monitored beyond the standard data related to energy 

consumption, and measurements are driven by economic models (cost of operation) and not 

technical or engineering drivers. Of course, the data collected are always related to the questions 

asked, such as cost of electricity or gas per given time, which requires a simple cumulative, 

scalar measurement of gas/electricity consumption without any relationship to other parameters 

such as weather. Sustainable construction contains several phases that affect overall building 

performance and its sustainability:

1. land development phase

2. material production phase

3. construction phase

4. building function/use phase

5. maintenance and repair phase

6. deconstruction and recycling phase

It is clear that many parameters related to sustainability assessment are subjectively defined, such 

as transportation distance from raw material source to manufacturing site or energy demand to 

produce certain components. These soft or estimated parameters significantly affect the overall 

estimate of the footprint of a final system and are, in my view, a weak point of the life-cycle 

analysis. I will focus on phase 4, which offers opportunities for the scientific assessment of 

system performance and allows implementing measurements that can yield objective data sets 

necessary for evaluation of building performance. 
113

European, and more specifically German, construction systems are heavily biased toward 

massive construction systems (reinforced concrete, lightweight masonry or steel) and energy 

demand during system use is a driving force in defining sustainability of a building. The use of 

renewable materials is, of course, positively evaluated but is viewed in the context of building 

life expectancy. Active control systems such as light-intensity and temperature controlled shades 

or ventilation systems are commonly used in public buildings but not in residential construction. 

Air conditioning systems are not commonly used or are even prohibited in certain public 

buildings but air quality is becoming a significant issue. 

Controlled heating systems tied to exterior temperature and interior temporal and spatial 

temperature distribution is commonly installed. All of these systems require measurements of 

temperatures at various locations of the building and programmable controllers that consider 

time delays, energy accumulation in the system, and losses. Forced-air heating systems are not 

common in Germany and most European countries due to the lack of air-conditioning in most 

buildings, but mechanical air-exchange systems will be necessary in the future due to the 

demand for and regulations of indoor air quality that is becoming poor in buildings solely 

focused on minimizing energy demand. It appears that a lack of ventilation due to natural 

infiltration of buildings negatively affects indoor air quality, increases the risks associated with 

health hazards, and negatively affects the material performance of the structure, mainly due to 

the high relative humidity of air. Indoor air quality must become a part of the metrics used to

evaluate the sustainability of a structure and it does include, beside typical parameters such as 

temperature, relative humidity, and air exchange rate, the presence of formaldehyde, VOC's and 

solid particles (including nanoparticles) in the air. Air exchange rate is an easy and indirect way 

of limiting pollutants in the air but may be of limited relevance if high concentrations of VOC's 

are generated by the building contents. It is therefore necessary to measure the VOC's (including 

formaldehyde concentrations) as a function of time and relate this data to the operation of 

ventilation systems.

1. Building Instrumentation and Measured Parameters

The table below (Table 1) proposes parameters to be measured to obtain real-time information 

about the performance of the building. The parameters listed in the table are intended for 

experimental structures, where the frequency of monitoring is significantly different from 

common control parameters or cumulative energy use parameters. Use of renewable materials 

such as ligno-cellulosic fiber insulation or wood-based construction elements is associated with 

risks resulting from the biodegradability of such materials. It is therefore necessary to monitor 

moisture conditions that affect the biodegradation processes and relate them to the aging models. 

Predicting the life expectancy of a building is a necessary condition for a complete life-cycle 

analysis. The models for aging of materials are still not fully validated—there is a known 

discrepancy between accelerated aging tests and real in-situ aging. It is not even clear what 

metrics need to be used to predict the life expectancy of a construction system. Besides purely 

physical parameters such as temperature and load history, moral aging is probably more 

prevalent; it can be hardly predicted but can be set a priori. 

Parameters related to the performance of a building envelope are well known and most 

investigated. They are used to determine the energy efficiency of a building. Acoustics and 

vibrations significantly affect system performance and comfort. These parameters are prescribed 
114

in Europe, where a significant percentage of the population lives in apartment buildings. Light 

construction systems (such as wood frame structures) suffer from poor performance with regard 

to noise penetration and vibrations induced by occupants. 

Indoor air quality has been a concern in recent years and VOC concentrations can exceed 

allowable levels, especially in buildings with low air exchange rates. Formaldehyde emissions 

from wood composite materials (furniture, floor systems, and adhesives) are considered 

hazardous even in small concentrations. Although formaldehyde concentrations are measured at 

the material and product levels, what is really important is the exposure of occupants, and not 

necessarily emissions from a product. 

Water consumption and discharge are commonly measured and are naturally parameters that 

affect the sustainability of a system.

Parameters related to exterior conditions are needed to estimate the deterioration of the system, 

energy efficiency, as well as correctors for indoor-air quality assessment (indoor air is 

significantly affected by the outdoor pollution). 

2. Standards and Codes Related to Sustainability

Attempts are made to establish common rules geared towards achieving certain degree of 

sustainability in construction. In some countries, such as Germany, the regulations are heavily 

biased towards energy either embodied or consumed in the process of building use. Table 2 lists 

some of the International standards that are applicable to the sustainability evaluation of 

buildings. Many of the criteria are subjective by nature and offer various interpretations. The use 

and interpretation of the tools to evaluate sustainability has spatial constraints. While in highly 

developed countries the engineering measures can contain relatively sophisticated systems and 

solutions at relatively high initial costs, the developing world cannot potentially use the 

sophisticated technologies and absorb high initial costs. The applicability of existing standards to 

societies where mere survival is a challenge is limited, at best. It appears however, that it is the 

developing world that will significantly influence if not completely determine our ability to 

sustain our living conditions. Here realistic solutions with maximum use of local resources are 

required. 
115

Table 1. Suggested matrix of physical quantities to be monitored in a building and surrounding environment

Parameters measured

Frequency

Component/Parameter

Temperatu

re

RWVP Acceleration/

Vibrations

Noise 

intensity

Formaldehyd 

concentration

VOC 

concentrati

on

Light 

intensi

ty

Air 

exchange

continuous

ly

continu

ously

triggered triggered daily/weekly 

or random

daily/weekl

y or random

hourly random

Building envelope

Walls x x

Openings x x

Roof x x

Interior partitions x

Ceilings/Floors x x x

Indoor climate Rooms x x x x x x x

Energy 

consumption/mechanical 

systems (HVAC)

Rooms

Mech. 

systems

x x x x

Ageing of materials x x x x x

Water consumption

Wastewater discharge

Building continuously

Exterior environment

(weather station)

wind, rain, 

snow fall, 

sun 

radiation

X x x x x

RWVP=relative water vapor pressure

Table 2. Standards applicable in Germany to assessment of building sustainability

Code title Designation Issued What it covers

Sustainability of construction works -

Environmental product declarations -

Methodology for selection and use of 

generic data

CEN/TR 

15941

2010 Generic data, data quality, LCA of materials and processes, quality assessment of 

generic data, spatial and temporal data validity, data consistency, data validity, 

completeness, uncertainty of data, reliability of data sources, sensitivity analysis

Sustainability of construction works -

Sustainability assessment of buildings -

Part 1: General framework

EN 15643-1 2010 Requirements for assessment methods, Object of assessment and the system 

boundary, Scenarios, Transparency, Environmental, social and economic 

requirements from client's brief and/or regulations

Sustainability of construction works - EN 15643-2 2011 Approach to assessment of environmental performance, Requirements for 
116

Assessment of buildings - Part 2: 

Framework for the assessment of 

environmental performance

assessment methods, Type of data and their assignment to the building life cycle, 

Impacts and aspects specific to the building fabric during the building life cycle, 

Impacts and aspects specific to building in operation, Requirements for 

calculation methods for assessment of environmental performance of buildings

Sustainability of construction works -

Assessment of buildings - Part 3: 

Framework for the assessment of social 

performance -

EN 15643-3 2012 Requirements for assessment methods, Type of data and data allocation in the 

assessment of social performance, Requirements for data quality in the 

assessment of social performance, Requirements for assessment methods of 

social performance of buildings

Sustainability of construction works -

Assessment of buildings - Part 4: 

Framework for the assessment of 

economic performance

EN 15643-4 2012 Objective of economic performance assessment of the building, Requirements for 

assessment methods, Economic aspects and impacts specific to the building, 

Requirements for calculation methods for assessment of economic performance 

of buildings, Economic aspects of building performance through the life cycle of 

the building

Sustainability of construction works -

Environmental product declarations - Core 

rules for the product category of 

construction products

EN 15804

+A1

2012

2013

Environmental declaration of products, Product Category Rules for LCA, 

Declaration of environmental parameters derived from LCA, Additional 

information on release of dangerous substances to indoor air, soil and water 

during the use stage

DIN SPEC 18941 Environmental product 

declarations – Methodology and data for 

generic data

CEN/TR 

15941

2010 German editions of CEN/TR 15941. LCA. Use of generic data. Materials and 

processes. Data verification procedures. Sensitivity analysis.

Sustainability of construction works -

Environmental product declarations -

Communication format business-tobusiness -

EN 15942 2011 Construction, Buildings, Construction works, Construction materials, 

Construction systems parts, Sustainability, Sustainable development, 

Environmental management, Environmental engineering, Declarations, Life 

cycle, Wastes, Information exchange, Technical documents, Enterprises

Sustainability of construction works -

Assessment of environmental performance 

of buildings - Calculation method -

EN 15978 2011 LCA of buildings. Calculation methods to evaluate the environmental quality of 

buildings.

Sustainability in building construction --

General principles

ISO 15392 2008 General principles for sustainability in building construction from their inception 

to the end of life. Applicable to buildings and other construction works 

individually and collectively, as well as to the materials, products, services and 

processes related to the life cycle of buildings and other construction works. ISO 

15392 does not provide levels (benchmarks) that can serve as the basis for 

sustainability claims. It is not intended to provide the basis for assessment of 

organizations or other stakeholders.1)

Sustainability in building construction --

Sustainability indicators -- Part 1: 

Framework for the development of 

indicators and a core set of indicators for 

ISO 21929-1 2011 A core set of indicators to take into account in the use and development of 

sustainability indicators for assessing the sustainability performance of new or 

existing buildings, related to their design, construction, operation, maintenance, 

refurbishment and end of life. Provides measures to express the contribution of a 
117

buildings building(s) to sustainability and sustainable development.1)

Sustainability in building construction --

Environmental declaration of building 

products

ISO 21930 2007 Principles and requirements for type III environmental declarations (EPD) of 

building products. Contains specifications and requirements for the EPD of 

building products.1)

Sustainability in building construction --

Framework for methods of assessment of 

the environmental performance of 

construction works -- Part 1: Buildings

ISO 21931-1 2010 Provides a general framework for improving the quality and comparability of 

methods for assessing the environmental performance of buildings and their 

related external works. 1)

Sustainability in buildings and civil 

engineering works -- A review of 

terminology

ISO/TR 

21932

2013 A compilation of terms and definitions of concepts related to both the 

construction and use of a building or civil engineering works, and the effect of 

such construction works on sustainability and sustainable development, as 

applied in the documents of ISO/TC 59/SC 17, Sustainability in buildings and 

civil engineering works1)

Guidelines for the application of the 

general principles on sustainability

ISO/ TS 

12720

2014 Provides guidance for the application of the general principles of sustainability in 

buildings and civil engineering works elaborated in ISO 15392. It shows the 

different actors involved with the construction works how to take these principles 

into account in their decision-making processes in order to increase the 

contribution of the construction works to sustainability and sustainable 

development.1)

1) Source: ISO Standards Catalog. http://www.iso.org/
118

Kearney, Michael S., University of Maryland

Coastal Infrastructure, Storms, and Sea Level Rise: Measuring the Effects

Abstract

Sea levels are predicted to increase substantially in rate during this century. At the same, there 

are also predictions that tropical and extra-tropical storms (hurricanes and cyclones; nor’easters) 

could become more frequent and intense. The impacts on coastal infrastructure could be 

immense, but the methods that could be used, especially on sandy shorelines, depend not just on 

the forecasts for sea level rise, but also knowing both the long term trends in shore processes and 

position. Such information is critical to plan for sustainable coastal residential and commercial 

infrastructure, even where considerable development already exists. This paper identifies 

problems encountered in planning for the amount of freeboard above predicted sea levels, 

mitigation of storm surge, wave, and wind damage from coastal storms, the utility of shoreline 

setbacks, and the application of “soft” and “hard” solutions to shoreline stability.

Keywords

Shore protection, coastal storms, storm surge, wave damage

1. Background

Concerns about the effects of future climate change on infrastructure range from challenges 

facing maintaining transportation infrastructure in areas that experience already hot summers and 

how typical road materials will fare if summers become even warmer, to enhanced rates of 

corrosion in others areas where temperatures become even warmer but also wetter. Preserving 

and monitoring of existing (and new) coastal infrastructure – let alone construction of new 

structures – presents some of the greatest challenges. Not only are there the typical problems of 

designing infrastructure to survive the corrosive effects of salt in either the water or air, but the 

prospect of accelerated sea level rise to consider, especially for many low-lying areas that 

become characterized by frequent coastal storms (either tropical or subtropical). In such cases, it 

attention cannot be paid to just the design, building, and monitoring of structures, but also their 

physical setting. Indeed, for some coasts, physical setting may be the consideration that trumps 

all others. Thus, in this paper, not only elements of coastal infrastructure design will be examined 

from the perspective of sustainability, but also physical setting, especially in the context of how 

human activities have often compounded the engineering problems.

2. Storm Surge and Wave Damage

Sandy beaches, particularly those on barrier islands, pose special problems. A primary problem 

is determining frontage from the surf zone and “freeboard” (vertical space above mean high high 

water, MHHW) that incorporates estimates of the potential for large wave runup (and 

secondarily, wave setup) during storms. The simplest factor contributing to this problem is the 

seasonal change that occurs in the width of the foreshore (the “beach”) along much of the middle 

Atlantic Coast. In winter the foreshore is much narrower than the average width due to erosion 

and transport offshore by short period wave typically produced by winter storms (generally 

nor’easters). In summer, much of the sand (but not all) moves back onshore driven by the long 

period swell approaching the coast from the southeast. However, though this phenomenon is well 

known, there are often not sufficient data to estimate the average amount of narrowing of the 
119

foreshore during winter vs. the average widening during summer. Moreover, as noted, not the all 

the sand returns during the yearly seasonal beach cycle. Over the long term, even less sand may 

return since rising sea levels are progressively eroding the beach and, in the case of barrier 

islands, driving shoreward up the coastal profile. In fact, some of the sand lost from the beach 

during exceptional winter storm events may take decades to return.

In addition to problems of the amount of freeboard from storm surge and waves, coastal 

infrastructure, especially residential infrastructure, presents obstacles to designing and 

monitoring sustainable infrastructure that has nothing to do with the structures themselves, but 

often the unplanned and chaotic character of coastal communities particularly in older 

developments. This lack of a planned arrangement of houses and other building makes it difficult 

to construct flood water diversion routes, creating natural or artificial wave buffers, wind breaks, 

and other mitigative measures. The desire for beach frontage, even where the risks are well 

known, continues to hinder sustainable coastal development. Short of zoning restrictions that 

may be subject to litigation as well as being politically unpopular, passing land use tax incentives 

is perhaps the best option for promoting land use more conducive to adaptive strategies for 

sustainability.

Shore protection strategies for coastal sustainability, on the other hand, have had a mixed history. 

There can be no doubt concerning the effectiveness of some “hard” structural solutions for 

sustaining coastal infrastructure like seawalls – the Galveston sea wall is irrefutable example of 

this statement. This sea wall has prevented for more than a century a recurrence of the 

catastrophic wave damage experienced by that city in the infamous 1900 hurricane for over a 

century (Larson 1999). The sea wall in Seabright, New Jersey, is another case. Other “hard” 

shore protection features, like groins and jetties, have contributed to beach maintenance but at a 

cost of often severe beach loss down drift. Hence, federal and state permitting processes have 

become less receptive to the implementation of these features.

“Soft” shore protection solutions, like beach nourishment, are supposed to increase beach 

(foreshore) width and elevation. They meet the criteria of increasing the buffer between coastal 

infrastructure and storm hazards. However, they also have been denounced for being a waste of 

tax payer money because the longevity of the projects can be very short, as well as potentially 

damaging to benthic habitats because from dredging. The first objection, the lack of a 

sufficiently longevity to make the expense worthwhile, is certainly true of sandy coasts in the 

U.S. middle Atlantic and northeast Atlantic coasts. The annual recurrence of winter storms 

(nor’easters) can erode re-nourished beaches back to their pre-restoration condition in a few 

years. On the other hand, at latitudes where nor’easters are comparatively rare (essentially, South 

Carolina and southward), beach nourishment has been more effective and longer lasting. Miami 

Beach has few major re-nourishments projects since the first major beach nourishment project 

almost 50 years ago. Tropical storms (e.g., hurricanes), of course, do occur in these latitudes, but 

not with any frequency approaching that of nor’easters and other extra-tropical storms farther 

north.

There are other “soft” beyond beach protection strategies whose objectives are to raise land 

elevations and foster development of “natural” storm surge buffers. Reconstruction of the 

foredune on sandy beaches and barrier islands is often discussed as a method of achieving both 
120

objectives of raising shore elevation and creating a buffer. The major obstacle to successful 

adoption of this practice is the fact that most of the natural dune areas in many cases are already 

developed. There have been attempts at creating foredunes seaward of existing development –

Ocean City, Maryland, is one example. But whether plantings of American beach grass 

(Ammophila sp.) or sea oats (Uniola sp.) atop linear piles of sand bulldozed into place will 

function as dunes is questionable. For one, these grasses depend on sending out leaders from 

their rhizomes to propagate, and examination of cross-sections through existing dunes reveals a 

network of older rhizome and roots as well as complex sedimentary structures as deposition 

varies with changes in wind direction over long periods of time. In other words, a coastal dune as

a structure exists because there is an interaction between the plants (mainly grasses) that trap the 

sand, the changes in wind direction and strength, and shore processes seaward of the dune. To 

have a successful dune construction program, at the very least, some idea of how the plants, 

winds, and sediment dynamics operate in area is essential. This has not always been the case, and 

the efficacy of artificial dunes for coastal protection has been less than could have been. 

Moreover, the nascent dunes need constant attention and husbandry to insure stability. Overall, 

however, where possible, dune creation is relatively speaking a low-cost way of enhancing the 

sustainability of infrastructure on sandy beaches. They also contribute to the ecology of the area 

and the enjoyment of the beach experience. As a strategy, though has to been implemented with 

other approaches.

Solutions for accommodating risks associated with sea level rise and coastal storms depend on 

the age of the structure and characteristics of the site. Clearly, in considering new structures in 

areas where development has been modest, two factors need to be taken into account: freeboard 

of the structure and the amount of frontage facing the ocean. The importance of the first has been 

already discussed, and for residential structures, pilings and/or columns are the typical 

construction practices. Where these structures have failed, generally there have flaws relating to 

the lack of adequate anchoring (piles not driven deep enough to overcome instability due to 

erosion of overlying sediment), rot or corrosion of the columns, and excessive width creating 

opportunities for increased concentration of wave power. Moreover, owners often try to recover 

the space within the footprint of the columns by constructing walls between the columns, or large 

secondary structures within the column space. In either case, such features run the risk of 

interrupting the flow of surge waters or waves. Break-away walls and structures are design 

answers to the potential of having buildup of flood water or wave energy on the pilings.

The second problem, the amount of frontage a structure presents to oncoming storm surges and 

waves, can be addressed easily with new construction. Owners of beach houses generally want to 

orientate their houses to maximize the opportunity for large patios and decks facing the ocean, in 

addition to allow for placement of large picture windows. All this is understandable, since a 

beach house is built for enjoyment, and features like large decks facing the ocean certainly 

contribute to that experience. Nonetheless, by placing the long axis (assuming the building is 

rectangular) in a shore-parallel orientation limits engineering options for controlling and 

diverting flood waters and the emplacement of natural and artificial structures for mitigating 

wave damage. 

The last options for limiting storm surge and wave damage concern land use policies that: i) 

either control how long structures can stay in place before being moved to account for shoreline 
121

retreat and increasing flood and wave risk; or ii) set aside areas where there no is development 

and erosion rates are slow. The first falls under the rubric of shoreline setbacks and similar 

approaches, and can realistically be only applied to low intensity residential development. The 

second approach runs the chance of litigation in line with the principle of “takings”, where the 

government contravenes a landowner’s right to full and free use of her or his property. Tax 

incentives or other legislative devices constitute ways of avoiding such conflicts, but 

recalcitrance on the part of an owner always remains a possibility.

3. Wind Damage

Though few of these structures still remain with the pace of development south Florida in recent 

decades, the older coastal structures, mainly residences, that pre-dated the housing boom were 

generally small, one story masonry buildings with flat, slightly-pitched roofs that had very little 

overhang. Windows were also small and easily protected in the case of a storm. Generalizations 

are always heir to exceptions, but it would not be inaccurate to say that housing construction in 

recent decades has not followed this old relatively wind-resistant design. Wooden frame 

construction, multistory plans, and roofs with overhangs that promote wind damage can be 

observed in many of the new beach properties both on the Gulf and Atlantic Coasts of Florida 

(and elsewhere for that matter). FEMA and other agencies have produced documents – most 

recently, the Coastal Construction Manual released by FEMA IN 2011 (FEMA 2011) – that 

provide guidance for diminishing the likelihood of damage from strong (hurricane) winds on 

coastal buildings. It is not possible to say what influence these publications have had on coastal 

construction and especially with respect to what regulatory actions have been enacted (likely at 

the state and municipal level). The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) of FEMA is 

voluntary. However, the real incentive for compliance may ultimately lie with private insurers, 

who may mandate certain construction features before granting coverage. For older structures, 

denial of coverage (if new requirements are not met) could be a prerogative of insurers, though 

politically it would not be prudent to do so. Despite these caveats, there is one other avenue for 

compliance that could spur municipalities and counties to regulate the type and quality of coastal 

infrastructure which is discussed next.

4. Collateral Damage

Surveys of storm damage from hurricanes or exceptional nor’easters in recent years from Florida 

to New York have highlighted an issue that could lead to new views and policies on coastal 

infrastructure and storm protection: collateral damage. It is no longer a question of encouraging 

individual owners (or even developers) for their own sakes to consider implementing features 

that lower risks for damage from storm surges, waves, and winds, but also for the overall good of 

the community. Damage assessments from mega-storms like Hurricane/Super Storm Sandy 

along the middle Atlantic Coasts and Hurricane Katrina in the Gulf Coast, have documented the 

hazards posed by flood-borne and wind-borne debris from inadequately-constructed buildings on 

other structures that might have gone undamaged from coastal storms. The example of 

Homestead, Florida, after Hurricane Andrew, is salutary. Not only did the lack of safety straps 

securing roofs to the main house studs cause losses to individual homeowners, but flying debris 

from displaced roofs caused damage to other buildings in the vicinity. Along the coast of 

Mississippi there were many instances of structures damaged by large rafts of crushed debris 

from demolished structures crashing into them, and not directly by the storm surge and waves of 

Katrina. A much older, but still powerful illustration of the power of surge- and wave-power 
122

debris is provided by pictures taken in the aftermath of the Galveston Hurricane of 1900 (Larson 

1999) 112 years ago. The huge moving ridge of crushed materials from smashed buildings and 

other structures also proved deadly to people trying to evacuate their homes and places of 

business during the storm (Larson 1999).

As the damage by debris from demolished buildings associated with inadequate construction 

becomes better known, it will be recognized that sustainability in coastal infrastructure means 

not just preserving individual buildings, but also limiting the wider hazard of debris impacts.

5. Conclusions and Gaps in Knowledge

Insuring that coastal infrastructure is sustainable in a future that may see an acceleration in 

global sea level rise coupled with more intense (and possibly more frequent) coastal storms is not 

only a question of infrastructure design and siting decisions. Instead, to be successful, 

involvement of government (local and regional) will be essential because however wellconstructed any building may be, its likelihood of sustaining the effects that the future holds 

depends on a concerted communal effort to make the community sustainable. As in so many 

other instances, engineering alone will not solve the problem.

That said, however, there gaps are our understanding of how infrastructure orientation and 

density influence the potential for decreasing risk of coastal damage in an era of rising sea levels 

and possible increases in coastal storm severity and frequency. The following gaps need 

consideration:

 First, while the amount of freeboard required for coastal infrastructure (mainly, 

buildings), can be incorporated into new construction using the results of global sea level 

rise models (tailored for an individual coast), more research needs to be done on the 

application of “soft” storm and wave protection features, like vegetative wave and surge 

buffers. 

 Second, more research is needed on using the landscape to effect natural diversions of 

surge waters and waves from structures, as well as optimizing siting of structures to 

lessen Bernoulli effects between structures on surge waters and winds. 

 Third, creation of new foredunes has been a matter of piling up sand in a linear ridge with 

the planting of dune grasses to stabilize (theoretically) the new dunes. More analysis of 

local wind dynamics needs to be undertaken, particularly along sandy coasts where 

extensive development with high rise structures. The pre-existing wind fields that 

supported natural dune development may no longer occur, and any quasi-dunes features 

sited where sand transport is scanty and irregular will not be sustainable on their own, 

without continued intervention.

 Lastly, where beach nourishment can work (generally, south of the usual track of 

nor’easters), the science again seems to be incomplete with respect to the whether the 

profiles thus constructed are stable. There has been much discussion of “normal beach 

profiles” (Dean 1977), but the concept is still needs more analysis.

6. References

Dean, R. G. 1977. Equilibrium Beach Profiles: U.S. Atlantic and Gulf Coasts. Department of 

Civil Engineering, Ocean Engineering Report No. 12. Newark, Delaware: University of 

Delaware. 45. p. 
123

FEMA. 2012. Coastal Construction Manual. FEMA P-55, Volume I.

Larson, E. 1999. Isaac’s Storm: A Man, A Time, and the Deadliest Hurricane in History. New 

York, Crown Publishers.
124

Kocak, Fulya, Clark Construction Group, LLC

Perspectives for Sustainability in Construction Industry

Abstract

Environmental sustainability, which could mean simply maintaining the earth and its resources 

for the survival of future generations, usually has various meanings for different industries based 

on their operations, challenges and priorities. To be able to measure sustainable construction 

consistently throughout the industry, a consistent definition for sustainability is needed. In this 

paper, various meanings of sustainability and measurement tools are discussed.

Keywords

Green construction, contractor, sustainability, environmental construction

1. Introduction

Change is constant in the construction industry. All contractors, regardless of size, recognize that 

sustainability is not a fad, but a fundamental change in how buildings are constructed. As 

sustainable development evolves, the construction industry's impact grows greater: contractors 

are responsible for extraction and transportation of raw materials, final disposal of waste 

materials, and the energy consumption of construction operations.

Environmental sustainability, which could simply mean maintaining the earth and its resources 

for the survival of the future generations, usually has various meanings for different industries 

based on operations, challenges and priorities. To be able to measure sustainable construction 

consistently throughout the industry, a consistent definition for sustainability is needed.

2. What Does Sustainability Mean in Construction?

Currently in the construction industry, there are two paths a construction company may follow, 

mostly one or the other and occasionally both.

 Environmental Management which focuses on compliance with local and federal 

environmental laws,

 Corporate Sustainability which focuses on long and short term strategic sustainability 

goals for an organization, including green building services and LEED certification.

The choice is usually based on the scope of work a company provides and the risks and liabilities 

they face as well as the opportunities and competitive advantage they can gain. For example, a 

building contractor focusing on vertical construction would most likely focus on green building 

services. A civil construction company on the other hand, would focus on environmental 

compliance, due to horizontal construction spreading and impacting larger sites.

Based on these two paths, sustainability may have various meanings, such as green buildings, 

green building services, having sustainability initiatives to reduce impact of operations, waste 

recycling, indoor air quality management, implementing an environmental management system 

or being an advocate of sustainability and taking a leadership role to increase awareness while 

"walking the talk."
125

3. How Is It Measured?

Most of the time, when sustainability is brought up in the construction industry context, first 

thing that comes to mind is the LEED rating system. The success in sustainability is usually 

measured with the number and size of the LEED certified projects a company builds coupled 

with the number of LEED Accredited Professionals on the staff. For example, the influential 

trade publication Engineering News Record's (ENR’s) annual top green contractors list is based 

on the dollar value of LEED certified projects each organization completes in the respective 

year. Corporate sustainability initiatives or innovative green building services are not relevant in 

this significant industry rating. 

This "LEED projects as metric" philosophy also pertains to requests for proposals (RFPs). Most 

of the public and private RFP's for medium to large scale projects now include a section about 

sustainability. And almost all of the questions pertain to a contactor's LEED experience and 

capabilities. 

Contractors are usually in the middle of green building decision-making process between the 

owners and designers. Owners decide what they want and pay the price of their decisions. 

Architects guide the owners, design spaces and specify materials, products and equipment to 

meet the owner’s goals. 

So where does the contractor’s influence happen in green buildings? 

While some contractors take a passive approach to sustainability do exert minimal effort, 

progressive firms lead the way and influence green building trends. These firms strive to 

understand and sometimes decipher their client's priorities in sustainability while staying up to 

date with the latest green trends, technologies and products to serve as more of a partner. And 

some contractors will do even more by reducing their operational impact on the environment 

regardless of any rating system’s inclusion of these measures or client demand. A contractor may 

identify itself as a green contractor by:

 Completing LEED certification documentation for construction credits successfully, 

and/or,

 Providing green building services, and/or,

 Operating responsible to reduce environmental impact during construction, and/or,

 Playing a leadership role in the future of green, healthy and high performance buildings.

4. Examples Environmental Construction Operations

Examples of environmental construction operations include:

 Minimizing its consumption of energy, water and natural resources.

 Limiting land disturbance due to material staging, portable bathrooms, vehicle traffic and 

compaction

 Minimizing air, water and noise pollution

 Reducing workforce transportation impact

 Utilizing local businesses and materials

 Reduce and recycle construction waste

 Manage indoor air quality
126

5. Change and Expectation

The winds are changing in the green building industry, so are the expectations from contractors.

In the past decade, the heart of green buildings has been energy efficiency and high performance. 

The contractor's role has been pricing green building measures and procuring environmental 

products based on project documents. In the recent years, especially with the major changes in 

LEED v 4.0, the meaning of green buildings is taking a new turn towards occupant health and 

material transparency. With this change, the contractor's role will transform from being the final 

link of the chain in green buildings to being the major player in procuring environmental 

materials while gathering material transparency information and managing the costs and 

uncertainties.

6. What Next?

With these changes, the need for information sharing is pressing the construction industry more 

than ever. There is a need for a knowledge sharing and collaboration platform to reduce negative 

impact of construction activities on the environment while providing leadership in sustainable 

solutions for healthier and more sustainable buildings. Stronger contractor influence in green 

building movement and sustainability trends will accelerate positive change and make 

sustainability solutions realistic and cost effective. 

A culture change within the construction industry for true commitment to sustainability that 

exceeds achieving LEED certification will be a result of increased demand and awareness. Some 

examples are:

 Government policy for sustainable construction operations

 Stakeholder (clients, employees, community) interest in contractor’s commitment to 

sustainability

 Increased awareness that sustainability is profitable

7. Examples of Commitment to Sustainability and Green Buildings

Clark is currently ENR's second-ranked green contractor and has a 55 million square-foot 

portfolio of green buildings, including the first-ever LEED Platinum project. Our green 

construction volume exceeds $2.8 billion a year.

At Clark, true commitment to sustainability exceeds simple LEED certification goals. We 

transfer our extensive knowledge, experience and resource to achieve increased sustainability 

results on every single project cost effectively, addressing our clients' priorities.

We believe that sustainability starts at home. We put key focus on awareness of our employees 

in sustainability and latest green building technologies. We also believe in sharing knowledge 

between all stakeholders, including owners, end users, design team, subcontractors and vendors. 

In 2013, our Clark Corporate University provided 24 classes on sustainability and green 

buildings. We distributed over 20 green building articles for continuing education in green 

buildings.

8. Beyond Building: Shaping a Green Future

Clark's sustainable efforts in the nation go well beyond simply constructing green buildings. We 

also believe that green buildings should be accessible for everyone. Our employees take 
127

leadership role in many environmental organizations, help with advocacy efforts for green and 

healthy buildings, education and awareness of both the building industry and public.

Company personnel are active and involved with numerous local sustainability groups and act as 

evangelists for the nation's efforts. For example, Clark's sustainability leader helped shape the 

District of Columbia's much-lauded new green building codes. Our role was to ensure that the 

codes were both ambitious and achievable, evaluating proposals and advising on matters of 

feasibility, effectiveness, and cost. With the District's green codes on the horizon, Clark's 

sustainability team have engaged the D.C. community - meeting with clients, designers, and 

subcontractors to talk about the new regulations, how they impact construction, and how to best 

plan new projects for sustainable success.

In addition to the District's green codes committee, Clark personnel are involved with the U.S. 

Green Building Council's National Capital Region (Clark staff is the current chairwoman of the 

group), Association General Contractors of America's Environmental Forum, National Institutes 

of Health Healthy Buildings Roundtable, and the USGBC's Materials & Resources Technical 

Advisory Group. Each of these organizations promotes sustainable living and building - and we 

bring their research, recommendations, and best practices to our projects and communities.
128

Kontokosta, Constantine E., New York University

The Urban Quantified Community

Abstract

The “Quantified Community” (QC) is a fully instrumented urban neighborhood that uses an 

integrated, expandable sensor network to support the measurement, integration, and analysis of 

neighborhood conditions. Through a diverse range of sensor and automation technologies, 

information on physical and environmental conditions can be processed in real-time to maximize 

operational efficiencies and improve quality of life for residents and visitors. The goal is to 

create a model for future urban development that provides a healthy, productive, and resilient 

environment that responds to the changing needs and preferences of those that live in cities.

Keywords

Urban Sensing; Urban Systems; Big Data; Urban Sustainability; Computational Planning and 

Design

1. Background

Given the importance of cities to the world’s future, the interaction of urban infrastructure, 

environment, and people must be better understood [1]. While advances in data collection and 

modeling tools have improved planning and operations within specific urban domains, new 

sensing technologies (both proliferated in situ and synoptic) enable new sources of data that 

could be harnessed to understand and improve urban life. For example, mobile phones that can 

capture, classify, and transmit audio, video, and location data, create the opportunity to actively 

engage citizens in this process and, in so doing, overcome persistent challenges in large-scale 

data collection [2]. This “participatory sensing” allows researchers to explore critical quality of 

life issues previously unobservable, such as health status and physical activity [3]. Synoptic 

observations in diverse spectral bands or with RADAR or LiDAR offer complementary ways of 

sensing the city [4]. However, attempts to collect new data from urban sensors remain episodic 

and insular – video imagery from cameras collected for public safety purposes is rarely used to 

understand mobility, air sensors deployments are limited in space and time, etc [5]. 

While fully instrumenting an entire city would require a massive commitment of time and 

resources, significant progress could be achieved at the neighborhood scale by focusing diverse, 

comprehensive, and persistent real-time data collection and analysis on a “Quantified 

Community” (QC). The resulting unique experimental environment would provide a testing 

ground for new physical and informatics technologies, policies, and behavioral interventions, 

allowing unprecedented studies in urban engineering, urban systems operation and planning, and 

the social sciences. 

2. Modeling the City

Modeling and measuring a “slice of the city” is an extremely important step in creating a 

dynamic simulation of the urban environment. Data from a QC of sufficient scale could be used 

to calibrate and validate models of urban infrastructure, the environment, and its population. 

Theories of urban form and function could be re-evaluated and developed, hypotheses could be 

tested, and interventions could be measured to evaluate their effectiveness and support evidence-
129

based decision-making in the urban context. Understanding various quality-of-life metrics could 

promote substantial improvements in the lives of urban dwellers and have important implications 

for economic development indicators such as land and real estate values and tax assessments. 

Sensors could measure energy and water consumption in buildings, stormwater runoff quantity 

and quality, sound levels and classifications, air contamination and pollution plumes, and any 

number of other conditions. The flow of people in, out, and within the QC could be monitored, 

creating the opportunity to use agent-based modeling and simulation techniques to recognize, 

predict, and optimize movement patterns across the city. Measurement of health, nutrition, 

communications, and economic activities would also yield important insights. As importantly, 

new technologies could be tested and demonstrated in a real-world environment, creating 

opportunities for entrepreneurs to better understand their impacts beyond an individual building 

or system. 

Of particular interest is the measurement and analysis of data relating to physical infrastructure, 

the natural environment, and human and social behavior. Examples of the types of information 

that would provide the basis for further study are shown in Table 1.

These capabilities create value for a QC district, and ultimately for cities, through (1) the 

measurement, monitoring, and analysis of critical systems and infrastructure; (2) a better 

understanding of environmental conditions and indicators, both indoors and outdoors, and the 

ability to react to sub-optimal conditions; (3) the ability to collect, process, and utilize large 

amounts of data to improve quality of life for residents, workers, and visitors; (4) the 

measurement and analytics to support operational efficiencies to lower operating expenses; (5) 

the potential to generate greater market demand for space and attract investment; and (6) the 

opportunity to develop and test business models, such as new leasing structures and 

performance-based revenue and expense models, and analyze the economic effects of datadriven optimization of operations, resource flows, and quality-of-life indicators.

The design, planning, and operation of cities are predominantly based on theories of human and 

social interaction with the built environment that have not been systematically validated on a 

significant scale [6]. For example, the design of a commercial space is deemed successful based 

on revenue per square foot, rather than on health and productivity measures that have thus far 

proven much harder to evaluate [7]. The success of public space is judged, if at all, based on the 

number of users. Land use decisions are evaluated ex ante, and actual outcomes are rarely 

considered [8]. These evaluation criteria are based on metrics that often provide relatively little 

granular information on the actual use of a specific site, neighborhood, or the city as a whole. 

Collecting data on access, mobility, and user engagement would provide the basis for testing 

assumptions that developers, planners, designers, and engineers make in crafting urban space. 
130

Table 1. Proposed Data Measurement, Collection, and Analysis in the QC

Physical / Infrastructure Environmental Human/Social

-Buildings resource 

consumption

-Indoor environmental 

quality

-Solid waste

-Stormwater management

-Power generation & 

distribution

-Condition (failure 

prediction)

-Carbon emissions

-Particulate levels and 

concentrations

-Noise

-Heat Island

-Climate conditions 

and microclimate

-Use of public space

-Ecology

-Health, nutrition, and 

activity levels

-Social networks and 

connectivity

-Mobility

-Metagenomics

-Individual and collective 

behavior

-Equity and justice issues

3. A Fully-Instrumented and Data-integrated Urban Environment

The QC presents four unique opportunities to observe, model, and subsequently intervene in the 

urban environment. The data and resultant analytics can be used to: (1) test and validate the 

fundamental assumptions of site planning and design of dense, mixed-use environments; (2) 

assess the environmental and social impacts of new large-scale urban developments on existing 

neighborhoods and ecosystems; (3) achieve operational efficiencies and decrease resource 

consumption; and (4) create a living lab and real-world experimental platform to test new 

technology, design theories, and conservation strategies.

Compact, mixed-used land use patterns have been associated with improved outcomes along 

measures of health, resource efficiency, social connectivity, and transportation access. For 

instance, there are widely-accepted assumptions that mixed-use environments support activity 

and improve health outcomes for those living in areas that contain a variety of uses [9]. Despite 

some empirical work, limited robust, comparative evidence exists to define the relationship 

between urban design and human behavior and social outcomes and understand causal linkages 

[10, 11, 12]. In relation to a specific site, a fully instrumented and data-integrated environment 

would allow for the systematic, real-time observation of the use of public space and the 

relationship in mixed-use environments could be characterized and modeled.

Another important element of study includes transportation, mobility patterns across and 

between transportation modes, and mobility within the neighborhood. This would address rather 

common, but persistent, questions of locational access, propensity of residents/visitors to use 

different modes of transport, and the relationship between land use and transportation. In 

addition, such a mobility baseline would provide an important reference for measuring 

perturbations and responses to disasters and other unexpected events. Moreover, the 

quantification of mobility patterns could be used to assess physical activity and significant social 

science, engineering, and public health questions of how the built environment shapes and 

influences health-related outcomes [13]. 

While the first objective is focused on validating widely-held theories of urban design and 

planning, the second objective is to capture the impact of greenfield and greyfield developments 

on existing ecosystems and surrounding communities. Understanding the social and 

environmental impact of a project over time is critical to reduce uncertainty around future land 
131

use effects. Once built, monitoring changes in the ecosystem is necessary to promote user 

diversity and achieve a sustainable environment.

Due to the current development timeframe of the initial QC deployment, it will be possible to 

establish environmental and social benchmarks prior to the project’s completion and monitor 

how the project impacts the surrounding neighborhoods’ commercial activity, rate of 

development, and neighborhood characteristics (i.e., income, profession, race, education, crime, 

age, household size, rents, property values, vacancy rates, apartment size, streetscapes, and civic 

engagement). Similarly, it will also be possible to precisely assess the project’s environmental 

impact across a range of indicators, including congestion, air quality, storm water runoff, utility 

consumption, and access to green space.

The QC provides an opportunity to vastly improve operational efficiencies and support resource 

conservation. This objective switches the focus from understanding the dynamics of a site to 

modeling resource flows and how environmental, physical, and social conditions influence 

consumption. By analyzing water, waste, and energy flows, among others, operational 

inefficiencies can be identified based on expected and predicted consumption patterns given 

various conditions present within the QC district at any specific point in time. 

Finally, urban technologies are emerging rapidly; however, the link between research and 

development and eventual deployment at scale necessitates demonstration opportunities for realworld application and testing. The QC could provide a platform to evaluate new technologies 

and a range of policy and behavioral intervention strategies. This ‘living lab’ would provide an 

important experimental environment for real-time assessment of urban decision-making.

4. Applications

The application of the above measurement and “informatics overlay” approach is guided by the 

goal of improving quality of life within cities and to develop scalable, transferable models to 

support the sustainability and resilience of global cities. The following is an illustrative list of 

specific applications in the urban design and planning context:

4.1. Quality-of-Life for Urban Residents

Health, activity, and physiology:

 Collecting, aggregating, and disseminating data on physical activity and nutrition through 

voluntary, opt-in data-sharing platforms.

 Create a system of customized alerts based on air quality and weather for the elderly and 

residents with chronic illnesses, such as asthma.

 Provide a medical alert system within apartments that can detect falls, strokes, heart attacks, 

and other medical emergencies.

Environment:

 Increase indoor-air quality through continuous monitoring and controls.

 Reduce noise pollution through sound measurement, classification, and targeted 

mitigation and attenuation measures.

 Synoptic imaging of the urban heat island effect, within and surrounding the district.

Social justice, social services, and community development:

 Support data-enabled social interactions and networks within the neighborhood.

 Create targeted, place-based services for vulnerable populations.
132

 Measure patterns of potentially harmful environmental conditions across socioeconomic 

groups.

 Support access to information for populations typically under-served by access to 

technology and broadband connectivity.

Bridging the physical and virtual experience of place:

 The relationship between a user’s onsite, physical experience and their virtual, social 

media interactions remains little understood. 

4.2. Evidenced-based Urban Planning and Design

 Economists have established that a significant driver of innovation is collaboration, and 

certain office layouts have been designed, in theory, to encourage collaboration. 

Mapping mobility patterns within an office would allow companies to gauge the actual 

level of collaboration among employees.

 Monitoring patterns of actual space usage could result in space efficiencies and higher 

utilization rates.

 The theoretical benefits of mix-use developments have been thoroughly discussed; but 

there is only indirect evidence of the actual dynamic between public, retail, office, and 

residential spaces. 

4.3. Infrastructure Operations and Resource Flows

 Increase efficiencies through continuous measurement and feedback.

 Provide detailed consumption reports and comparative benchmarking based on use type, 

climate, user conditions, etc.

 Monitor infrastructure conditions to predict failures and maintenance needs.

4.4. Transportation and Mobility

 Facilitate access to and from a neighborhood and reduce congestion by identifying 

residents’ primary mode of transportation throughout the day—e.g. morning taxi demand, 

Friday weekend departures, bike and car share availability—and coordinating public 

transportation with peak demand.

 Model congestion and resultant public health impacts – noise, air pollution, vehiclepedestrian accidents, etc.

4.5. Emergency Response and Safety:

 Mobility patterns and pedestrian simulation can be used to test and develop contextual 

emergency response plans. For example, if police reports can be cross-referenced with 

access, mobility, and use patterns, along with environmental parameters, then site 

conditions, such as ambient light, foot traffic, and entry points, can be modified to 

increase safety.

 The intersection of the physical and virtual environment could support first responders in 

assessing, and responding to, various emergency situations.

5. Privacy and Data Access

Privacy issues have become a paramount concern in the collection and use of urban data [14]. 

The QC presents unique challenges in balancing the security of data and the need for 

transparency and citizen engagement, bridging and integrating participatory sensing deployments 

with remote and fixed, in-situ modalities [15]. The opportunities to provide value to those living 

and working in a QC, and to generate lessons for urban operations, design, and planning more 
133

broadly, are a function of the availability of and access to granular spatio-temporal data – what 

would be considered by most as “sensitive” or personally identifiable information. However, the 

optimal balance between access to potentially sensitive information and the extent of data needed 

to achieve the range of objectives stated above needs to be explored. 

While new opportunities are emerging to develop technical solutions to issues of data security 

and privacy, technical fixes alone will not address the very real concerns of private citizens 

regarding the appropriate control and use of personal data [16, 17]. The QC environment 

provides an opportunity to explore alternative data collection and use restrictions and controls, 

ranging from “opt-in”, voluntary data collection standards through individual and community 

ownership of personal and neighborhood-level data, with full control over their use [18]. 

6. Implications and Next Steps

The Quantified Community will be a fully instrumented urban neighborhood that uses an 

integrated, expandable sensor network to support the measurement, integration, and analysis of 

neighborhood conditions. Through a diverse range of sensor and automation technologies, 

information on physical and environmental conditions can be processed in real-time to maximize 

operational efficiencies and improve quality of life for residents and visitors. The goal is to 

create a model for future urban development that provides a healthy, productive, and resilient 

environment that responds to the changing needs and preferences of those that live in cities.

Next steps include the initial deployment of the QC concept as part of a major urban 

development in New York City. The ability to test, refine, and scale the types of senor 

technologies and modeling techniques described here would represent a significant advancement. 

This platform and the data derived would yield a rich experimental environment to study human 

behavior in the urban context and to test various interventions with real-time feedback. In the 

near term, a pilot project is being implemented in an existing mixed-use building to field test 

certain sensing technologies and develop the database architecture and simulation platform to 

expand to the full-scale, neighborhood-level deployment.

7. References

1. Albeverio, Sergio, Denise Andrey, Paolo Giordano, and Alberto Vancheri. "The dynamics of 

complex urban systems." Physica, Heidelberg (2008).

2. Reades, Jonathan, Francesco Calabrese, Andres Sevtsuk, and Carlo Ratti. "Cellular census: 

Explorations in urban data collection." Pervasive Computing, IEEE 6, no. 3 (2007): 30-38.

3. Kanhere, Salil S. "Participatory sensing: Crowdsourcing data from mobile smartphones in 

urban spaces." In Mobile Data Management (MDM), 2011 12th IEEE International 

Conference on, vol. 2, pp. 3-6. IEEE, 2011.

4. Priestnall, G., J. Jaafar, and A. Duncan. "Extracting urban features from LiDAR digital 

surface models." Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 24, no. 2 (2000): 65-78.

5. Voogt, James A., and Tim R. Oke. "Thermal remote sensing of urban climates." Remote 

sensing of environment 86, no. 3 (2003): 370-384.

6. Lynch, Kevin. The image of the city. Vol. 11. MIT press, 1960.

7. Fisk, W. J. (2000). Health and productivity gains from better indoor environments and their 

relationship with building energy efficiency. Annual Review of Energy and the Environment, 

25(1), 537-566.
134

8. Johnson, Michael P. "Environmental impacts of urban sprawl: a survey of the literature and 

proposed research agenda." Environment and Planning A 33, no. 4 (2001): 717-735.

9. Frank, L. D., & Engelke, P. O. (2001). The built environment and human activity patterns: 

exploring the impacts of urban form on public health. Journal of Planning Literature, 16(2), 

202-218.

10. Jackson, Laura E. "The relationship of urban design to human health and condition." 

Landscape and urban planning 64, no. 4 (2003): 191-200.

11. Frumkin, Howard. "Healthy places: exploring the evidence." American journal of public 

health 93, no. 9 (2003): 1451-1456.

12. Leyden, Kevin M. "Social capital and the built environment: the importance of walkable 

neighborhoods." American journal of public health 93, no. 9 (2003): 1546-1551.

13. Handy, S. L., Boarnet, M. G., Ewing, R., & Killingsworth, R. E. (2002). How the built 

environment affects physical activity: views from urban planning. American journal of 

preventive medicine, 23(2), 64-73.

14. Lane, J., Stodden, V., Bender, S., & Nissenbaum, H. (Eds.). (2014). Privacy, Big Data, and 

the Public Good. Cambridge University Press.

15. Christin, D., Reinhardt, A., Kanhere, S. S., & Hollick, M. (2011). A survey on privacy in 

mobile participatory sensing applications. Journal of Systems and Software, 84(11), 1928-

1946.

16. Bélanger, F., & Crossler, R. E. (2011). Privacy in the digital age: a review of information 

privacy research in information systems. Mis Quarterly, 35(4), 1017-1042.

17. Krontiris, I., Freiling, F. C., & Dimitriou, T. (2010). Location privacy in urban sensing 

networks: research challenges and directions [security and privacy in emerging wireless 

networks]. Wireless Communications, IEEE, 17(5), 30-35.

18. Mun, M., Hao, S., Mishra, N., Shilton, K., Burke, J., Estrin, D., ... & Govindan, R. (2010, 

November). Personal data vaults: a locus of control for personal data streams. In Proceedings 

of the 6th International COnference (p. 17). ACM.

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank comments and suggestions from Steven Koonin, Claudio Silva, 

William Vidal, Jeongki Lim, and several participants of the CUSP Quantified Community 

Workshops. All errors remain the responsibility of the author.
135

[This page is internationally left blank]
136

Kralik, Nancy J., Fluor Corporation

Sustainable Construction: 

An EPC Perspective

Abstract

Engineering, Procurement, and Construction companies have a key role, in concert with owners, 

in developing and implementing sustainability solutions on capital projects. Solutions are 

optimal when they are considered as part of the life cycle of a project. Economic indicators tend 

to be well defined, environmental indicators typically are site specific, and social indicators on 

construction sites are primarily safety related. Research teams have generated a number of 

practices and tools to assist implementation of sustainability activities on construction project 

sites. During the course of that research, a number of gaps have been identified, including 

several related to social metrics and life-cycle assessments. 

Keywords

Construction, Social, Life Cycle, Metric, EPC, Construction

1. Framework

EPC companies – companies that engage in Engineering, Procurement, and Construction 

activities – have a key role in designing and implementing sustainability solutions throughout the 

life cycle of an asset. Many EPC companies also provide operations and maintenance, thereby 

potentially extending their involvement in sustainability activities related to facilities and other 

assets. Fluor is an EPC company that plans and designs projects and builds them for operating 

companies around the globe. The perspectives in this paper relate to sustainability, particularly 

sustainability in construction, from the standpoint of EPC companies.

While an EPC company, also termed a contractor, may be hired by an owner to execute a 

specific phase of a project, a partnership of the owner and the EPC company throughout project 

phases provides opportunities to maximize the sustainability of the overall asset. If sustainability

is viewed only during discrete phases – consideration of design and installation of a capital 

project for example, without consideration for operations or maintenance - the tendency (and 

often the contract obligation) is to seek opportunities within a specified phase.

As depicted in Figure 1, the Influence Curve highlights that during the planning and design 

phases, there is significant influence that can be exerted on design objectives. The earlier in the 

project that sustainability initiatives and objectives are considered, the higher the potential 

savings and the greater the influence because there are many more opportunities that can be 

considered. Opportunities can be incorporated into the design to take advantage of the project 

life cycle. The operating and capital cost commitments typically occur during planning and early 

engineering. The opportunity to incorporate sustainability features into the designed 

infrastructure is significantly reduced once early engineering occurs – unless the budget can be 

increased for the engineering rework and possible fabrication changes and the schedule of the 

project can be extended appropriately. 
137

The life of an asset continues upon commissioning and turn-over to the owner. The time line can 

be extended to include operations and decommissioning, and the design may be instrumental in 

operating sustainably and deconstructing the asset in a sustainable manner. 

This paper focuses specifically on the sustainability activities during the construction phase. 

During the construction phase, there are significant opportunities to impact the economic, social, 

and environmental impacts of how these projects are built and operated. The construction phase 

shown in Figure 1 commences when personnel are mobilized to the project site. Planning for 

construction, however, starts much earlier, especially in the area of procurement. Contracts to 

purchase equipment and hire specialty companies, constructability sessions to determine how to 

construct the project safely, on schedule, within budget, and to a high standard of quality, and 

preparation of programs to be implemented on the site – all of these activities occur prior to the 

first work boot setting foot on the project site to begin construction.

Figure 1. Project Influence Curve

2. Current Sustainability Metrics

The most prevalent sustainability statistics relate to occupational safety, and they tend to be 

lagging indicators related to injuries – lost time incidence rate, recordable incidence rate, 

restricted duty incidence rate, etc. These indicators can be used at any phase of a project, but are 

particularly useful during the construction phase. While lagging indicators are excellent for 

showing whether your programs are working – in this case, whether people are going home 

safely - leading indicators are more desirable as a management tool because they are designed to 

prevent an incident from occurring. We’re seeing more leading indicators, related to areas such 

as audits, inspections, and training, but there is no general industry agreement on which leading 

indicators are best for all industries, and therefore it is difficult to benchmark companies’ 

performances. Internal benchmarking can occur, of course, resulting in better management of 

behaviors and processes.

A key economic metric for the construction phase is whether the project came in at or under 

budget. Associated with that metric is whether the construction project was finished on schedule 
138

or earlier than scheduled. Close attention is given throughout the project to these two 

measurements, with tracking and reporting occurring on typically a weekly basis. Other 

economic metrics include the cost of energy, raw materials, or water consumed.

On the environmental aspect of sustainability, construction metrics vary based on whether the 

project is built as a brownfield site (on a site with an existing facility) or a greenfield site (no 

facility exists on the site). Typically, on a brownfield site, water is provided by the existing 

facility and water and wastewater discharges and spill control occur through the owner’s 

discharge permits; air emissions are addressed in the facility’s air permit; and waste is managed 

under the facility’s disposal licenses. On a greenfield site, the contractor is responsible for 

controlling and permitting discharges and emissions. This distinction makes it difficult to 

standardize on common indicators and therefore benchmark. In some cases, environmental 

regulations set the measurement parameters.

Social indicators are even more difficult to standardize. Typical statistics on a project relate to 

human rights (e.g., use of child labor, worker living conditions), labor practices (e.g., local 

employment, purchase of local goods), community impact and involvement (e.g., donations to 

local public facilities, volunteer hours) and, as noted previously, worker safety. The choice of 

parameters is wide-ranging and determined by the owner and the contractor (either due to 

contract conditions or as a part of their company culture).

3. Gaps in Metrics

The Construction Industry Institute, a consortium of owner, engineering-contractor, and supplier 

firms from the public and private arenas, seeks to enhance the capital facility life cycle partially 

through CII research. Research Team (RT) 304 is charged with creating guidance to its members 

and industry on processes, decisions, actions, and metrics during the construction phase of 

capital projects to enhance sustainability implementation. The RT will report its findings this 

summer and issue several reports and tools. 

RT 304 will provide the following documents and tools.

 Seven-step process to incorporate the RT 304 work products into projects

 Construction Phase Sustainability Action (CPSA) catalog containing 54 CPSAs grouped 

into eight construction functions (project management, contracting, field engineering, site 

facilities and operations, craft labor management, materials management, construction 

equipment management, and quality management, commissioning, and handover)

 CPSA screening tool to assist construction teams in prioritizing CPSAs that are expected 

to have maximum impact on a project

 Input metric (CPSA Implementation Index) that provides a numeric measure of the 

breadth and extent of implementation of the 54 CPSAs 

 Output metrics for each CPSA – 2 per CPSA

 Guidance related to specific CPSAs

As a part of the research, gaps in knowledge were identified, resulting in recommendations for 

future research. An earlier RT (250) likewise identified gaps related to measurements.
139

The most frequently noted gap relates to the social aspect of sustainability, other than metrics 

associated with safety. While a number of qualitative social indicators are available, 

quantitative social metrics are significantly less prevalent. Part of the issue is the difficulty in 

obtaining meaningful data for a particular project, thereby minimizing the ability to benchmark. 

Benchmarking would provide opportunities to standardize metrics, which could drive progress in 

implementing sustainability actions.

Research also identified easy-to-generate life-cycle assessments as another major gap. The 

construction team of owner and contractor may desire to consider the life-cycle implications of 

construction methods or equipment or components of the facility being constructed, but 

assessments typically are laborious to perform. They require a great deal of data, which may be 

difficult to obtain or quantify.

4. Research Needs

RT 304 identifies several social metrics (other than safety), but they tend to be percentage

measurements of activities. Examples are:

 Percent of community issues addressed

 Percentage of stakeholder engagement plan that is implemented

 Number of complaints from community residents

A quantification of benefits that accrue from community social responsibility initiatives is more 

difficult, but it is needed in order to progress to the level of safety as an indicator. 

RT 304 also identifies a need for development of case studies that implement one or more of the 

CPSAs on a project. These case studies could generate new metrics that would be helpful for 

implementation on other projects. Broad-based benchmarking of construction sustainability 

performance by industry sector could further enhance implementation.

During research on sustainability practices and technology, CII’s RT 250 developed the concept 

of a hypothetical assessment metric for evaluating the environmental consequences associated 

with the production and use of construction materials. This Industrial Sustainability Index Metric 

(ISIM) is intended to be a guide for decision makers to provide information on the sustainability 

of products and services by rating their sustainability aspects in the supply chain. ISIM scores 

could be generated based on the triple bottom line throughout the life cycle of products and 

encompassing manufacturing and fabrication, assembly, transport, installation, operation and 

maintenance, demolition, and reuse.

5. Next Steps

In addition to the research needs identified above, there is a need to make assistance as available 

as possible for field use. For construction sites, that assistance is increasingly related to tablets 

and smart phones. Web-based tools and apps that allow users to collect data easily will make it 

easier to measure performance. 

Safety indicators are used across industries around the world. Our challenge is to develop a few 

good, widely used sustainability metrics that can serve the same population.
140

6. References

Construction Industry Institute, 2006. Constructability Implementation Guide, Special 

Publication 34-1, Austin, TX.

Construction Industry Institute, 2009, Sustainable Design and Construction for Industrial 

Construction: Implementation Resources, Implementation Report 250–3, Austin, TX.

Construction Industry Institute, 2014 (unpublished), RT-304 work.
141

[This page is internationally left blank]
142

Kremer, Gül E. Okudan, The Pennsylvania State University, Karl Haapala, Oregon State 

University, and Ratna Chinnam, Leslie Monplaisir, Kyoung-yun Kim, and Alper Murat, 

Wayne State University

A Plan of Action for Economic and Environmental Sustainability 

in Product Supply Chains

Abstract

Although sustainability is now a salient topic in product development literature, the often 

segmented scope of prior works limits the potential benefits of the industrial application of 

methods, models, and tools developed by the research community. The vantage point presented 

herein has the goal of coalescing relevant, recent work supporting the economic and 

environmental aspects of sustainability for early stage product development. In presenting this 

vantage point, we intend to highlight past accomplishments and call for action to the research 

community for the development of integrated methods, models, and tools to support 

sustainability initiatives across product supply chains. Our literature review spanning product 

design, manufacturing, and supply operations management reveals several near-term research 

needs, which are organized into four highly promising foci addressing reengineering of product 

architecture, assembly/disassembly operation modeling, manufacturing process modeling, and 

joint optimization of life cycle activities.

Keywords

Product supply chain, Life cycle, Metric, Economic, Environmental

1. Background

Supply chain performance cannot be optimized without considering the compatibility of product 

and supply chain attributes (Fisher, 1997). Attesting to this, a survey-based study conducted in 

Sweden covering 148 manufacturing companies found that when there is a good match between 

the product offerings and the relevant supply chains, companies performed better in terms of 

cost, delivery speed, and delivery dependability (Selldin and Olhager, 2007). The same study 

showed that 38% of the companies did not have product and supply chain compatibility.

The integration of supply chain network design and product design stimulates Design for Supply 

Chain Management (DfSCM), or “design[ing] products and processes to more effectively 

manage supply chain related cost and performance” (Sasser, 1995). DfSCM utilizes product line 

structure, bill of materials, and customization processes of a product, in order to optimize the 

logistics costs and customer service performance. Examples of DfSCM include Product Chain 

Decision Model, by Blackhurst et al. (2005), that compares the benefit of supplier selection and 

information sharing according to bill of materials, and a product family selection and supply 

chain design method, by Lamothe et al. (2006), that can optimize supply chain costs while 

choosing variant components based on a generic bill of materials. 

As seen in the examples above, typically the supply chain perspective is considered at the detail 

design stage -- the final phase of the product design, and when much of the design flexibility has 

been removed. Relatively few studies consider the supply chain perspective early in product 
143

design (e.g., Nepal et al., 2011; Chiu and Okudan, 2011 & 2014). Further, there has been only 

limited attention directed to the interplay between selection of design alternatives and life-cycle 

processes (e.g., Chiu et al., 2010). Further, prior work mostly focuses on forward supply chains, 

and there is very limited work on closed loop chains. Krikke et al. (2003) developed a MixedInteger Programming (MIP) model for product structure design considering modularity, 

reparability, and recyclability and logistics network design and applied the model using real 

R&D data for the European operations of a Japanese consumer electronics company. They 

considered environmental impacts predicted by linear-energy and waste functions as well as 

supply chain costs modeled with variable flow and fixed set-up for facilities. More recently, the 

supply chain literature has been integrating environmental sustainability with standard supply 

chain models such as inventory, transportation, and network design models. Earlier efforts 

focused on reducing environmental impact at the plant level at the expense of increasing impacts 

at other supply chain areas. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) has been proposed to evaluate 

environmental impacts associated with products, processes, and activities (De Benedetto and 

Klemes, 2009). Ilgin and Gupta (2010) present an extensive review of the environmentally 

conscious product design and forward and reverse manufacturing and logistics system design. 

Authors conclude that environmentally conscious product design literature fails to consider the 

environmental impact of production processes.

A number of studies considered environmental impacts of supply chain designs (e.g., Hugo and 

Pistikopoulos, 2005; Frota Neto et al., 2008; Guillen-Gosalbez and Grossmann, 2009). Several 

studies considered carbon footprint in sourcing, inventory, and distribution processes (e.g., 

Bonney and Jaber, 2010; Hoen et al., 2010; Reuter et al., 2010;). In general, however, there is a 

significant gap in capturing the economic and environmental sustainability of forward and 

reverse supply chain implications of product design variants. As Gan and Grunow (2013) attest, 

“... researchers in product design (PD) and supply chains (SC) management have kept mainly 

within their domains for various reasons such as complexity of cross-disciplinary research...” 

These findings motivate an integration of supply chain decisions and product design decisions, 

including costs and environmental impacts, so that the optimal component acquisition and supply 

chain alternatives can be determined and evaluated in the earlier product design stages.

2. Promising Foci for Improving Sustainability in Supply Chains

Based on our review, we postulate that the development of supply chain models that account for 

the dependencies between product design, manufacturing, and supply chain decisions to 

minimize cost and environmental impacts (e.g., carbon footprint) can be enabled through the 

concepts of integral, modular, and hybrid product architectures, as well as manufacturing process 

and assembly analyses. The research community addressing the economic and environmental 

sustainability across product supply chains is mostly organized around four thrusts: 1) 

Sustainability through effective product development processes/practices, 2) Sustainability 

through effective manufacturing processes/practices, 3) Sustainability through effective supply 

chain processes/practices, and 4) Sustainability through effective and integrated consideration of 

life-cycle processes. Given our primary interest in addressing sustainability at the earliest stages 

of the product life cycle, in particular product development, we have identified four distinct foci 

for further investigation and exploitation to improve the sustainability in product supply chains. 

This is not to suggest that there aren’t other gaps or opportunities for promoting sustainability. 

Our focus is on opportunities for action at the front end of the product life cycle.
144

2.1. FOCUS AREA 1: Reengineering the Design to Match the Intended Product End-ofLife Option

The use of modular design is gaining popularity in industry with several successful cases of 

implementation reported in the literature; however, the science to support modular product 

architecture is still evolving (Gupta and Okudan, 2008). For example, a recent study by Okudan 

Kremer and Gupta (2013) shows that modularization of the same product using three different 

modularity approaches, i.e., the Function Heuristic Method (FHM), the Behavioral driven 

Function-Environment-Structure (B-FES) modeling framework, and the Decomposition 

Approach (DA), results in different product architectures. Another study by Nepal et al. (2011) 

introduces the use of a multi-objective optimization model in configuring the supply chain 

during modular product development. In addition to using various production and inventory 

costs, the model makes use of subjective criteria such as alignment of business practices and 

financial objectives of member companies in configuring the supply chain. Further, in prior 

studies, modularity has been considered as a Boolean variable with no intermediate levels. To 

respond to these gaps in the literature, we note that experimentation is needed with different 

modularization methods, and in varying modularization levels. Among the relevant research 

questions are: 1) Can a modular structure where components are clustered according to reuse or 

recycling objectives positively impact sustainability measures (e.g., cost and carbon footprint)?; 

and 2) Can an increased level of modularity positively impact sustainability measures across the 

supply chain? 3) What is the impact of product architecture and platform decisions early in 

product development on supply chain sustainability measures? The research to provide insights 

into these questions can be challenging especially in the design of breakthrough and innovative. 

Defining sustainability and re-manufacturability targets early in the design of a product can be 

difficult when requirements and design specifications are still evolving. Some attempts (Nepal et 

al., 2011; Ülkü and Schmidt, 2011; Chung et al., 2011) have been made at a holistic design 

approach but the science is still evolving.

Ülkü and Schmidt (2011) have found analytically that supplier relationship and product 

architectural design are interdependent. However, to our knowledge, there are no mathematical 

models in the literature that quantifies the influence of product architecture design on supply 

chain configuration considering sustainability metrics. Another notable gap is the lack of 

consideration of the environmental compatibility of partners into the SCM decisions. The 

development of robust models to address these issues through is necessary.

Newcomb et al. (1998) stated that the modularity of a product influences its initial cost, ease of 

service (assembly and disassembly), and effort required to retire the product (reuse, recycling, 

and disposal). In general, modular products need to be designed with redundant physical 

components and limited function sharing for compatibility across other products, which might 

result in increased part numbers and variable costs (Ulrich and Tung, 1991). Future work 

relevant to this focus area should take into account minimization of cost and environmental 

impact by clustering components based on their design intent for reuse, recycling, and service. 

For this purpose, the components of the designed product can be first represented through a 

connectivity graph, and then the graph can be partitioned based on modularity for sustainability 

(see Figure 1); Chung et al. (2013) presented recently one of the first attempts of this with 

promising results.
145

Future work on product architectures that are reengineered for increased sustainability should 

enlist support from industry partners, as credibility of the information used during the 

investigation is paramount. This information pertains to components and feasible configurations 

of the product architecture, for which the full set of concept combinations (product architecture 

variants) with varying levels of modularity and supplier options for each product (sub-assembly) 

component and modular design permutations can be studied.

Figure 1. Project Influence Curve

2.2. FOCUS AREA 2: Assembly/Disassembly Operation Modeling and Analysis for 

Environmental Sustainability

Joints on a product architecture are inevitable because of the limitations on component geometric 

configuration and material property and the requirements of inspection, accessibility, repair, 

portability, and recyclability (Kim et al., 2004). The problem of joining components is therefore 

a key issue in the sustainable product design process. Joining components often provides a way 

of realizing simpler forms of the individual components of products, which can make it easier 

and cheaper to manufacture each component. However, the environmental effects of assembly 

operation selection and joint design are often ignored in the current research efforts (Rajemi et 

al., 2010; Pusavec et al., 2010a&b). Balancing the design requirements and environmental 

requirements, selecting an optimal assembly operation method is a complicated process. As an 

illustration, welding or mechanically fastened (or riveted) joints can be considered as alternatives 

for an automotive frame design. Conventionally, welded joints have been preferred, due to the 

complex geometry of frames and cost efficiency. The traditional trade-off analysis focuses on a 

heat affected zone, which causes a potential structural crack propagation point. However, the 

environmental pollutants (e.g., fumes and gases) caused by the welding operation often receive 

little attention in the design stage joining decisions (Fleischer and Schaedel 2013). A 

mechanically fastened joint could eliminate these pollutants; however, it will cause other design 

changes (such as bonding effects of rivets and vibration of bolted joints).

Thus, the existing research questions related to the aforementioned challenges are: 1) how can 

the cost and environmental sustainability performance of different assembly operations be 

systematically analyzed, while balancing the design and environmental requirements and be 

woven into the assembly design process?; and 2) how can the optimal assembly operations be 

determined, while still considering conflicting objectives (e.g., cost vs. recyclability) without 

sacrificing the functional design requirements?

To achieve an integrated assembly operation modeling and analysis, assembly operation 

implications for design requirements and environmental sustainability should be considered 
146

simultaneously. The evaluation of all possible assembly operation alternatives is a timeconsuming process. Thus, high quality/feasible assembly operation alternatives should be 

selected before detailed analysis occurs. For this, meta-heuristics algorithms (e.g., neural 

networks and genetic algorithms) can be used to generate a set of feasible assembly operation 

alternatives. However, the optimal parameter set (e.g., learning rates, termination criteria, etc.) 

could potentially be a challenge to be systematized.

2.3. FOCUS AREA 3: Manufacturing Process Modeling for Sustainability Assessment

Unit manufacturing processes utilize mechanical, thermal, and/or chemical energy to alter 

material input(s) into a desired output (e.g., a product component). Processes are linked into 

production systems for new products, or into reverse production systems to remanufacture end of 

life products. Manufacturing process models can assist in the reduction of materials and energy 

use and wastes and emissions, while enhancing productivity and reducing costs (Arinez et al., 

2010). The relevant research questions for consideration in this focus area include: (1) How do 

design variants impact supply chain sustainability measures (e.g., cost and carbon footprint) 

through materials, manufacturing processes, and assembly operations?; and (2) How are these 

sustainability measures impacted by manufacturing and assembly locations (e.g., energy sources 

in China vs. Belgium)? 

Indeed, there are myriad manufacturing processes, and perhaps development of process models 

should begin with conventional manufacturing processes (e.g., cutting, forming, and injection 

molding) using traditional materials (e.g., metals and polymers), with the collaboration of 

industry. Industry can assist in access to date supporting empirical model development and 

validation of physics-based process models. In these studies, direct (e.g., process generated) and 

indirect (e.g., due to electricity) emissions should be considered. The models can parametrically 

relate design parameters (e.g., materials and geometry) to process characteristics. Thus, changes 

to and sensitivity of economic and environmental sustainability measures can be evaluated for 

design variants. The models will require design information associated with product alternatives 

to determine sustainability performance for processes and activities across the supply chain. 

Process models can provide cost and environmental performance information in the appropriate 

form for supply chain level optimization. 

The importance of carbon footprint as an environmental performance measure for manufacturing 

activities has been reported widely (Boguski, 2010; Jeswiet and Nava, 2009; and Joyce et al., 

2010). Work in this area is needed foremost for improving data quality and process model 

scalability for predictive sustainability analysis. Specifically, parametric unit process models can 

address several problems with LCA-based approaches in predicting product environmental 

impacts, which include (Reap et al., 2006): 1) limited spatial resolution, 2) lack of dynamics, 3) 

neglecting existing levels of pollution and eventual pollutant disposition, 4) use of linear process 

models, and 5) reliance on value judgments and subjectivity. By interfacing with semantic 

reasoning and supply chain optimization methods described below, this focus will lead to 

fundamental, science-based process models linked with design and production system 

information to inform early stage design of manufacturing and assembly sustainability 

performance based on product architecture.
147

2.4. FOCUS AREA 4: Joint Optimization of the Best Subset of Design Variants with 

Mathematical Models of Life Cycle Processes

Building on the existing set of models in DfSCM, the joint optimization of design and life cycle 

processes must be extended by including the reverse logistics costs, energy efficiency and 

emissions. While the large number of bill of material (BOM) alternatives in the early concept 

phase makes it prohibitive to consider as part of DfSCM efforts (Taghavi and Chinnam, 2014), 

the accounting for environmental sustainability in addition to standard supply chain cost models 

and metrics further makes this complexity even more serious (Umpfenbach, 2013). Hence, one 

main component of this focus area might be to develop novel optimization methods to address 

these challenges. The main advantage in aligning supply chain network design and cost decisions 

with sustainability is to allow more effective decisions while understanding what the tradeoffs 

are between economic and environmental performance.

This focus on developing optimization methods should respond, for example, to the following 

questions: 1) What is the impact of joint consideration of design variant selection, supply chain 

configuration, and optimization of life cycle processes on economic and environmental 

sustainability?; and 2) What is the Pareto frontier as a result of trading supply chain metrics and 

environmental metrics including carbon footprint of materials used, emissions from selected 

manufacturing processes and supply chain operations, and in the creation of the energy used?

Carbon footprint predictions can be incorporated into forward and reverse supply chain models 

through the selection of the energy source for each process. The GHG Protocol Corporate 

Standard, which is widely used for companies to quantify and report GHG emissions in three

levels of scope, can be used to capture the effects of all supply chain and life cycle processes. 

Scopes 1 and 2 represent direct emissions due to the company’s operations and scope 3 

represents all other indirect emissions, including upstream and downstream emissions. Scope 1 

primarily corresponds to manufacturing, assembly, and related transportation operations. Scope 2 

corresponds to emissions from the generation of purchased or acquired electricity, steam, and 

heating or cooling consumed by the company. Scope 3 emissions include upstream activities 

such as the production of goods and services purchased by the company, as well as downstream 

activities such as disposal of products. For scope 2, publicly available and private company data 

for cost and emission information can be used. For instance, the location decisions for 

manufacturing, distribution and logistics facilities can be evaluated using the Green Power 

Network (GPN) by the U.S. Department of Energy, which illustrates the green utility pricing 

programs per state. The resultant models can then include supply chain configuration decisions 

where the company can select the composition of energy sources for scope 2 emissions. Overall, 

including energy source portfolio decisions allows trading-off emissions and cost of energy and 

provides more flexibility in managing the economic and environmental sustainability across 

product supply chains.

3. Conclusions

While the research community has recognized and begun to address the challenges of product 

life cycle design for economic and environmental sustainability, much work needs to be done 

before operationalized methods and tools can emerge to assist design engineers and other supply 

chain decision makers in sustainable product design and manufacturing. Critical to the 

development of methods and tools is the understanding and quantification of the dependencies 
148

between product design, manufacturing, and supply chain decisions in terms of cost and 

environmental impacts. In exploiting these dependency relationships, special emphasis should 

be given to product architecture decisions (e.g., integral, modular, and hybrid), as well as to 

manufacturing process and assembly/disassembly analyses.

4. References

Arinez J., Biller S., Lyons K., Leong S., Shao G., Lee B.E., and Michaloski J., 2010, 

Benchmarking Production System, Process Energy, and Facility Energy Performance Using a 

Systems Approach, Proceedings of the 10th Performance Metrics for Intelligent Systems 

Workshop, ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp. 88–96.

Blackhurst, J., T. Wu, and P. O’Grady, 2005, PCDM: A Decision Support Modeling 

Methodology for Supply Chain, Product and Process Design Decisions, Journal of 

Operations Management 23 (3–4). 

Boguski, T., 2010, Life Cycle Carbon Footprint of the National Geographic Magazine, The 

International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 15(7), 635-643.

Bonney, M. and Jaber, M.Y., 2011, Environmentally responsible inventory models: Nonclassical 

models for a non- classical era, International Journal of Production Economics, 133(1), 43-

53.

Chiu, M-C., Alsaffar, A. J., Haapala, K. R. and Okudan, G.E., 2010, Reducing Supply Chain 

Costs and Carbon Footprint during Product Design, IEEE International Symposium on 

Sustainable Systems and Technology (ISSST), Washington, D.C., 1–6.

Chiu, M-C. and Okudan, G.E., 2011, An Integrative Methodology for Product and Supply Chain 

Design Decisions at the Product Design Stage, ASME Journal of Mechanical Design, 133, 

0211008-1-15. 

Chiu, M-C. and Okudan, G.E., 2013, An Investigation on Centralized and Decentralized Supply 

Chain Scenarios at the Product Design Stage to Increase Supply Chain Performance, IEEE 

Engineering Management, 61(1), 114-128.

Chung, W.H., Okudan, G.E. and Wysk, R.A., 2011, Modular Design to Optimize Product Life 

Cycle Metrics in a Closed-looped Supply Chain, Proceedings of the Industrial Engineering 

Research Conference, May 21-26, 2011, Reno, NV. 

Chung, W.H., Okudan, G.E. and Wysk, R.A., 2013, A Modular Design Approach to Improve 

Product Life Cycle Performance Based on the Optimization of a Closed-Loop Supply Chain, 

ASME Journal of Mechanical Design 136(2), MD-12-1278, 021001-21.

De Benedetto, L. and Klemes, J., 2009, The Environmental Performance Strategy Map: An 

integrated LCA approach to support the strategic decision-making process, Journal of 

Cleaner Production, 17, 900-906.

Fisher, M., 1997, What is Right Supply Chain for your Product?, Harvard Business Review, 

March/April.

Fleischer, J., and Schaedel, J., 2013, Joining Automotive Space Frame Structures by Filament 

Winding,” CIRP Journal of Manufacturing Science and Technology, 6(2), 98-101

Frota Neto, J.Q., Bloemhof-Ruwaard, J.M., van Nunen, J.A.E.E. and van Heck, E., 2008, 

Designing and evaluating sustainable logistics networks, International Journal of Production 

Economics, 111, 195-208.

Gan, T-S. and Grunow, M., 2013, Concurrent Product-Supply Chain Design: A Conceptual 

Framework & Literature Review, Procedia of CIRP Conference on Manufacturing Systems, 

7, 91-96.
149

Guillen-Gosalbez, G. and Grossmann, I.E., 2009, Optimal Design and Planning of Sustainable 

Chemical Supply Chains Under Uncertainty. AICHE Journal, 55(1), 99-121.

Gupta, S. and Okudan, G.E., 2008, Computational Modularized Conceptual Designs with 

Assembly and Variety Considerations, Journal of Engineering Design, 19(6), 533–551. 

Hoen, K.M.R., Tan, T., Fransoo, J.C. and Van Houtum, G.J., 2010, Effect of carbon emission 

regulations on transport mode selection in supply chains, Eindhoven University of 

Technology Working Paper, 1-32.

Hugo, A. and Pistikopoulos, E.N., 2005, Environmentally conscious long-range planning and 

design of supply chain networks, Journal of Cleaner Production, 13, 1471-1491.

Ilgin, M.A. and Gupta, S.M., 2010, Environmentally conscious manufacturing and product 

recovery (ECMPRO): a review of the state of the art, Journal of Environmental Management, 

91, 563–591.

Jeswiet, J. and Nava, P., 2009, Applying CES to Assembly and Comparing Carbon Footprints, 

International Journal of Sustainable Engineering, 2(4), 232-240.

Joyce, T., Okrasinski, T.A. and Schaeffer, W., 2010, Estimating the Carbon Footprint of 

Telecommunications Products: A Heuristic Approach, Journal of Mechanical Design, 132(9), 

094502 (4pp.).

Kim, K.Y., Wang, Y., Muogboh, O.S. and Nnaji, B.O., 2004, Design Formalism for 

Collaborative Assembly Design, Computer-Aided Design (CAD), 36(9), 849-871.

Krikke, H., Bloemhof-Ruwaard, J. and Van Wassenhove, L.N., 2003, Concurrent Product and 

Closed-loop Supply Chain Design with An Application to Refrigerators, International 

Journal of Production Research, 41(16), 3689-3719.

Lamothe, J., Hadj-Hamou, K. and Aldanondo, M., 2006, An Optimization Model for Selecting a 

Product Family and Designing its Supply Chain, European Journal of Operational Research, 

169(3), 1030-1047.

Lee, H.L. and Sasser, M.M., 1995, Product Universality and Design for Supply Chain 

Management, Production Planning & Control, 6(3), 270-277.

Nepal, B., Famuyiwa, F., Monplaisir, L., 2011, A Multi-Objective Supply Chain Configuration 

Model for New Products, International Journal of Production Research, 49(1), 7107-7134. 

Newcomb, P.J., Bras, B. and Rosen, D.W., 1998, Implications of Modularity on Product Design 

for the Life Cycle, Journal of Mechanical Design, 120(3), 483-490.

Okudan Kremer, G.E. and Gupta, S., 2013, Analysis of Modularity Implementation Methods 

from Assembly and Variety Viewpoints, The Journal of Advanced Manufacturing 

Technology, 6(9), 1959-1976.

Pusavec, F., Krajnik, P., Kopac, J., 2010a, Transitioning to Sustainable Production – Part I: 

Application on Machining Technologies, Journal of Cleaner Production, 18(2), 174-184.

Pusavec, F., Kramar, D., Krajnik, P., Kopac, J., 2010b, Transitioning to Sustainable Production –

Part II: Evaluation of Sustainable Machining Technologies, Journal of Cleaner Production, 

18(12), 1211-1221.

Rajemi, M.F., Mativenga, P.T., Aramcharoen, A., 2010, Sustainable machining: selection of 

optimum turning conditions based on minimum energy considerations, Journal of Cleaner 

Production, 18(10-11), 1059-1065.

Reap, J., Román, F., Guldberg, T. and Bras, B., 2006, Integrated Ecosystem Landscape and 

Industrial Modeling for Strategic Environmentally Conscious Process Technology Selection 

Abstract.” In 13th CIRP International Conference on Life Cycle Engineering, 213–18. 

Leuven, Belgium. 
150

Reuter, C., Foerstl, L., Hartmann, E. and Blome, C., 2010, Sustainable Global Supplier 

Management: The Role of Dynamic Capabilities in Achieving Competitive Advantage, 

Journal of Supply Chain Management, 46(2), 45-63.

Selldin E., Olhager J., 2007, Linking Products with Supply Chains: Testing Fisher’s Model, 

Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 12(1), 42-51.

Taghavi, A. and Chinnam, R.B., 2014, Assortment Planning of Automotive Products: 

Considerations for Economic and Environmental Impacts of Technology Selection, Journal 

of Cleaner Production, doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.02.004.

Umpfenbach, E., 2013, Optimization of Strategic Planning Processes for Configurable Products: 

Considerations for Global Supply, Demand, and Sustainability Issues, Wayne State 

University Dissertations. Paper 710, http://digitalcommons.wayne.edu/oa_dissertations/710

Ülkü, S. and G. Schmidt. 2011, Matching product architecture and supply chain configuration, 

Production and Operations Management, 20 (1), 16-31.

Ulrich, K.T. and Tung, K., 1991, Fundamentals of Product Modularity, Proceedings of the 

ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences—Conference on Design/Manufacture 

Integration, 39, pp. 73-79.
151

[This page is internationally left blank]
152

Lambert, James H., and Michelle C. Hamilton, University of Virginia

Emergent and Future Conditions Influencing Risk, Sustainability, and 

Resilience of Infrastructure Systems

Abstract

This chapter reviews efforts to incorporate scenarios of diverse risk factors that influence priority 

setting for infrastructure systems. Several of the efforts extend the theory of robust decision 

making to include sensitivity and resilience to stakeholder preferences. The efforts address risk 

as an influence of scenarios to priorities for infrastructure systems. Scenarios are comprised of 

emergent and future conditions including regulations, technologies, economics, markets, 

environmental change, population and workforce behaviors, etc. The efforts span infrastructure

systems involving energy, transportation, security, and coastal protection. The efforts 

individually and collectively describe relationships among metrics, models, and datasets related 

to risk, sustainability, and resilience of large-scale systems.

Keywords

Resilience, infrastructure, systems engineering, scenario-based preferences, robust decision 

making, resilience, risk management, sustainability

1. Introduction

Risk was defined by Lowrance as a measure of the likelihood and severity of adverse effects 

(Lowrance 1976). Kaplan and Garrick (1981) described risk as what can go wrong, what are the 

likelihoods, what are the consequences. Haimes (1991) described risk management to be: What 

can be done in what time frames; what are the tradeoffs among costs, benefits, and risks; and 

what are the impacts of current decisions to future options. Teng, Thekdi, and Lambert (2012, 

2011) described risk programs to address: What are the scope of risks under consideration; what 

are the allocations of resources in time, geography, topics, etc.; and what is the monitoring of the 

efficacy of risk management. The ISO standard on risk management described risk as the effect 

of uncertainty on objectives (ISO 2009). Finally, Lambert et al. have described risk as the 

influence of scenarios on priorities (Lambert et al. 2013, 2012, 2011). The following sections 

identify metrics, models, data that have addressed risk, sustainability, and resilience for a variety 

of emergent and future conditions for infrastructure systems. The review suggests gaps for 

measurement science and sustainability research in the area of large-scale systems engineering.

2. Emergent Conditions of Energy Systems Islanding and Electricity Microgrids

Research and development for energy systems (e.g., smart and secure microgrids for industrial 

and military installations, solar cogeneration technologies, etc.) must account for deep 

uncertainties and emergent conditions including economic, regulatory, technological, mission, 

demographic, environmental/ecological, and others. Energy managers and stakeholders for 

military or industrial installations need a rationale for selecting among innovative technologies 

and methodologies for energy quality and quantity in support of their critical missions. Energy 

managers must consider various strategic objectives for R&D, including: reducing consumption, 

increasing efficiency, reducing dependence on fossil fuels, judicious use of renewable resources, 

and reducing adverse impacts to the environment. The pace and variety of technology 
153

innovations are increasing even as the horizons that are the basis for evaluating current R&D 

investments are extended. Emergent and future conditions, to the extent they can be known or 

predicted, should influence the priorities for research and development portfolios. For example, 

federal, military, and market forces influence what technologies are viable for particular 

missions. Escalating renewable energy consumption requirements at federal facilities will 

continue to have a dramatic influence in this topic. Changing state and local regulations such as 

carbon taxes, renewable portfolio standards, and utility tariff regulations will significantly 

influence the financial feasibility of various innovative technologies. The volatility in supplies 

and demands of fossil fuels will continue to affect availability and market prices of a variety of 

energy resources, and in turn influence priorities for energy research and development.

Hamilton et al. (2013), Karvetski et al. (2012) and Karvetski et al. (2011c) discuss the influence 

of deep uncertainties in strategic priority setting for facility energy investments. Hamilton et al. 

(2013) use ten criteria to evaluate six energy R&D portfolio alternatives across five scenarios 

representing diverse stakeholder perspectives/emergent conditions including energy islanding, 

national security perspective. Karvetski et al. (2012) evaluate seven alternatives including 

microturbines and microgrids against seven criteria under five scenarios including economic 

fear, an increase in natural disasters, terrorism, and others. Martinez et al. (2010) describe a 

scenario-based methodology to compare alternative risk communications strategies for liquefied 

natural gas terminals. 

3. Coastal Infrastructure Systems Impacted by Climate and Other Factors

The impacts of emergent and future condtions are an important consideration for managers of 

coastal regions. E.g., climate may influence sea levels, severity and frequency of extreme 

weather and precipitation, and other phenomena of importance to natural resource and 

infrastructure systems (Karvetski et al, 2011a; Karvetski et al, 2011b). Evaluating and designing 

adaptive alternatives over the full spectrum of climate change conditions should increase the 

chance of selecting projects that will satisfy a variety of community needs (Karvetski et al., 

2011; Zhou et al, 2012). Karvetski et al. (2011) describe scenario-based preferences 

complementing an analysis of robust decisions, adding understanding of the uncertainties 

contributed by climate change and sea-level rise and with coastal engineering initiatives. The

effort assesses the relative sea level and other climate-change scenarios that could affect the 

performance of coastal protections. The methodology quantifies the robustness of alternative 

portfolios across a variety of scenarios and identifies the scenarios that greatly affect the 

assessments. Karvetski et al. (2011) discuss climate change scenarios for Alaska coastal 

infrastructure. Zhou et al. (2012) describe how flood protection diversification can be used to 

reduce probabilities of extreme losses. The study compares the performance of portfolios each 

consisting of four types of flood protection assets in a large region of dike rings. The analysis 

suggests conditions in which diversifications of the types of included flood protection assets 

could decrease losses in extreme floods. Increased return periods of extreme losses are associated 

with portfolios where the asset types have low correlations of economic risk. The effort 

highlights the importance of correlations across asset types in planning for large-scale flood 

protection. It allows explicit integration of climate change scenarios in developing flood 

mitigation strategy. You et al. (2014) describe a quantification of the influence of climate change 

to priorities for infrastructure projects.
154

4. Mobility, Accessibility, and Sustainability for Transportation Corridors

Understanding diverse emergent and future conditions is of course important for transportation 

planning. Transportation infrastructure can be vulnerable to local manifestations of global 

climate change, such as storm frequencies, intensity and durations of seasons. To adapt, 

transportation agencies need methodologies for reprioritizing their assets subject to the new 

sources of vulnerability. Lambert et al. (2013) discuss how transportation agencies might prepare 

for tropical cyclone-related needs and anticipate various storm scenarios that could bring 

widespread damage to transportation infrastructure. The paper develops a method to consider 

investment alternatives for highway equipment (signs, signals, and lights) through the evaluation 

of tradeoffs between cost and damage. Considering the various consequences of five hurricane 

categories enables the decision maker an opportunity to understand the tradeoffs and invest in 

equipment consistent with individual needs and values of the agency. Lambert et al. (2013) 

extend a scenario-based multicriteria decision framework that can assist decision makers in 

effectively allocating limited resources to adapt transportation assets to a changing climate. 

Scenarios of climate and other factors are used to update the criteria weighting, which results in 

several reprioritizations of the assets. The results help to identify the most influential scenarios 

and characterize the sensitivity of the baseline prioritization across multiple scenarios. With such 

results, additional scientific and investigative efforts can be focused effectively to study and 

understand the influential scenarios. Schroeder et al. (2011) describe a similar scenario-based 

analysis for infrastructure policy impacts and planning, extending the reach of robust decision 

making to sensitivity to evolving stakeholder preferences.

5. Population and Workforce Behaviors and Infrastructure Performance

Considerable attention is focused on plans for sheltering or evacuating the population of urban 

areas in response to a regional emergency such as a terrorist attack or natural disaster. Such 

planning engages multiple disciplines spanning infrastructure engineering, emergency 

management, health care, mass communication, water and food supply, logistics, and others. 

Knowledge of population and workforce behaviors should influence the many dimensions of 

protection, prevention, response, and recovery (Guterbock et al., 2011, 2010); Parlak et al. 2012; 

Meyer et al. 2012). Of particular interest are the behaviors and needs of the resident and nonresident populations in the aftermath of a regional disaster, including those at home, at work, and 

traveling. Parlak et al. (2012) deployed a 30-min telephone survey to 2700 residents of the 

National Capital region to gain knowledge of their intended behaviors in the event of a variety of 

potential dirty bomb attacks and used the results to identify and model the assumptions of 

population behaviors that most affect agency priorities for emergency planning including 

regional sheltering and evacuation following a radiological disaster such as a dirty bomb. The 

technical approach assessed several planning initiatives across performance criteria derived from 

strategic plans and applied combinations of behavioral assumptions to vary the relative 

importance of each criterion. The results identify the behavioral scenarios that are most 

significant to the prioritization of planning initiatives and identify the highest and lowest priority 

initiatives across the criteria used. Lambert et al. (2013) analyze transportation system demand 

and system performance for emergency management in three disaster scenarios. A two-step 

methodology first estimates the number of trips evacuating the region, and second, assigns these 

trips to a regional highway network, using geographic information systems software. 

Performance measures are generated for each scenario including maps of volume-to-capacity 

ratios, geographic contours of evacuation time from the center of the region, and link-specific 
155

metrics such as weighted average speed and traffic volume. The methods are applied to three 

scenarios involving attacks from radiological dispersion devices (e.g., dirty bombs). The results 

include: (1) a single detonation would degrade transportation system performance two to three 

times more than that which occurs during a typical weekday afternoon peak hour, (2) volume on 

several critical arterials within the network would exceed capacity in the represented scenarios, 

and (3) resulting travel times to reach intended destinations imply that un-aided evacuation is 

impractical. The results assist emergency responders who provide traveler information and who 

make operational adjustments to improve the network (e.g., signal retiming) and public health 

officials who maintain shelters, food and water stations, or first aid centers along evacuation 

routes. Lambert and Farrington (2007, 2006) address metrics and models for the allocation of 

devices for localized hazard protection for a similar scale of emergency.

6. Land and Economic Development Affecting Infrastructure Systems

Thekdi and Lambert (2014) describe the quantification of scenarios and stakeholders influencing 

priorities for risk mitigation in transportation infrastructure systems. They integrate scenario 

identification, priority-setting analysis, stakeholder preferences, and consensus building with 

application to a 10,000-kilometer (6000-mile) critical multimodal transportation network that is 

vulnerable to nearby economic development and land uses. Thekdi and Lambert (2014) describe 

decision analysis and risk models for land development affecting infrastructure systems. 

Coordination and layering of models to identify risks in complex systems such as large-scale 

infrastructure of energy, water, and transportation is of current interest across application 

domains. Such infrastructures are increasingly vulnerable to adjacent commercial and residential 

land development. Land development can compromise the performance of essential 

infrastructure systems and increase the costs of maintaining or increasing performance. The 

approach integrates to a decision framework of strategic considerations based on assessing risk, 

cost, and opportunity in order to prioritize needs and potential remedies that mitigate impacts of 

land development to the infrastructure systems. Linthicum and Lambert (2010) describe risk 

management for transportation and other infrastructure corridor vulnerable to adjacent land 

development. Lambert et al. (2012) describe prioritizing infrastructure investments in 

Afghanistan with multiagency stakeholders and deep uncertainty of emergent conditions. 

Relatedly, Karvetski et al. (2009) describe emergent conditions that influence prioritization of 

infrastructure investments for the developing world.

7. References

Haimes, Y.Y. 1991. Total risk management. Risk Analysis. 11(2): 169–171.

Hamilton, M.C., J.H. Lambert, J.W. Keisler, I. Linkov, and F.M. Holcomb. 2013. Research and 

development priorities for energy security of military and industrial installations. ASCE 

Journal of Infrastructure Systems. 19(3): 297-305

Hamilton, M.C., S.A. Thekdi, E.M. Jenicek, R.S. Harmon, M.E. Goodsite, M.P. Case, C.W. 

Karvetski, and J.H. Lambert 2013. Case studies of scenario analysis for adaptive 

management of natural resource and infrastructure systems. Environment Systems & 

Decisions. 33:89-103.

ISO 2009. ISO Standard on Risk Management. International Standards Organization.

Joshi, N. and J.H. Lambert 2007. Equity metrics for the prioritization and selection of 

transportation projects. Transactions on Engineering Management. 54(3). 539-547. 
156

Joshi, N.N. and J.H. Lambert 2011. Diversification of engineering infrastructure investments for 

emergent and unknown non-systematic risks. Journal of Risk Research. 14(4): 1466-4461.

Kaplan, S. and B.J. Garrick 1981. On the quantitative definition of risk. Risk Analysis 1(1):11-

27.

Karvetski, C.W., and J.H. Lambert 2012. Evaluating deep uncertainties in strategic prioritysetting with an application to facility energy investments. Systems Engineering. 15(4): 483-

493.

Karvetski, C.W., J.H. Lambert, and I. Linkov 2009. Emergent conditions and multicriteria 

analysis in infrastructure prioritization for developing countries. Journal of Multiple Criteria 

Decision Analysis. 16(5): 125–137. 

Karvetski, C.W., J.H. Lambert, and I. Linkov 2011c. Scenario and multiple criteria decision 

analysis for energy and environmental security of military and industrial installations. 

Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management. 7(2):228-236. 

Karvetski, C.W., J.H. Lambert, J.M. Keisler, and I. Linkov 2011b. Integration of decision 

analysis and scenario planning for coastal engineering and climate change. IEEE 

Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part A. 41(1): 63-73. 

Karvetski, C.W., J.H. Lambert, J.M. Keisler, B. Sexauer, and I. Linkov. 2011a. Climate change 

scenarios: risk and impact analysis for Alaska coastal infrastructure. Int. J. Risk Assessment 

and Management, 15(2/3): 258–274. 

Lambert, J.H. and M.W. Farrington 2007. Cost-benefit functions for the allocation of security 

sensors for air contaminants. Reliability Engineering and System Safety. 92(7):930-946. 

Lambert, J.H., A.I. Parlak, Q. Zhou, J.S. Miller, M.D. Fontaine, T.M. Guterbock, J.L. Clements, 

and S.A. Thekdi 2013. Understanding and managing disaster evacuation on a transportation 

network. Accident Analysis and Prevention. 50(1): 645-659.

Lambert, J.H., and M.W. Farrington 2006. Risk-based objectives for the allocation of chemical, 

biological, and radiological air emissions sensors. Risk Analysis. 26(6):1659-1674. 

Lambert, J.H., and P. Sarda 2005. Risk identification by superposition of infrastructure and 

terrorist networks. Journal of Infrastructure Systems. 11(4):211-220. 

Lambert, J.H., B.L. Schulte, and N.N. Joshi 2008. Multiple criteria intelligence tracking for 

detecting extremes from sequences of risk incidents. Journal of Industrial and Management 

Optimization. 4(3): 511-533. 

Lambert, J.H., C.W. Karvetski, D.K. Spencer, B.J Sotirin, D.M. Liberi, H.H. Zaghloul, J.B. 

Koogler, S.L. Hunter, W.D. Goran, R.D. Ditmer, and I. Linkov 2012. Prioritizing 

infrastructure investments in Afghanistan with multiagency stakeholders and deep 

uncertainty of emergent conditions. ASCE Journal of Infrastructure Systems. 18(2): 155-166.

Lambert, J.H., J. Tsang, and S. Thekdi 2013a. Risk-informed investment for tropical cyclone 

preparedness of highway signs, signals, and lights. ASCE Journal of Infrastructure Systems. 

19(4): 384-394 

Lambert, J.H., N.N. Joshi, K.D. Peterson, and S.M. Wadie 2007. Coordination and 

diversification of investments in multimodal transportation. Public Works Management and 

Policy. 11: 250-265. 

Lambert, J.H., R.A. Jennings, and N.N. Joshi 2006. Integration of risk identification to business 

process models. Systems Engineering. 9(3):187-198. 

Lambert, J.H., Y.J. Wu, H. You, A. Clarens, and B. Smith 2013b. Future climate change and 

priority setting for transportation infrastructure assets. ASCE Journal of Infrastructure 

Systems. 19(1):36-46.
157

Linthicum, A.S. and J.H. Lambert 2010. Risk management for infrastructure corridors vulnerable 

to adjacent land development. Journal of Risk Research. 13(8): 983 – 1006. 

Lowrance, W. 1976. Of Acceptable Risk.

Martinez, L.J., J.H. Lambert, and C. Karvetski 2011. Scenario-informed multiple criteria analysis 

for prioritizing investments in electricity capacity expansion. Reliability Engineering and 

System Safety. 96: 883-891. 

Martinez, L.J., J.H. Lambert, and C.W. Karvetski 2010. Public perception of the risks of 

liquefied natural gas terminals in Mexico: A prioritisation of communication strategies. 

International Journal of Critical Infrastructures. 6(4): 327–346. 

Meyer, T.S., Muething, J.Z., Lima, G.A.S., Torres, B.R.R., del Rosario, T.K., Gomes, J.O., 

Lambert, J.H. 2012. Radiological emergency response for community agencies with 

cognitive task analysis, risk analysis, and decision support framework Work: A Journal of 

Prevention, Assessment and Rehabilitation 41:2925-2932. 

Parlak, A., J.H. Lambert, T. Guterbock, and J. Clements 2012. Population behavioral scenarios 

influencing radiological disaster preparedness and planning. Accident Analysis and 

Prevention. 48: 353– 362. 

Schroeder, M.J. and J.H. Lambert 2011. Scenario-based multiple criteria analysis for 

infrastructure policy impacts and planning. Journal of Risk Research. 14(2): 191–214. 

Seager, T.P., J.H. Lambert, and K.H. Gardner 2007. Fostering innovation in contaminated 

sediments management through multi-criteria technology assessment and public 

participation. Risk Analysis. 27(4): 1043-1052. 

Teng, K., S.A. Thekdi, and J.H. Lambert 2012. Identification and evaluation of priorities in the 

business process of a risk or safety organization. Reliability Engineering and System Safety.

99: 74–86. 

Teng, K., S.A. Thekdi, and J.H. Lambert 2013. Risk and safety program performance evaluation 

and business process modeling. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics: Part 

A. 42(6): 1504-1513.

Thekdi, S.A. and J.H. Lambert 2012. Decision analysis and risk models for land development 

affecting infrastructure systems. Risk Analysis. 32(7): 1253-1269.

Thekdi, S.A., and J.H. Lambert 2014. Quantification of scenarios and stakeholders influencing 

priorities for risk mitigation in infrastructure systems". ASCE Journal of Management in 

Engineering. 30(1):32-40.

You, H., J.H. Lambert, A.F. Clarens, and B. McFarlane 2014. Quantifying the influence of 

climate change to priorities for infrastructure projects. IEEE Transactions on Systems Man 

and Cybernetics: Systems. 44(2):133-145.

Zhou, Q., J.H. Lambert, C.W. Karvetski, J.M. Keisler, and I. Linkov 2012. Flood protection 

diversification to reduce probabilities of extreme losses. Risk Analysis. 32(11): 1873-1887.
158

Mahadevan, Sankaran, Vanderbilt University

Uncertainty Quantification in Sustainability Assessment

Abstract

This paper focuses on uncertainty quantification (UQ) with respect to the sustainability 

evaluation of construction and manufacturing processes. Various sources of uncertainty, such as 

natural variability, information uncertainty, and modeling uncertainty need to be included in such 

evaluation. This is not straightforward, given the empirical nature of many of the component 

processes. The information available is heterogeneous, available from many sources and in 

different formats; it is also qualitative in many cases. In some cases the data is sparse, and in 

some others it is very large. Research is needed for systematic fusion of all available 

information, in order to facilitate both forward and inverse problems in uncertainty 

quantification. The forward propagation helps quantify the overall uncertainty in evaluating the 

appropriate metrics, and the relative contributions of different sources to the overall uncertainty. 

The inverse problem can facilitate uncertainty reduction through process optimization, and 

resource allocation for optimal data collection.

Keywords

Uncertainty quantification, Variability, Data uncertainty, Model uncertainty, Information fusion, 

Data analytics, Decision-making

1. Introduction

Today’s advanced manufacturing processes and production networks increasingly push the 

envelope in building complex, optimized products. Along with these developments, concerns 

regarding sustainability, agility, smart manufacturing etc. have become increasingly important. 

However, a 2009 NIST workshop report states that “industry is unable to measure economic, 

social, and environmental consequences of their activities and products accurately during the 

entire life cycle and across their supply chain” [1]. Therefore recent efforts towards assessment 

of production networks and supply chains with respect to economic, social and environmental 

effects have focused on defining various metrics and measurement methods. However, 

measurement science also requires the quantification of uncertainty in the measurement, in terms 

of bias and precision, or in terms of systematic and random errors. Given the complexity of 

modern production networks, quantification of performance metrics such as sustainability, agility 

etc. is quite complicated in itself. In addition, many sources of variability and uncertainty present 

in different processes contribute to significant uncertainty in the overall performance evaluation. 

Therefore, it is essential to develop a systematic and rigorous methodology for quantifying the 

uncertainties in performance measurement in a complex production network. 

The errors and uncertainty need to be quantified at multiple levels and stages of the 

manufacturing supply chain. Uncertainty sources in various components of the network may 

broadly be classified into three categories: natural variability in the manufacturing processes 

(aleatory uncertainty), information uncertainty due to inadequate, qualitative, missing, or 

erroneous data (epistemic uncertainty), and modeling uncertainty induced by assumptions and 

approximations (epistemic uncertainty). Much previous work has focused on variability in 

individual manufacturing processes in order to accomplish quality control and robustness 
159

objectives. The focus of this document is different; it is to explore research towards a systematic 

methodology that quantifies the overall uncertainty in the computation of performance metrics 

related to sustainability in construction and manufacturing, and the contributions of individual 

sources of uncertainty to the overall uncertainty in the metrics assessment.

2. Uncertainty Quantification: Current Status

Uncertainty in the measurement of various performance metrics in manufacturing networks has 

been addressed in a few studies. (The literature on statistical process control is mature and vast, 

and is not addressed here). Yu and Heng (2006) explore methods to synthesize expert opinion 

about the agility of a manufacturing enterprise [20]. Uncertainty and variability are prominent in 

the measurement of flexibility, as discussed by several studies, i.e., uncertainty in external 

factors (consumer-led) such as demand, resource availability, supplier and labor availability, and 

technology changes, and variability in internal factors (company-led), such as machine 

downtime, material input variability, raw materials, schedule, and variations in workforce [21]. 

Measurement of sustainability has mainly focused on developing appropriate metrics [22]; while 

it is recognized that many factors contribute to uncertainty in the measurement of energy and 

resource consumption, environmental impact etc., a systematic methodology for uncertainty 

quantification in such metrics is yet to be developed. A 2010 National Science Foundation 

workshop on decision-making under uncertainty with respect to manufacturing identified several 

opportunities for the use of UQ methods in job shop assignment and scheduling [23].

One of the challenges in construction and manufacturing process assessment is in collecting and 

processing data about the quantities to be used in the calculation of performance metrics. Such 

information is sometimes inadequate, due to sparse, imprecise, qualitative, subjective, faulty, or 

missing data. Sometimes the available data may be very large in volume, leading to big data 

issues. The data is quite often heterogeneous, coming from different sources and available in 

different formats (e.g., test data, operational data, legacy system data, model-based simulations, 

and expert opinion). 

A second challenge in sustainability assessment is to develop a computational framework that 

mathematically represents all the components of the construction or manufacturing enterprise, 

input and output variables, the relationships within and among the component processes, and 

their relation to the system-level performance metric. The models for various processes could be 

based on physics (first principles), regression of empirical data, system dynamics, or agent-based 

simulation. For some components (e.g., software, or even hardware components such as valves, 

seals, fittings, etc.), there may not be any mathematical models available, but perhaps reliability 

data from past experience or literature. Quantification of the model uncertainty resulting from 

such heterogeneous information could be studied w.r.t. three categories, namely, model 

parameters, model form, and solution approximations. 

Uncertainty quantification in the presence of above data and model uncertainties is not 

straightforward. The various sources of uncertainty do not combine in a simple manner to give 

the uncertainty in the overall system-level performance metric; the combinations might be linear, 

nonlinear, nested, or require iterative analyses. Various types of methods are being vigorously 

investigated at present within the UQ research community, but most of the research is currently 

limited to physical systems, not processes. Thus substantial new research is needed to develop 

new uncertainty quantification techniques in sustainability assessment for construction and 
160

manufacturing processes. These techniques need to be capable of fusing information that is 

available in heterogeneous formats (numerical, categorical, text, image). Data from different 

components of the process are available at different times during the life cycle, and the UQ 

technique should be able to handle this time factor. Also, the information fusion needs to account 

for different levels of fidelity in different types of data.

3. Uncertainty Quantification Research Needs

Several research questions with respect to uncertainty quantification in construction and 

manufacturing processes can be posed, as below: 

1. How to quantify the uncertainty in sustainability evaluation of construction and 

manufacturing processes and supply chains?

a. What are the theoretical issues? 

b. What are possible methodologies?

c. How to evaluate the existing methodologies and identify promising ones?

2. If a UQ methodology is identified, is it scalable to high dimensional problems?

a. How to address issues of composability and modularity?

b. Is the approach generalizable to different construction and manufacturing 

scenarios?

c. What is the cost of sustainability evaluation (i.e., effort and resources needed for 

modeling, data collection, computation)?

d. How to quantify and optimize the trade-off between cost and benefit?

3. How to fuse available information?

a. How to construct constitutive models for various processes and components?

b. How to handle data issues, such as heterogeneous data and missing data?

c. How to take advantage of monitoring systems in manufacturing processes?

4. How to facilitate decision-making for sustainability?

a. How to connect macro-level performance metrics to micro-level considerations?

b. How to perform sensitivity analysis to assess the contributions of various 

uncertainty sources to the sustainability evaluation? 

c. How to use the resulting information from the above investigations in decisionmaking under uncertainty?

Investments are needed towards investigating the basic research questions above, as well as in 

developing tools and standards. Coordination with the industry will be needed, especially in 

methodology and tool testing, verification and validation, and in application demonstrations at 

increasing levels of complexity. Involvement of technical committees in related professional 

organizations will further facilitate progress in this direction.

4. References

Rachuri, S., R. D. Sriram, A. Narayanan, P. Sarkar, J.H. Lee, K. W. Lyons, and S. J. Kemmerer, 

"Sustainable manufacturing: metrics, standards, and infrastructure – NIST Workshop report," 

National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Gaithersburg,MD, USA, NIST 

interagency/internal report (NISTIR) 7683, 2010. 

Yu, L., and Z. Heng, “Measuring Agility of Enterprise using Analytic Hierarchy Process and 

Bayesian Belief Networks,” Proceedings, International Conference on Management Science 

and Engineering, Lille, France, pp. 551-556, 2006.
161

Kara, S., and B. Kayis, “Manufacturing flexibility and variability: an overview” Journal of 

Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 15, No. 6, pp. 466-478, 2004.

Feng, S.C., and C.B. Joung, “Development overview of sustainable manufacturing metrics,” 

Proceedings, 17th CIRP International Conference on Life Cycle Engineering, Hefei, 2010.

Schmitz, T. L., J. Karandikar, N. H. Kim, and A. Abbas, “Uncertainty in machining: Workshop 

summary and contributions,” Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering, ASME, 

Vol. 133, pp. 051009-1 to pp. 051009-9, 2011.
162

McDowell, Bruce D., Intergovernmental Management Associates, MD

Balancing Sustainability’s Triple Bottom Line

Abstract

The triple bottom line definition of Sustainability, adopted by ASCE and many others, includes 

environmental, economic, and social dimensions. Infrastructure--engineered, built, operated, 

maintained, modified, renovated, and finally repurposed, recycled or decommissioned at its end 

of life--impacts the natural and human environments in which it is placed. But, compared to 

environmental impacts, much less attention is paid to the effects on the social and economic 

dimensions of sustainability. This paper focuses attention on the need to upgrade how we 

measure and manage the social and economic impacts of engineered infrastructure. 

Keywords

Users, engagement, equity, measurement, performance, management

1. Origins of Imbalance

Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) have a long, solidly established history. The National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), upon which the EIS process is based, was enacted by 

Congress in 1969 and signed into law in 1970 by President Nixon. Its passage was buoyed by a 

strong wave of public concern and support for moving toward a clean environment in response to 

the publication of Rachel Carson’s famous book, Silent Spring. Despite the sometimes very 

substantial costs of cleaning up the environment, this wave of public support has firmly sustained 

the environmental clean-up movement over the past four decades. Sure, there is resistance from 

those who must bear the costs, and sometimes progress has not been as fast as many hoped for. 

But major progress has been achieved. Combined with the Endangered Species Act, the EIS 

process now provides the gold standard of impact statements. We now know almost everything 

about the plants and animals of the Earth, and their ecological habitats—and how to protect 

them. 

When NEPA passed, it also contained the seeds of social and economic impact statements, but 

that part of the Act was not implemented. It lay fallow until 1994 when President Clinton issued 

Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low-Income Populations. The path to this action was much more tortured than 

the path to enacting NEPA. Its roots went back to the Civil Rights legislation of the 1960s. 

Numerous public demonstrations in the 1970s, and citizen lawsuits about unequal levels of 

service that would be provided to different population groups by planned transit system 

improvements in Los Angeles brought environmental justice forward. This was a very 

contentious and long drawn-out process—unlike the wave of public support that swept in NEPA 

and the EIS process. Even now, social equity and environmental justice processes are little 

known and mostly still just struggling for recognition. 

The reality is that we now know more about the impacts of planned infrastructure projects on 

endangered species such as the snail darter than we know about the potential impacts on many 
163

types of people—especially those of minority and low-income status who have little influence in 

the regular political process. 

As for economic impacts, the path has been different, still. For many decades, the federal 

government funded large shares of the costs of major highway, transit, water and sewer, 

waterways and ports, and airport systems. Good, solid planning was required, but most of the 

planned facilities were heavily cost-shared by the federal government. Now, those federal 

resources are drying up and the state and local governments are taking on more of the financ ial 

responsibility. And, in turn, the state and local governments are turning increasingly to publicprivate partnerships to shift part of the financial load into the private sector. So, fiscal impact 

statements are becoming more important and more common. The urgent question is, where will 

future revenues come from to repay construction costs and take care of maintenance and 

operations? In other words, if a community develops in any given form, what will be its return 

on investment? Will this be a good, sustainable investment, considering the impact on future tax 

rates and other financial obligations? One prominent author (Katz) has called this The Missing 

Metric, and EPA’s Office of Sustainable Communities offers a webinar on the subject. 

The bottom line is this: a good solid EIS of the traditional type is no longer enough to guarantee 

Sustainability. The United States needs a larger and better-balanced array of reliable social, 

economic, and environmental measures. 

The remainder of this paper focuses on improving social indicators, the analysis of social 

impacts, and the equitable distribution of social benefits across population groups. 

2. What is Social Equity?

First, social equity and environmental justice are roughly equivalent terms. Because of past 

history, the emphasis is placed on ensuring special attention to minority and low-income groups 

that have traditionally been discriminated against by living in less healthy, more dangerous, and 

less well-served locations where they disproportionally bear the burdens present in those 

locations. Federal guidelines specifically identify these groups as Black or African American, 

Hispanic or Latino, Asian, American Indian or Alaskan Native, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific 

Islander, and Low-Income. With respect to these groups, federal programs are directed to:

 Avoid, minimize, or mitigate disproportionately high and adverse human health and 

environmental effects, including social and economic effects 

 Ensure the full and fair participation by all potentially affected communities in the 

decision making process 

 Prevent the denial of, reduction in or significant delay in the receipt of benefits 

Traditionally, these groups have been less well-represented and influential in local, state, and 

national decision making processes, and less able to effectively represent their views in political 

arenas. Indeed, for a host of reasons, these groups have often been deemed “hard to reach.” 

They often are outside the mainstream culture, not used to the cultural norms of governmental 

processes, not English speaking, and sometimes fearful of adverse consequences that might 

result from contact with the government. Immigration status, of course, is a particularly hotbutton concern at the present time, and is even interfering with attempts to enroll eligible people 
164

in the new affordable healthcare programs. So this is a tough nut to crack, and it needs special 

attention. 

3. Social Equity Tools

Two types of tools are especially valuable in addressing social equity. One is the environmental 

justice screening method being developed at the University of Southern California (USC). The 

other is community engagement programs, specially adapted to the minority and low-income 

groups identified above. 

Equity screening works like this (Pastor, August 2013). First, identify neighborhoods where 

low-income and minority residents are found, and the concentrations of these residents. Also 

measure such conditions as their degree of linguistic isolation, low homeownership, low car 

ownership, and long commutes to work. 

Then, identify areas where air quality is below standard, and by how much. Also where toxic 

soils (known as Brownfields) present dangers to health, where the quality of schools is deficient, 

where community facilities and services are sub-par, where there is a lack of choices for 

economical shopping and fresh/healthy foods, where there are not safe and convenient 

opportunities for walking and bicycling, and more. A widening variety of old and new measures, 

and standards for what is acceptable, is coming into use, little by little, and they need to be added 

to the social equity toolkit. Several are listed in the list of references provided at the end of this 

brief paper. 

Finally, compare the demographic characteristics with services available to identify disparities. 

Map the disparities, using geographic information system (GIS) technologies to graphically 

visualize and communicate them. One of the most striking features of social equity screening is 

the extent to which demographics is central to it. 

The goal of social equity programs is to reduce such disparities over time. So the results of these 

mitigation programs need to be re-measured and re-analyzed regularly to track their results. 

Reducing social disparities, of course, requires effective management of a large array of 

infrastructure and other programs on a non-discriminatory basis. How well is each of those 

programs working to produce the intended facilities and services in each neighborhood? It is the 

aggregate of all these programs over time, that improves (or does not improve) the conditions in 

a neighborhood, compared to the conditions in other neighborhoods. 

These two types of results—program provided facilities and services (called program outputs) 

and comparative neighborhood conditions (called community outcomes)—are different from 

each other. They measure different things and need to be measured separately. The connection 

between them is provided by some kind of causation based logic model linking aggregate 

program results with community impacts upon diverse demographic groups. 

4. Performance Management: Making a Difference

Effective achievement of social equity goals requires good solid performance measures with 

sufficient variety to accurately describe program goals and program results, as well as equitable 
165

outcomes. These measures need to be easy enough and affordable enough to be made readily 

available to support the timely management decisions needed to improve both types of results. 

And regular program evaluation studies need to be used to validate and update the measures and 

the vital causal links between program outputs and community outcomes. 

5. Viewing Infrastructure through the User’s Lens

In general, it is vital to engage the public that will be using infrastructure in the planning, design, 

construction, operation, maintenance, and end-of-life stages in the engineering process. Without 

these vital inputs, the infrastructure project runs the risk that it will not be supported and funded 

adequately, will not be sustained over time, and will not be used as intended, or will not provide 

all the benefits that were promised. And the infrastructure agency’s reputation also may be 

diminished. 

But, for social equity purposes, there is yet another reason to view infrastructure projects through 

the user’s lens. The low-income and minority members of these frequently disadvantaged 

groups may be more or less invisible. The U. S. Census counts them, as well as it can, but they 

may not be engaged in local, state, and federal decision making processes to the same extent that 

others are. Out of sight, out of mind. Even some pretty good community involvement processes 

may leave low-income and minority people unengaged. They may be hard to reach, and they 

often do not put themselves forward. 

So, special efforts are needed to engage them. Their needs and desires and abilities may be quite 

different than those of the mainstream population. Without engaging them, there is no way of 

knowing—at least not until the project is under construction and beginning to have an obvious 

impact on the groups -- who were left behind in the engagement process. 

Public opposition to projects at this stage can be quite disruptive and unfortunate. It can even 

stop some projects, or at least set them back while important controversies are resolved. Upfront engagement of everyone potentially served or impacted helps to avoid setbacks like this—

and even more importantly—helps to provide better plans and proposals than an incomplete 

public engagement process could. 

As part of its Continuing Education program, ASCE provides a Community Participation 

Course, on-line, to help fill this gap 

(http://mylearning.asce.org/diweb/catalog?dp=0&c=79&q=Community+Participation&f1=1.) In 

addition to laying out the entire engagement process, this course makes the point that some 

groups are harder to reach than others, and it shows the special means available to reach them. 

Again, demographics comes front and center. Where are these hard-to-reach groups, 

neighborhood by neighborhood? What are their characteristics? What languages do they speak? 

Do they have informal or indigenous leadership structures that could be useful in engaging them? 

What sort of special approaches might be most effective in engaging each special group? 

Don’t be surprised if you hear different, unexpected concerns, needs, and ideas about how to 

approach your project from these groups. Work toward better understandings and a better 

project. Identify the existing equity gaps perceived by those being impacted, and watch for 
166

opportunities to mitigate them. It is also possible that this process will suggest some new 

performance measures that have not been suggested from other sources. Once again, you may 

find that demographics are important sources of creativity. 

It is time to bring social equity issues more fully into the practice of Sustainable Infrastructure 

Engineering. 

6. References

American Planning Association, October 2007. Fair and Healthy Land Use: Environmental 

Justice and Planning, Planning Advisory Service Report Number 549/550, Chicago, IL. 

Carson, Rachel L., 1962. Silent Spring, Mariner Books, Houghton Mifflin Company, 

Anniversary Edition, 2002, New York. 

Forsyth, Ann, May 7, 2013. Measuring Walkability: The Health Question, Webinar. Volpe, The 

National Transportation Systems Center, U. S. Department of Transportation, Research and 

Innovative Technology Administration. 

Gose, Joe. Construction That Focuses on Health of Residents. New York Times, March 5, 

2013. 

Guttenplan, Martin and Seleta Reynolds, Measuring Multimodal Mobility with the Highway 

Capacity Manual 2010 and Other New Analysis Tools. TR News, May 2012, pp. 46-52. 

Katz, Peter, August 2013. The Missing Metric, Government Finance Review, pp. 20-32. 

National Civic League, National Civic Review Special Issue: Twenty-Five Years of Healthy 

Communities: Part 1, Winter 2013 (Vol. 102, Issue 4). 

Pastor, Manuel, Rachel Morello-Frosch, and Jim Sadd, August 2013. Screening for Justice: 

Proactive Spatial Approaches to Environmental Disparities, EM Magazine

U. S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, undated/downloaded. 

Environmental Justice and NEPA in the Transportation Arena: Project Highlights. 

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/environmental justice/. 

U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. Operations Performance 

Measures: The Foundation for Performance-Based Management of Transportation 

Operations Programs. http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/perf_measurement/index.htm 

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, February 2013. Creating Equitable, Healthy, and 

Sustainable Communities: Strategies for Advancing Smart Growth, Environmental Justice, 

and Equitable Development (Report EPA 231-K-10-005). 

Transportation Research Board, October 16, 2012. Performance Measures for Public 

Involvement: A Webinar. Washington, D.C. 
167

[This page is internationally left blank]
168

Mujumdar, Vilas, Consulting Engineer, VA

Sustainable Built Environment – Measurement questions

Abstract

The emphasis of this paper is on the built environment. For built environment to be sustainable, 

resilience must be either built-in or developed in the system. This is needed whether the 

degradation of the quality and use is due to environmental factors, use of the facilities beyond the 

design capacity or due to exposure to natural or man-made hazards. Complete life cycle of the 

built environment system must be studied. This cycle includes site selection, design, 

construction, operations, maintenance and demolition, disposable and reuse.

Since built environment has numerous categories depending on the function, it is necessary to 

develop certain common characteristics that can be applied to all categories. To be sustainable, 

all systems must be resilient. The focus of this paper is, therefore, resiliency of systems and 

specifically, physical performance of built environment systems. This author also raises 

questions related to measurement of acceptable functionality as systems are interdependent and 

functionality related impact on the community.

Keywords

Built environment, resilience, systems, complete cycle, physical performance, natural hazards

1. Background

Sustainable built environment reduces resources consumption, combats environmental 

degradation and creates better environment for living through trade-offs. In general, the tradeoffs are among performance in four areas: physical, economic, environmental and social 

(National Research Council of Canada, 2013). Rigorous predictions of performance, based on 

robust analysis/data are required. Such predictions may be quantifiable in some areas such as 

physical behavior and economic consequences, however, environmental and social areas may not 

be measurable easily.

2. Built Environment Defined

Built environment comprises of various types of facilities and structures. Each has its own 

requirements. This author has categorized these based on their type first, and then within each 

category, based on their function.

1. Building Systems

2. Transportation Systems

3. Utility Systems

4. Communication Systems

1. Building Systems

Building systems category has several types depending on their functions:

a. Residential facilities – continued habitability

b. Office buildings – normal business functions

c. Educational facilities – student learning and research

d. Medical facilities- hospitals and medical office buildings, laboratories
169

e. Emergency/rescue facilities – fire stations, police stations, emergency management 

offices, military offices

f. Government offices – administrative functions, legislative and executive functions

g. Other facilities such as sport stadiums, manufacturing plants, etc.

2. Transportation Systems

All transportation systems are designed either to carry or transport people and/or cargo. 

Therefore, transportation systems can be categorized by their modes of transport. 

a. Surface transport networks – railroads, highways, bridges, tunnels, and related facilities 

such as bus depots, train stations etc.

b. Air transportation systems – airports, aviation facilities, control towers etc.

c. Water transportation systems – cargo ferries, boats, and associated facilities

3. Utility Systems

Included in these systems are the networks that are necessary for societal functioning:

a. Water and water distribution networks- collection systems, treatment works, distribution 

networks, pump stations, storage facilities such as overhead water tanks

b. Wastewater networks – collection systems, pipes, treatment facilities, disposal networks

c. Electrical networks – generation plants, transmission towers, sub-stations, distribution 

systems, and connections to users

d. Gas and fuel pipe networks – source facilities, and distribution networks

4. Communication Networks

While these networks do not have many physical facilities, some are important such as main 

communication towers, and satellite communication devices mounted on the top of buildings, 

and underground cable networks.

3. Commonalities among Systems

As each system has specific function and thus has the unique demand for its performance under 

the entire life cycle from site selection, design, construction, operations, maintenance and 

demolition, disposable and reuse, finding common measurable attributes is a challenge. Perhaps 

commonalities can be found as attributes that need to be considered for all built environment 

systems to be considered sustainable.

a. Resource depletion. Resources are limited and must be conserved. Primary considerations

would be use of materials, energy consumption, and water use.

b. Operationally efficient. In the built environment area, these would be smart buildings, 

efficient production and distribution

c. Conservation. This area would cover not only current resources but developing and 

enforcing a methodology of conservation and use of new techniques, new materials and 

innovation that is conservation driven. Education in this area and financial disincentives 

are some examples.

4. Current Methodologies

Currently, many attempts are being made to measure sustainability. Different agencies and 

entities have developed benchmarks, indices, and indicators. Prominent among them are 

Environmental Sustainability Index (ESI) and Environmental Performance Index (EPI) 
170

developed for UN. For resiliency the attempts to define measurability have been very few. 

ASCE’s “Envision” rating system is developed for the infrastructure systems considering all 

three pillars of sustainability, i.e. environmental, social and economic. 

This author recognizes that the three pillars act interactively and must be considered but proposes 

that focus be physical performance, as that is an important area for built environment 

functionality. It is proposed that de-aggregation be done, creating environmental and social 

factors as initial filters for evaluation in decision-making for the built environment viability and 

then performance indicators developed.

5. Proposed Methodology

A hierarchy towards sustainability after a system is built is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Sustainability Hierarchy

The ultimate goal in sustainability is to have continued functionality of the system. It is essential 

that after an event that leads to some damaged state, full functionality resume quickly. Resiliency 

of the system determines the time taken to full functionality. Although robustness, redundancy, 

resourcefulness, and rapidity are suggested as dimensions of the system resiliency (Bruneau, M., 

etal 2007), this author contends that robustness and redundancy are different concepts and should 

not be dimensions of resiliency. 

A system is considered robust when it can continue functioning in the presence of internal and 

external challenges without fundamental changes to the original system. Even the ISO definition 

of robustness “ability of a structure or a component to withstand events (like fire explosion, 

impact) or consequence of human errors, without being damaged to an extent disproportionate to 

the original cause” (ISO 22114) clarifies that a robust system remains functional. Similarly, 

redundancy is meant to increase the reliability of a system. In engineering it is defined as “the 

duplication of critical components or functions of a system with the intention of increasing 

reliability of the system, usually in the form of a backup or fail-safe”. Again, the system is 

supposed to remain functional due to provision or existence of more than one means or resources 

to perform an activity or function.

For the built environment, complete life cycle of site selection, design, construction, operation, 

maintenance, and possible demolition functions and disposal can be viewed through social, 

economic and environmental lenses. Various issues that are associated with each stage are shown 

in Figure 2.

Built

System

Aging and/or 

external 

disturbance

Damaged 

system based 

on resiliency

Better 

resiliency 

leads to 

sustainability

Continued 

built system 

functionality
171

Figure 2. Initial Filters and Performance Basis – Built Environment

Ranking of different aspect can be developed and score and weight can be assigned to each area 

in the physical box in figure 2. This measurement is possible only because de-aggregation 

technique is used. However, it is to be recognized that the systems are interdependent, and 

because sustainability depends on functionality, following questions are raised for further 

analysis and research towards measurement of built environment.

6. Research Needs

a. How do we determine functionality of interdependent infrastructure systems?

b. How does level of functionality relate to sustainability? Is reduced functionality 

acceptable?

c. What physical attributes need to be quantified apart from those that are safety focused?

d. Is determining residual capacity after a hazard related damage, useful as a measure of 

sustainability?

e. Because resiliency is essential, how do we create and determine different levels of 

resiliency for different hazards and different levels of the same hazard? 

f. If reduced functionality is acceptable to community, how do we deal with legal 

responsibility and regulatory impacts?

g. Is the time for recovery to acceptable functionality as the impact on society a truly all 

encompassing measure of resilience?

7. Conclusions

Built environment is separated from the social, environmental and economic considerations and 

these are suggested as initial filters for decision-making. In the built environment, it is possible 

to de-aggregate physical performance for measurement purposes. Several attributes can be 

graded and assigned weights and scores depending on their importance in the system. However, 

the systems are not independent. The interdependency needs to be taken into consideration. 

Measurement becomes difficult as the functionality of an interdependent system need to be 

quantified. Further research in this area is needed.

Social and Environmental

Needs analysis, health and 

safety of users, Site selection

and population dislocations

cost, Environmental impact 

analysis, carbon footprint,

Future expansion needs

Economic

Benefit/Cost analysis, 

Return on investment, 

Life Cycle Cost analysis,

Operational and 

maintenance costs, 

demolition and disposal 

costs

Physical

(Built Environment)

Design basis, material 

selection and effective use, 

cost efficient design, energy & 

water conservation design in 

construction & operations, 

safety, comfort, failure risk, 

functionality

Initial Filters for decision-making
172

8. References

American Lifelines Alliance Power Systems, Water, Transportation and Communications 

Lifeline Interdependencies March 2006.

ASCE, 2011, Envision rating system.

Bruneau, M., etal, 2007, Conceptualized and Measuring Resilience, TR News 250, pp. 14–17. 

Mujumdar, V., A Need for Risk-Consistent Approach to Multi-Hazard Engineering., Symposium 

on Emerging Developments in Multi-Hazard Engineering, New York, New York, Sept. 18, 

2007.

Mujumdar, V., Multi-hazard Vulnerability, Mitigation, Resilience, Decision-making, and Public 

policy for civil infrastructure, Course lecture, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, 

China, May 2014.

National Research Council of Canada, 2013.

United Nations Report on Sustainability indicators, 2011.
173

[This page is internationally left blank]
174

Nasr, Nabil, and Michael Thurston, Rochester Institute of Technology

Measurements for Sustainable Manufacturing

Abstract

Effective and unified measurements for sustainable manufacturing can significantly accelerate 

progress toward meeting global sustainability objectives in these areas. This paper discusses 

many of the existing standards or metrics and discusses the opportunity for expansion and 

integration of these systems with a focus on energy and Green House Gas emission (GHG).

Keywords

Sustainable manufacturing, life-cycle engineering, life-cycle assessment, measurements, metrics

1. Background

Concerns over global environmental degradation and climate change and the role that human 

activity may play in global warming have accelerated discussions about what can be done to 

address these challenges. The per-capita energy (and GHG) footprint of different regions of the 

world is highly linked to the quality of life; large portions of the world population have a much 

lower per-capita footprint than the developed world but are rapidly increasing. The Triple 

Bottom Line of sustainability is concerned not only with global environmental concerns such as 

global warming, but also local environmental issues such as pollution, economic fairness, and 

social stability and welfare. While the effects of global climate change are shared, social and 

economic equity considerations suggest that the developed world needs to lead in reducing the 

overall worldwide GHG footprint while allowing for growth in the developing countries. 

Production and consumption have the greatest environmental impact. Most large companies 

now maintain a Corporate Sustainability Report which summarizes their activities in this area, 

these reports link to energy use and carbon emissions reporting (which may be mandated in some 

countries) and activities to improve health and safety of employees and within the communities 

in which they operate. These reports often link to the principles of the UN Global Compact 

(http://www.unglobalcompact.org/, last accessed 5/15/14), and companies are increasingly 

considering these factors within their supply chains. 

For companies that design and manufacture products, the term Sustainable Manufacturing 

encapsulates many of the activities and decisions that can impact the sustainability of the 

company’s products and operations. A workshop sponsored by the U.S. National Institute for 

Standards and Technology provides a definition for Sustainable Manufacturing which includes 

the entire product life-cycle (Sudarsan, et al., 2010).

“Sustainable manufacturing is a systems approach for the creation and distribution 

(supply chain) of innovative products and services that: minimizes resources 

(inputs such as materials, energy, water, and land); eliminates toxic substances; 

and produces zero waste that in effect reduces greenhouse gases, e.g., carbon 

intensity, across the entire life cycle of products and services.”
175

Energy use and GHG emissions are two of the key considerations in Sustainable Manufacturing, 

especially in light of global climate change, and will be considered here particularly in regards to 

product design and supply chain performance.

2. Product Life-Cycle

In order to assess the energy or GHG implications of a product development decision, it is often 

necessary to consider the implications on the entire product life-cycle. For example, a material 

with a lower production energy footprint might shorten the product life or reduce reuse or 

recycling options at end of life. Figure 1 shows a view of the product life-cycle adapted from 

Guidice et al., 2006. It is widely 

recognized that the physical 

cycle dominates the life-cycle 

cost and energy footprint of a 

product; however, it is also 

acknowledged that the factors 

that affect cost and energy 

footprint are determined during 

the development cycle. 

“Need” represents consumer or customer demand, and a goal of Sustainable Manufacturing is to 

meet that need with the greatest overall social and economic benefit and with a minimum of 

environmental impact. Many high-impact innovations identify market needs (or wants) that may 

not have been previously recognized and create a new market, therefore resulting in more 

consumption (e.g., the Apple iPod). The Sustainable Manufacturing definition above suggests 

that innovation should be focused on developing new ways to meet market needs that have lower 

overall impact. There is increasing corporate focus on this approach due to increased demand for 

greener products and synergy with improvements in production cost efficiencies. 

A more detailed view of the 

product physical life cycle is 

shown in figure 2. A primary 

goal of Sustainable 

Manufacturing should be to 

meet the market demand while 

minimizing the consumption of 

nonrenewable materials and 

energy sources and the 

emission of potentially harmful 

substances to the environment

over the entire product lifecycle. The performance of a 

product with respect to lifecycle energy and carbon 

footprint will be affected by 

product design, supply chain, 

manufacturing process, how the 

Figure 1. Product Life-Cycle

Figure 2. Product Physical Life-Cycle
176

end-user uses the product, service support system, and end-of-life management. If the product 

manufacturer is not responsible for a particular downstream phase it may not be strongly 

considered when design and support decisions are made. Extended producer responsibility (EPR) 

is a strategy that makes the manufacturer responsible for the cost of recovery and disposal. This 

adds incentive for the producer to consider end-of-life strategies when designing the product and 

product support network. The Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) directive is an 

example of EPR action taken by the European Community that requires manufacturers to pay an 

annual fee to cover the cost of take-back and recycling of electronic equipment such as small 

household appliances.

Many of the attributes of a product system are locked in during the design stage. This is not only 

limited to product design but inclusive of manufacturing process and business process design 

(supply chain, sales/ownership model, service, and retirement processes). Processes for Design 

for the Environment (DfE) are often applied to product design; however for the greatest impact 

they should also be applied manufacturing and business process development concurrently. DfE 

principles are usually presented as guidelines for designers, often in the form of 10 (sometimes 

more) rules for environment focused design (OTA 1992, Fiksel 1996). Applying these principles 

to Sustainable Manufacturing and GHG emissions, some specific areas for focus include:

 Improving product efficiency and process efficiency through-out the supply chain

 Reducing GHG footprint of materials and processes throughout supply chain (e.g. 

design for use of low impact or recycled materials, use renewable or lower carbon 

energy sources)

 Extending the useful life of products through improved design and service

 Recovering energy value of components and materials at as high a value as possible 

at end-of-life: reuse, remanufacture and upgrade, recycle

 Reducing emissions related to transportation

3. Measurement and Analysis of Energy Use and GHG Emissions

The primary process that is used to systematically evaluate the environmental burden associated 

with a product or a manufacturing process over its life-cycle is Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). 

The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) provides a standard framework for 

performing an LCA (ISO 14040). LCA is a general process that can be applied to assess the 

impact of design or process options, or the impact of supply chain decisions. A number of LCA 

software tools and databases exist to facilitate LCA analysis, a summary of which is provided by 

the US Environmental Protection Agency 

(http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/std/lca/resources.html#Software, last accessed 5/15/14). 

LCA Impact indicators may be classified as midpoint or endpoint indicators. Midpoint indicators 

are notionally closer to the process and have lower uncertainty, while endpoint indicators more 

directly link to the impacts on society and the environment and often include an aggregation of 

different impact categories. With respect to energy and GHG footprint, midpoint indicators that 

might be used include Greenhouse Gas Protocol, IPCC 2007, and Cumulative Energy Demand 

(CED). The Greenhouse Gas Protocol (GHG Protocol) relates to an accounting standard of 

greenhouse gas emissions. This method estimates the 100-year global warming potential (GWP) 

of CO2 and CO2 equivalence for other GHG (WBCSD & WRI, 2009). IPCC 2007 is an update of 

the method IPCC 2001 developed by the International Panel on Climate Change and includes 
177

indicators for global warming potential of air emissions over 20, 100 and 500 years (IPCC, 

2007). Cumulative Energy Demand is an accounting of the primary energy demand including 

both renewables and non-renewables. While CED does not link directly to GHG emissions, it 

provides a means of aggregating across different energy sources and can be useful for many 

design comparisons (Klöpffer, 1997). Cumulative Fossil Energy Demand is an alternative to 

CED that does not include renewables or nuclear energy and therefore has a better linkage to 

GHG emissions.

Consumer attitudes are one factor that drives company behavior, and, as noted in Figure 1, 

customer (or market) needs are the driver for product consumption. A common consumer 

comment about the evaluation of purported “green” products is that they do not understand how 

to evaluate the potential benefits, particularly if there is a cost penalty. This is also a problem for 

purchasing professionals that may be trying to compare bids from multiple suppliers. ISO 

provides direction for both environmental labeling (14021-type II, and 14024-type I) and 

environmental product declarations (EPD) (14025-type III). Type I labels are more useful than 

type II as they have clear rules within an industry and also external verification. According to the 

standard, EPDs should be based upon an LCA which covers the product life-cycle and has 

transparency (source information is available to interested parties). Product Category Rules 

(PCR) are also covered by ISO 14025 and for a particular product category provide guidelines 

and scope for the LCA process and for the information that is required to be reported in the EPD. 

The EPD is being increasingly used for a wide variety of product classes, particularly in Europe, 

however there is still a need to align PCRs, as several other standards exist in addition to ISO 

14025 (Subramanian, et al., 2012).

At the corporate level, there are a number of different sets of indicators that are being used to 

assess corporate sustainability performance, including for manufacturing companies. The various 

sets of indicators and metrics are summarized in Feng 2009, Feng 2010, and Joung 2013. Three 

of the more widely used indicator sets are the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), the Carbon 

Disclosure Project (CDP), and the family of Dow Jones Sustainability Indices (DJSI). The CDP 

has the most detailed disclosure requirements, including direct emissions (scope 1), indirect 

related to purchased energy (scope 2), and other indirect emissions (scope 3). Recent reports 

have indicated that the DJSI is working to synchronize its reporting around climate change 

related issues with the CDP (http://www.sustainability-indices.com/images/robecosam-adoptscdp-approach-to-climate-change-final-release_tcm1071-364881.pdf, last accessed 5/15/14). 

Similarly, the CDP and GRI are collaborating to harmonize their reporting frameworks, with the 

stated goal to “improve the consistency and comparability of environmental data, making 

corporate reporting more efficient and effective and easing the reporting burden for companies” 

(https://www.globalreporting.org/information/news-and-press-center/Pages/Companies-tobenefit-as-CDP-and-GRI-collaborate-to-harmonize-reporting-frameworks.aspx, last accessed 

5/15/14). Other reporting frameworks for GHG and carbon reporting include the GHG Protocol 

and a draft ISO standard (14067) for Carbon Footprinting, among others (Finkbeiner, 2009). The 

reporting schemes being developed by various countries to track corporate emissions and the 

relationships to these reporting standards are summarized in Kauffmann, 2012.
178

4. Gaps and Research Needs

Corporate sustainability frameworks provide information that can be used to guide decisions by 

investors, consumers, and businesses evaluating potential suppliers. These frameworks are also 

being used to track national performance with respect to GHG emissions. Continued 

standardization of reporting metrics and increased transparency in reported data will also help to 

provide actionable information about energy use and GHG emissions. However, corporate GHG 

emissions data is very difficult to compare between different companies, even if normalized to a 

level of economic activity, due to boundary issues (what economic activity is included within the 

boundaries of the reported emissions). Increased detail in reporting of scope 3 emissions will 

help in this regard; however, detailed accounting of scope 3 emissions is an area that needs 

additional methodological research. As more companies within the overall supply chain comply 

with scope 1 and 2 reporting (to a consistent framework), the data may exist to support a more 

detailed consolidation of scope 3 emissions within the upstream supply chain. However, 

downstream scope 3 emissions also may overlap with another company’s scope 1 emissions. In 

LCA terms, this creates both a boundary and allocation problem to be resolved.

EPD provides another level of information for consumers and manufacturing companies (design 

and manufacturing engineers, and purchasing professionals) to include environmental impacts in 

their purchasing decisions. However, being LCA-based, the effort to complete an EPD is 

significant. In consumer products, market forces may encourage development of a PCR and 

increased use of the EPD. In commercial transactions, purchasers could make this a requirement 

for some purchased products, or suppliers could provide this information to differentiate their 

offering if it is important to the purchaser. 

Although the PCR provides standardization, many of the challenges inherent in LCA still apply 

to EPD. With a narrowed focus on GHG and climate change, a number of the general LCA 

challenges do not apply. Some of the issues which remain, including research and 

implementation challenges are: how to handle products with multiple functions (functional unit 

definition); boundary issues such as differing supply chain boundaries (both upstream and 

downstream); boundary and allocation issues associated with multi life-cycle (e.g. 

remanufactured) products; and uncertainty estimation. An additional barrier to LCA 

implementation in general is the significant effort involved in completing an analysis. The 

research community continues to address this through enhancement of LCA databases; however, 

much of the available data has some geographical limitations. A research opportunity which may 

help to address several of these challenges is the development of improved hybrid methods that 

couple unit-process-based analysis with input/output techniques. The complexity of temporal 

issues associated with GHG impacts also comes into play when comparing systems with very 

different lifetimes or considering the timing of significant technology changes.

In product development, design goals and constraints are typically established outside of the 

product development team (PDT). The PDT consisting of design, manufacturing, and quality 

engineers, and often a supplier development or purchasing member will work together to make 

appropriate trade-offs between requirements. Many of the business and strategic issues that may 

affect product sustainability are determined outside of the PDT, for example: location of 

manufacturing, plant energy resources, and product life-cycle and support strategies. In order to 

achieve the best results from a sustainability standpoint, any of these strategic factors that are not 
179

fixed due to strong business constraints should be considered jointly along with the other 

development considerations. In addition, measureable sustainability goals should be passed down 

to the development team as part of the overall product requirements. The PDT can use tools such 

as DfE and Streamlined LCA (SLCA) to provide qualitative direction to the development 

process; however, at some point, an LCA should be performed to evaluate major factors that 

impact product sustainability. Due to the time-intensive nature of LCA, it is suggested to use an 

iterative approach that allows for appropriate levels of resolution and consideration of factors 

appropriate to the phase of the development process. There is a need for additional research to 

develop better approaches to cost effectively integrate quantitative LCA into the product 

development process.

5. Conclusions

Progress toward meeting global sustainability objectives is dependent on many factors including 

technology, policy, and increased awareness of the challenges we face. Standard methods and 

unified metrics for sustainable construction and manufacturing are needed. It is critical to 

develop integrated approaches to standards and metrics that are feasible to implement across the 

supply chains.

6. References

Sudarsan, R., et al., 2010, "Sustainable manufacturing: metrics, standards, and infrastructure–

NIST Workshop report." National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), 

Gaithersburg, MD, USA, NIST interagency/internal report (NISTIR) 7683.

Giudice, Fabio, Guido La Rosa, and Antonino Risitano, 2006, Product design for the 

environment: a life cycle approach. CRC press, 2006.

Frost, S. and Burnett, M. (2007), “Case study: the Apple iPod in China”, Corporate Social 

Responsibility and Environmental Management, Vol. 14, pp. 103-13.

WBCSD & WRI. 2009. Product Life Cycle Accounting and Reporting Standard. Review Draft 

for Stakeholder Advisory Group. The Greenhouse Gas Protocol Initiative. November.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007. IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. 

The Physical Science Basis. http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm, last accessed 

5/15/14.

Klöpffer, Walter, 1997 "In defense of the cumulative energy demand." The International Journal 

of Life Cycle Assessment 2.2: p. 61.

United States Congress, Office of Technology Assessment (OTA). 1992. Green products by 

design: Choices for a cleaner environment. Office of Technology Assessment, 1992.

Fiksel, Joseph R. 1996, Design for environment: creating eco-efficient products and processes. 

New York: McGraw-Hill.

Subramanian, Vairavan, et al. 2012, "Comparing product category rules from different programs: 

learned outcomes towards global alignment." The International Journal of Life Cycle 

Assessment 17.7: 892-903.

Feng, Shaw C., and Che B. Joung. 2009, "An overview of a proposed measurement 

infrastructure for sustainable manufacturing." Proceedings of the 7th Global Conference on 

Sustainable Manufacturing. 

Feng, Shaw C., C. Joung, and Gang Li. 2010, "Development overview of sustainable 

manufacturing metrics." Proceedings of the 17th CIRP international conference on life cycle 

engineering.
180

Joung, Che B., et al., 2013, "Categorization of indicators for sustainable manufacturing." 

Ecological Indicators 24: 148-157.

Finkbeiner, Matthias. "Carbon footprinting—opportunities and threats." The International 

Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 14.2 (2009): 91-94.

Kauffmann, Céline, Cristina Tébar Less, and Dorothee Teichmann. Corporate greenhouse gas 

emission reporting: A stocktaking of government schemes. No. 2012/1. OECD Publishing, 

2012.
181

[This page is internationally left blank]
182

Pyke, Christopher R., and Maija Krizmane, US Green Building Council

Challenges and Opportunities Integrating Measures of Energy and 

Human Performance for Residential and Commercial Buildings

Abstract

Green building represents a coordinated series of market interventions to define, promote, and 

recognize aspects of building performance that benefit people and the environment. Over the 

last two decades, the movement has transformed the building industry by changing expectations 

and practice around energy efficiency, water conservation, materials selection, and other issues. 

As part of this transformation, the green building movement has contributed to and benefited 

from a relatively rich set of measures for energy performance. Moving forward, many 

stakeholders are increasingly interested in expanding measures of performance to explicitly 

incorporate dimensions human performance [1]. This perspective is motivated by growing 

demand for integrative performance measures and rapidly emerging technologies to quantify and 

compare relevant aspects of human performance at unprecedented spatial and temporal scales. 

As new metrics and quantification strategies emerge, they have the potential to underpin a new 

era of performance-based green building market transformation.

Keywords

Green building, energy performance, human performance, health, wellness, experience, 

interoperability

1. Background

Green building represents a broad-based movement to create places that benefit people and the 

environment. This movement is premised on the observation that the building sector faces 

pervasive market failures due to the lack of relevant, actionable information on many important 

dimensions of building performance. The lack of information creates information asymmetries 

and compromises the ability of the market to effectively assess risk and allocate resources. 

Over the last twenty years, the green building movement has created a variety of tools to fill this 

information gap and promote more efficient market functioning, including recognition and 

differentiation of superior performance. These tools include green building rating systems and 

building certification. Green building rating systems represent a technical language to define the 

characteristics of superior buildings. These languages typically consist of required and optional 

elements, each associated with specific intents, metrics, and documentation requirements. This 

language allows rating system developers to articulate different levels of market outperformance 

and communicate clearly with trained practitioners. Certification processes evaluate the 

attributes and performance of individual buildings against these criteria. When criteria are met, 

buildings receive recognition that helps communication their status to stakeholders, such as 

potential tenants or investors. Taken together, the combination of rating systems and 

certification addresses information asymmetries and allows markets to identify superior 

performers. 
183

2. Prevailing Performance Metrics

The concept of “performance” is central to the design and operation of green building rating 

systems. The goal is typically to create market interventions (e.g., rating systems, credits, 

training, etc.) that shift “performance” from a business-as-usual condition toward a superior level 

of achievement. 

For many stakeholders, the concept of building “performance” is associated with strong 

emotional connections (e.g., “demanding performance), but surprisingly opaque definitions (e.g., 

what level of which measure or metric over what time frame constitutes “performance”). For 

many, “performance” is intuitively associated with the notion of energy efficiency and, most 

often, operational energy consumption. Consequently, it is useful to begin this discussion by 

reviewing widely used efforts to define “performance” in specific, actionable terms (Table 1). 

For the sake of illustration, we will consider definitions and measured in different versions of the 

US Green Building Council’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED®) rating 

systems. 

LEED rating systems are differentiated for major stages in the design, construction, and 

operational lifecycle of buildings, including LEED for New Construction (LEED-NC), LEED for 

Commercial Interior Design and Construction (LEED-IDC) and LEED for Existing Buildings 

Operations and Maintenance (LEED-EBOM). LEED-NC is intended create points of 

intervention during the planning, design, and construction process. Consequently, LEED-NC 

evaluates energy efficiency with respect to a baseline building compliant with increasingly 

stringent requirements of ASHRAE 90.1 (or Title 24 in California). Performance is evaluated 

based on simulation to estimate the percentage reduction in operating cost.

LEED-IDC addresses the fit-out of interior spaces, often associated with a core and shell 

construction or renovation. In these circumstances, the building location and envelope are 

already established, and performance is evaluated with respect to interventions around HVAC 

system performance, lighting power, and specifications for equipment and appliances. Common 

performance metrics such as lighting power density. 

LEED-EB focuses on operational energy use. LEED-EB typically references the ENERGY 

STAR benchmark, and, in LEED version 4, ENERGY STAR and LEED-EB both require a 

minimum benchmark score of 75 for certification. The ENERGY STAR benchmark is based on 

a statistical regression that estimates the rank of an individual asset relative to a representation of 

the US building stock. A score of 100 means that an asset is in the Top 1% of less of the US 

stock, while a score of 50 indicates average performance. ENERGY STAR scores are based on 

annual whole building energy use normalized for a variety of factors including weather, 

schedule, and space utilization. 

Public communications about commercial space are often simplified further to derivative 

measures such as “Energy Use Intensity” (typically kbtu per square foot), often described as a 

measure of “energy efficiency”. This is the prevailing performance metric in real estate energy 

benchmarking (e.g., New York City’s Local Law 84) and municipal labeling programs (e.g., 

Arlington County, Virginia).
184

It is interesting to consider these definitions of “performance” in light of the actual functional 

goals of energy use in buildings. Simplistically, these measures take the form of metrics such as:

Building Energy Use (per second, minute, year, etc.) / Work (floorspace) (1)

Source Energy Consumption (kBtu) / square foot (Gross Leasable Area) (2)

The denominator – the normalization factor – is typically conditioned space, although variants 

like Gross Floor Area, Gross Internal Area, or Net Internal Area are often used interchangeably. 

The numerator is often some variant of whole building energy consumption over some time 

period (e.g., seconds, minutes, years, etc.) as site or source energy (e.g., with or without 

consideration for generation, transmission, and distribution losses). These kinds of metrics have 

the quality that they reach a minimum at either an unconditioned, dark, empty space or an 

exceptionally efficient, self-generating facility. Conversely, they reach a maximum at an 

intensely utilized space or an intensely inefficient space. In isolation, these measures do not 

allow these cases to be separated without additional information. So, while are often touted as 

simple measures of “performance” their interpretation can be challenging and potentially 

impossible. 

Moreover, it is interesting to consider the implicit definition of “efficiency” underlying these 

measures of performance. Generally, efficiency is a measure of productivity or output per unit 

energy. For example, widgets produced per unit energy required on an assembly line. In the 

case of buildings, providing space conditioning, lighting, and support for ancillary loads for a 

unit of floor space is considered output. This is a practical definition, but it is not necessarily 

consistent with the actual function of built space. Alternatively, we could consider output (the 

numerator) as a level of service or experience provided to an occupant or some function of the 

health, productivity, comfort, or satisfaction of the occupants that are being served by the energy 

(e.g., to provide conditioning, light, computers, etc.).[2, 3] In other words, current “energy 

efficiency” metrics do not control for account for the actual work being done for a given level of 

service. In an industrial setting, this might be comparable to measuring the energy used to run a 

machine for a certain number of hours per day without regard to the output from the machine. 

Of course, today’s prevailing measures of energy efficiency in buildings reflects the practical 

challenges of creating comparable, actionable information based on relatively limited 

information. In many cases, we are lucky to know whole building energy consumption and have, 

at best, some idea of the size of the building. Measures of actual work done (e.g., interpretations 

of human performance in buildings) have typically been impossible to predict or collect. 

Consequently, rating systems and public disclosure schemes have typically the concept of 

building “performance” to discussions of energy performance and used a patchwork of 

prescriptive measures to communicate achievements related to human performance (Table 2). 

The industry has yet to broadly adopt practical ways to integrate human and energy performance. 
185

Table 1. An Illustrative List of Energy Performance Measures Building Phases and Associated 

LEED Rating Systems

Intent Building 

Phase

LEED

Rating System

Assessment Method Performance 

Measures

Energy 

Performance

New 

Construction

NC ASHRAE 90.1 Operating cost 

reduction (% 

savings)

Energy 

Performance

Existing 

Building

EBOM EPA ENERGY STAR Relative ranking 

(ENERGY 

STAR score)

Lighting Interior fit-out IDC ASHRAE 90.1 Lighting power 

density (watts)

HVAC Interior fit-out IDC ASHRAE 90.1 and 62.1 Operating cost 

reduction (% 

savings)

Equipment and 

Appliances

Interior fit-out IDC EPA ENERGY STAR Fraction 

ENERGY STAR 

rated

Energy 

Performance

New 

Construction

HOMES Home Energy Standards 

(HERS) and International 

Energy Conservation Code 

(IECC) 2004

Relative ranking 

(ENERGY 

STAR score)

Energy 

Performance

New 

Construction

MIDRISE ASHRAE 90.1 Operating cost 

reduction (% 

savings)

Table 2. An Illustrative List of Prescriptive Actions and Measures of Human Performance across 

Building Phases and Associated LEED Rating Systems

Intent Building 

Phase

LEED

Rating 

System

Prescriptive Actions Operational

Performance 

Measures

Acoustics New 

Construction

NC Meet the requirements of corresponding 

standard depending on space type, e.g. 

ANSI S 12.60

Noise level (dBA)

Thermal Comfort New 

Construction

NC Meet ASHRAE 55 criteria in heating, 

ventilation, air conditioning and building 

envelope design

Survey

Physical Activity New 

Construction

NC Site assessment, distance to amenities, 

number of bike racks

Survey

Indoor Air Quality New 

Construction

NC Air intake according to standard, 

elimination of pollutants

Air quality (CO2), 

ventilation rate 

(CFM)

Psychological New 

Construction

NC Percentage of areas with direct outdoor 

views and view assessment, social 

interaction areas

Survey

Occupant 

satisfaction

Existing 

Building

EBOM CBES Occupant IEQ survey Survey
186

3. Integrating Human and Environmental Performance

Looking forward, we can begin to see the need and opportunity for change in the understanding 

of human and environmental performance. This opportunity is rooted in the recognition of 

significant the limitations of prevailing energy performance metrics, demand for more relevant, 

integrative measures, and changes in technology and analytics that will enable more robust and 

representative measures of performance in and around buildings. 

As we have discussed, prevailing energy performance metrics represent a limited concept of 

performance. They stop short of measuring performance of the actual design function of most 

buildings (e.g., enabling human performance) and default to a practical, but limited concept of 

the provision of space. We have also shown that widely used metrics, such as energy use 

intensity, have the unfortunately characteristic of being unable to separate empty space from 

highly efficient space. 

As recognition of these limitations becomes more widespread, we see growing demand for 

information on the quality of human experiences in built environments. In other words, many 

stakeholders want to understand the quality of the services and functions provided by buildings 

for people in terms other than simply the quantity of conditioned space [4, 5]. These 

stakeholders fully recognize the roots of green building in energy efficiency and other dimension 

of environmental performance. However, they envision that uses more robust and integrative 

measures of energy efficiency that more fully reflect the quality of space and its implications for 

health, wellness, and occupant experience. 

Fortunately, rapid changes in information technology are creating the conditions necessary to 

move beyond today’s metrics and create fundamentally new mechanisms to address both energy 

and human performance over more compatible spatial and temporal scales. Perhaps surprisingly, 

we can envision many scenarios where the quantity and quality of information on human 

performance and experience in buildings quickly come to rival and then dwarf energy 

information. Given the proliferation of enabling technology, this transition could happen quite 

quickly in certain space types, such as healthcare, high quality office, and schools. The 

explosion of human performance data will gradually allow the availability of performance data 

to more closely match the ratio of cost and value associated with most built environments, e.g., 

human occupants typically drive 95% of operational costs and value creation. Figure 1 illustrates 

the relative volume of available data on energy and human performance for typical commercial 

buildings in the United States. The trajectory of the lines illustrates a potential scenario where 

the volume of data on human performance eventually dramatically exceeds energy data. The pie 

chart inset illustrates the typical ratio of human to operational energy costs for commercial office 

buildings. 
187

Figure 1. Schematic Illustration of the Relative Volume of Available Data on Energy and Human 

Performance for Typical Commercial Buildings in the United States

4. Emerging Measures of Human Performance

Historically, measures of human performance are often considered qualitative or, at a minimum, 

less concrete than measures of energy performance. Measures of human performance are rarely 

explicitly linked to measures of energy performance or the attributes of associated built 

environments. However, there are clear limitations to this artificial separation and new 

technology is rapidly emerging to provide direct empirical information on human performance in 

and around built environments. Over the next several years, we will see a revolution in the scope 

and quality of analytics available to quantify and interpret human responses. In the following 

sections, we will consider several emerging approaches to the measure and evaluation of human 

performance in and around buildings.

4.1. Location

Unlike other aspects of buildings, humans move, and, historically, it has been difficult to 

quantify presence or integrate exposures to different built environments. Consequently, the 

ability to locate occupants and trace their association with buildings over range of spatial and 

temporal scales is a prerequisite for performance evaluation. Technologies are rapidly emerging 

to provide unprecedented spatial and temporal referencing within and between spaces, buildings, 

and public realms. Two of the most promising technologies include aggregated cellular data and 

indoor location based services. 

Aggregated cellular data uses passively collected information from wireless networks to 

characterize broad patterns of population distribution and mobility patterns around specific 

locations [6Error! Reference source not found.]. This technology has recently been applied to 

haracterize and compare site-specific patterns of occupant commuting [3Error! Reference 
188

source not found.]. Aggregated cellular data does not require active interaction with individuals. 

Rather, information from millions of mobile devices is analyzed to understand the flows of 

devices to, from, and through individual locations, typically 100-meter or 1-kilometer grid cells. 

This technology has the decisive advantage that maps of mobility patterns can be generated for 

all locations within a given domain for the same period of time. This allows for the comparison 

of actual mobility patterns between sites and over time. This technology creates the potential to 

replace “form-” or “location”-based measures of occupant mobility with direct, empirical 

observations. 

Advances in the application of cellular data at regional scales are complemented by the explosive 

growth of indoor location based services to generate spatially and temporally specific data inside 

buildings. Today, technologies allow rapid detection and spatial location of individuals and 

occupant populations from wireless Internet, Radio Frequency Identification, Near Field 

Communications, Blue Tooth, among many other technologies. These technologies provide 

information on the use of space by populations and, in some cases, individuals. These 

technologies can overlap with cellular-based strategies to characterize occupant behavior and 

space utilization adjacent to buildings, in areas such as public plazas, streets, or parking lots. 

Taken together, these technologies provide the foundational infrastructure needed to provide 

spatial and temporal reference frames for data on individual- and population-level performance. 

4.2. Experiential Performance

Human experience is a dimension of building performance. We understand that the design, 

construction, and operation of buildings can directly contribute to human experiences, such as 

satisfaction, comfort, fear, anxiety, disorientation, or happiness [7]. Until recently, these 

dimensions have been considered qualitative domains or, at best, co-benefits of energy-efficient 

design strategies (e.g., daylighting). However, the Internet and “web analytics” have provided a 

wide array of robust, mature tools to characterize human perceptions and satisfaction. In fact, 

these tools underlie all of the most successful Internet platforms, such as Google, Facebook, 

Yelp, and Amazon. For example, Google’s Page Rank system is directly informed by the notion 

of the “long click”, an assessment of the relative quality of individual search results for 

individual users. Google collects billions of observations of link quality in response to different 

queries and uses this information to improve search experiences. Facebook allows hundreds of 

millions of users to “Like” content, effectively tagging and, collectively, ranking preferences. 

Yelp allows millions of users to share experiences about previous intangible aspects of quality or 

service. Amazon constantly conducts online experiments, exposing users to variations of 

webpages and tracking changes in behavior. In effect, these platforms represent a global system 

to quantify, analyze, and act on human preference. 

With this context, it becomes conspicuous and perhaps surprising that we lack any equivalent 

analytic infrastructure to understand and improve experiences in built environments. As an 

industry, we operate in a pre-Internet era of long, slow, disconnected cycles between user 

experience and feedback. The ability to locate and interact with users in built environments 

changes this situation and creates the potential for Internet-style analytics on occupant 

experiences in real world spaces. 
189

4.3. Health Performance

Information available from individuals and populations goes far beyond experiences and 

preferences. Increasingly we see the emergence of the concept of health information collected 

outside of healthcare settings [8]. Foundational health information is now routinely collected by 

millions of individual. A recent study by the Pew Center found that approximately 80% of US 

adults engaged in some kind of formal or informal tracking behavior. Body trackers like Nike+ 

or Fitbit routinely provide detailed information on physical activity and mobility. New 

technologies are emerging to continuously monitor many additional performance dimensions, 

including respiration rate, posture, heart function, and stress.

When coupled with increasingly detailed information on location, these self-tracking tools create 

the ability to explore all manner of connections between design, construction, and operation and 

specific health endpoints among individuals and populations. These explorations may initially 

take the form of research studies, but many of the basic tools are embedded in consumer 

electronics. This creates a growing opportunity to operationalize human performance data 

collection through Citizen Science, gamification, or incentivized populations. 

These emerging data could be used to consider fundamental relationships between building 

performance dimensions, such as the role of lighting energy use and stress or heating cost on 

occupant thermal comfort. Today, these relationships are understood from idiosyncratic 

laboratory studies and various aggregations of technical literature. In the future, the health 

dimensions of occupant performance are like to become as accessible as a building’s utility 

meter. Of course, these data will come will significantly more concern regarding privacy and 

related issues.

4.3. Economic Performance

As a final example, we also have emerging opportunities to consider the economic dimensions of 

building performance. Traditional measures of energy efficiency consider economic output per 

unit energy. As we have discussed, the building industry uses a convolution of this concept in 

measures such as “energy use intensity”. Recent research has demonstrated the potential to 

combine diverse datasets to create new measures of economic productivity as a function of 

operational energy use. One example is the Building Economic Intensity Index [9]. The BEII 

combines information from multiple sources to look at occupant wages in commercial buildings 

subject to energy use disclosure under New York City’s Local Law 84. The BEII is a metric that 

quantifies a building’s relative contribution to the [regional] economy based on the mix of 

tenants it houses. Higher BEII scores are associated with relatively greater economic 

contributions, as measured by the relative wages of the space occupants. 

BEII illustrates one or many innovative approaches to representing and comparing the economic 

output from different types of buildings. It demonstrates the potential to provide richer and more 

nuanced interpretations of energy performance data with the consideration of economic 

performance. 

5. Conclusions

Traditional measures and metrics of energy use for residential and commercial buildings provide 

a practical, but limited frame to understand performance. Moving forward, there is a 

fundamental need to expand the concept of performance to address multiple dimensions of 
190

human performance. This is not necessarily a novel observation; however, the rapid emergence 

of new technologies creates unprecedented opportunities for innovation in performance 

measurement and evaluation. Addressing these issues will challenge the scientific and technica l 

community to create, interpret, and operationalize a new generation of synthetic measures and 

metrics of building performance to support the next generation of green building market 

transformation. 

6. References

1. Altomonte, S., Schiavon, S. 2013. Occupant satisfaction in LEED and non-LEED certified 

buildings. Building and Environment. October 2013, pages: 66-76

2. Kim, J., de Dear, R. 2013. Workspace satisfaction: The privacy-communication trade-off in 

open-plan offices. Journal of Environental Psychology, December 2013, pages: 18-26

3. Pyke, C.R., L. Schewel, R. Zhang. 2014. Performance-based measures of office commuting: 

Potential applications of aggregated, anonymous cellular data. Insight Technical Report. 

GBIG IR 14-03, 20 pages, URL: 

http://www.usgbc.org/sites/default/files/GBIG.Accessibility%20Metrics_2014-03-24.pdf

4. Baumgartner, S., J. Coleman, A. Aboff. 2013. Linking NYC Energy Database to Tenant 

Contribution to Economy. Greenbuild 2013, 7 pages.

5. Gou, ZH., Lau, SSY., Shen, J. 2012. Indoor Environmental Satisfaction in Two LEED 

Offices and its Implications in Green Interior Design. Indoor and Build Environment, August 

2012, pages: 502-514

6. Gopal, A., L. Schewel, S. Saxena, A. Phadke., 2013. The Transport Leapfront: Using Smart 

Phones to Collect Driving Data and Model Fuel Economy in India. Environmental Energy 

Technologies Division, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, May 2013, 12 pages, URL: 

http://eande.lbl.gov/sites/all/files/lbnl-6293e_pdf.pdf.

7. Todorovic, M.S.; Kim, J.T. 2012 Buildings energy sustainability and health research via 

interdisciplinarity and harmony. Energy and Buildings, April 2012, pages: 12-18

8. Stevens, R., Brown, B. 2011. Walkable new urban LEED_Neighborhood-Development 

(LEED-ND) community design and children's physical activity: selection, environmental, or 

catalyst effects? International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity. 

December 2011, article number: 139

9. Baumgartner, S. 2013. Beyond EUI: Linking energy and economy in buildings. GBIG 

Insight. November 6, 2013, URL: http://insight.gbig.org/beyond-eui-linking-energy-andeconomy-in-buildings/

Acknowledgements

The authors appreciate conversations with Dr. Matthew Trowbridge and Steven Baumgartner 

with helping to inform and shape our thinking on these issues. 
191

[This page is internationally left blank]
192

Ratterman, David B., American Institute of Steel Construction10

Sustainability, Society, and the Law

As Applied to the Built Environment

Abstract

American construction lawyers need help from American engineers and scientists. Lawyers who 

draft construction contracts and building code provisions need additional research assistance 

from the engineering and scientific communities to test and, where necessary, augment existing 

sustainability standards for the built environment. Sustainability standards developed for the 

built environment must bear a direct relationship to the actual value that sustainable design and 

construction of the built environment can provide to society and the economy. Such standards 

must be practical and measurable if they are to be legally enforceable. The legal consequences 

of attempted enforcement of ill-conceived standards to those who design, construct, and own 

elements of the built environment can be significant. Continuing, focused research and 

collaboration between the engineering and legal professions is needed to optimize application of 

sustainability theory to the design profession, construction industry, and general public.

Keywords

Contracts, building codes, measurable standards, enforceability, sustainability, built environment

1. Background

Sustainability in the design, construction, and occupancy of the built environment has evolved 

from the realm of engineering theory into the hard world of economic and societal reality. This 

evolution has come with economic and social consequences, not the least of which has been the 

exposure of the theory of sustainability in the built environment to the harsh light of the 

American legal system.

The positive consequence of this evolution has been that application of the principles of 

sustainability to the built environment is now seen as providing environmental value to the earth 

and society and economic value to building owners and occupants. As is the way in American 

culture, where value exists, the legal system is almost always engaged in an attempt to define and 

preserve any ownership rights involved; and therein, as the saying goes, is the rub!

The world of courts and commercial contracts works best when it deals in the finite, the tangible, 

the measured. If something of value, in this case the value of sustainability in the built 

environment, is to be bartered, bought, sold, leased, pledged, and enforced, it must be capable of 

being accurately and objectively measured. And the parameters that are being measured must 

bear a clear relationship to the perceived value being bought, sold, bartered, leased, pledged, or 

enforced.

Most engineering and scientific disciplines that are applied to the design, construction, and 

occupancy of the built environment utilize metrics that are straightforward, well-defined and 

 

10 The views expressed in this paper are the authors and not those of his law firm, the American College of 

Construction Lawyers, or the American Institute of Steel Construction. 
193

developed through a recognized consensus process involving all disciplines and interest groups 

involved. In the world of sustainable building design, construction, and occupancy, the metrics, 

and the means of measuring those metrics, are not always so well developed and defined.

There is concern that lack of effective, consensus metrics may be inhibiting the application of the 

science of sustainability to the built environment and the consequent advancement of the public 

welfare and economic value of sustainability to society. 

Normally science precedes the law; but not in this instance. In this instance the law has leaped 

ahead of science in an effort to satiate our culture’s current hunger for all things sustainable.

The legal profession is awash with attempts of varying degrees of effectiveness to legally 

quantify and enforce that which the legal profession scarcely understands and with which it is 

often ill-equipped to deal. The legal profession is in need of leadership from and collaboration 

with the practitioners of science and engineering.

2. The Issue

Heightened concerns over damage to the environment, danger to living organisms (most

particularly human beings), global warming, fear of scarcity of consumable energy, and scarcity 

of other natural resources has given rise to a zeal for sustainability. This zeal is often expressed 

in terms of social responsibility, patriotism, economic necessity, and moral imperative. This zeal 

has been transformed into a desire by society to apply the concept of sustainability to nearly 

every facet of our lives. In some instances application of the vocabulary of sustainability to 

commercial transactions could be considered little more than window dressing.11

The societal value of sustainability to public welfare in the built environment is preserved by a 

system of laws, regulations, and building codes. The economic value of sustainability to the 

built environment is preserved by a system of contracts, deeds, and zoning laws. 

Interest among the general public in all things sustainable has created a forced-emersion of all 

things sustainable in the built environment into these two systems – the system of laws and 

regulations and the system of contracts. This, in turn, has spawned at least three separate sets of 

standard form “green” construction contract documents, at least four separate “green”

construction codes, and at last count twenty-eight (28) agencies, public and private, that certify, 

require, or “encourage” sustainability in the built environment.

Some public agencies, and some construction owners, require posting of “green” performance 

bonds to assure compliance with "green" code and contract requirements.12 In other instances 

substantial incentives are provided by taxing authorities for successful compliance with “green” 

code requirements. In at least one instance, tax free “green” investment bonds were issued to 

 

11 Pardon the author’s skepticism when checking into a hotel room and being as ked if he would prefer the “green 

option.” Upon inquiry, the “green option” is revealed to often mean no maid service.

12 These bonds, of course, come at a price to the bond obligee and with potentially significant consequences to the 

bond issuer if the bonded “green” project fails to reach the bonded “green” performance goal. The potential 

challenges to a bond issuer in covering the performance failures of a defaulting bond principal are significant, and 

well beyond the scope of this paper.
194

assist in financing a “green” construction project13 The results of at least one credible research 

project indicate that commercial properties that achieve “green” certification status can expect 

higher rental income and sales values.14

So in addition to social responsibility, patriotism, and moral imperative driving sustainability in 

the built environment, there is now a significant, potential economic reward driving the process 

as well. This pushes the process further into the legal arena. And, as lawyers are wont to do, we 

lawyers must now ask, “what are the legal consequences for failure to realize the “green” code 

requirements and economic rewards that are attached to the design, construction, and operation 

of the built environment?”

Potential liability for failure to meet “green” design and construction obligations could include 

assessment of damages ranging from the increased cost of compliance, to diminution in value of 

the facility, to lost rent and tax incentives, to reimbursement of the project owner’s attorney fees. 

Claims and litigation to date of which the author is aware include suits involving allegedly 

deficient “green” materials,15 allegedly deficient post-construction energy performance,16 and 

alleged failure to achieve an anticipated level of “green” certification.17

The process of “green” certification raises an entirely separate set of issues of concern to those 

who question the relevance of some standards’ criteria to the overall values to society and the

economy of sustainability in the built environment. That is, do current codes, standards, and 

contract requirements actually reflect that which is of real and optimum value to society and the 

economy?

If there is, in fact, a disconnect between that which is required and that which is actually of 

value, it is not difficult to imagine a situation in which, say, a building’s mechanical system is 

cutting edge, its energy use reduced, and its occupants healthier, but perhaps because it is being 

judged by a standard that might not accurately measure these parameters, it is disallowed 

certified status, its owner loses tax incentives and increased rental benefits, and the performance 

of its designer and builder are called into question and become the subject of litigation. 

It is also not difficult to imagine a similar building with a less efficient mechanical system, no 

substantial energy savings after the building is actually occupied, and no measurable increase in 

the health of its occupants, that meets the standard being applied. That building receives 

certification; its owner receives tax benefits and increased rental income; and its designer and 

constructor receive the accolades of the community and promotional value in the process.

With this in mind, and without wishing to appear critical of current contract provisions and code 

requirements or the administrators of agencies that have undertaken “green” oversight in the 

built environment, it is very fair for society to ask the following question: 

 

13 http://www.investopedia.com/articles/bonds/07/green-bonds.asp .

14 Kok, Nils, The Economics of Green Building, www.slideshare.net/nilskok/economics-of-green-building-kok .

15 Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Inc., et al. v. Weyerhaeuser Co., No. 8:2011cvoo47 (Md. Dist. Ct. Jan. 6, 2011)

16 Gidumal v. Site 16/17 Development, LLC, No. 105958/10 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. filed May 6, 2010).

17 Southern Builders, Inc. v. Shaw Development, LLC, No. 19-C-07-01145 (Circuit Court of Somerset County, Md., 

2006).
195

Just how effectively have current codes, agencies and contract provisions 

advanced the sustainability goals that are of the most significant health and 

environmental value to society and of the most significant economic value to 

building owners and occupants?

The author submits that enough concerns have been raised within the design and construction 

communities to suggest that additional engineering and scientific research in this area is 

warranted. Whether these concerns are well-founded or not; it is impossible to dismiss them as 

unfounded without scientific confirmation of the current standards and metrics and their 

relevance to society’s sustainability goals and values. If the standards are not directly relevant to 

society’s goals and values, then the legal process of enforcing compliance is essentially 

meaningless.

3. Questions Concerning Current Sustainability Codes, Standards, Contract 

Terms, and Certification Agencies Operating in the Built Environment

It is not the purpose of this paper to either present a comprehensive analysis of all questions that 

have been raised over current application of the science of sustainability to design and 

construction of the built environment, or to provide any judgment on the accuracy or viability of 

any of the questions raised. However, it is helpful to list, in very general terms and without 

judgment one way or the other, some of the questions and concerns that have been raised in the 

design profession and construction industry. For example:

1. As a threshold question, should sustainability of the built environment be judged by:

a. Prescriptive regulation of the elements incorporated into the design and 

construction process; or

b. The actual performance of the built environment after design and construction are 

complete, including, where applicable, the full, potential life cycle uses of the 

built environment; or

c. Some combination of the two? 18,

19

2. As a second threshold question, (this a public policy question and not an engineering or 

scientific question) should sustainability standards be developed by:

a. Public agencies, in the manner of internationally-developed but locally adopted 

building codes; or

b. Balanced consortiums of stakeholders and the public in the nature of the 

American National Standards Institute (ANSI) process; or

c. “For profit” research organizations or academic institutions?

 

18 On March 15, 2014, the National Institute of Building Sciences released for public review and submitted as a 

proposed code change to the International Green Construction Code (IgCC) what it described as an “OutcomeBased Pathway” to address a number of challenges facing the building industry. This approach had been 

highlighted by the Institute’s Consultative Council in its 2010 Moving Forward report submitted to the President of 

the United States:

“The building community needs a better baseline of actual building performance against which to 

measure progress. More importantly, the application and use of prescriptive criteria must be 

eliminated in favor of stated performance goals or expected outcomes (although, after setting those 

goals or outcomes, prescriptive guidance to achieve them can be developed).”

Moving Forward: findings and Recommendations from the Consultative Council. National institute of Building 

Sciences 2010 Annual Report to the President of the United States, 2010. 43-49.

19 Significantly, LEED V4 requires projects to submit post-occupancy energy consumption data to confirm actual 

performance versus projected performance submitted with the project’s LEED certification application.
196

3. As a third threshold question, is there a hierarchy of sustainability goals that should be 

taken into consideration when regulating design and construction of the built 

environment? For example:

a. Does a significant decrease in global warming emissions offset the potential 

danger caused by an increase in land or resource consumption; and

b. Must all potential impacts on the natural environment be balanced in regulating 

the built environment; or is it legally and scientifically acceptable to treat 

potential impacts separately?

4. Where it is appropriate to utilize prescriptive regulation of the design and construction 

process, how does the entity tasked with establishing the prescriptive regulations 

involved ensure consistency in the manner in which all elements of the design and 

construction process are evaluated and rated for application in the built environment?

5. Where it is appropriate to utilize prescriptive regulation of the design and construction 

process, has the entity undertaking development of the prescriptive regulations fully and 

consistently evaluated the entire supply chain and the entire life cycle of all elements of 

the design and construction process and the completed structure itself?

6. Where it is appropriate to utilize prescriptive regulation of the design and construction 

process, should the entity undertaking development of the prescriptive regulations 

consider the elements of sustainability in absolute terms or in terms of relative 

improvement compared with past content or performance?

7. Should there be any effort to balance the sustainability metrics of the design and 

construction process with the economic cost of that process to the project’s 

designer/developer/owner/occupant; recognizing what one author has described as “the 

iron law of climate policy?” 20

4. Assessment of Societal and Economic Values and Research Needs

Any evaluation of the seven question areas set out above, including research spawned by those 

questions, should initially be focused on those factors that most nearly represent the societal and 

economic value of sustainable design, construction, and occupancy of the built environment. It 

is submitted that the following comprise a logical starting point for such evaluation:

1. What materials, systems, and building environments pose the least health risks to 

building occupants and the surrounding community while optimizing the long term health 

benefits to building occupants and the surrounding community? 

2. What materials, systems, and building environments provide the least life-cycle drain on 

natural resources during their operational lives?

3. What materials, systems, building environments and supply chain sources expend the 

least overall resources and create the least environmental impact when incorporated into 

the construction process?

4. How can the three foregoing areas of evaluation be optimized over the entire, expected 

life cycle of a structure in a manner that will also optimizes the economic viability of the 

structure’s construction and operation?

 

20 Pielke, Roger, Jr., The Climate Fix, Basic Books, New York, 2010. “...when [national] policies focused on 

economic growth confront policies focused on emissions reductions, it is economic growth that will win out every 

time.” P 47, [parsing added].
197

Acknowledgements

The author acknowledges with great appreciation the contributions of Stites & Harbison, PLLC, 

Construction Lawyer and Civil Engineer Angela Stephens, LEED-AP, for providing advance 

copies of several articles on the subjects discussed in this paper that Ms. Stephens is currently 

preparing for publication.
198

Renschler, Chris S., The State University of New York, Buffalo

The PEOPLES Resilience Framework: 

Integrating Quantitative Measures and Modeling for

Disaster Risk Reduction and Sustainable Development

Abstract

The assessment of disaster risk reduction (e.g. water harvesting with flood risk reduction and 

increase of biodiversity through wetlands) and sustainable development and use of natural 

resources (e.g. increase crop yields with soil and water conservation) is currently viewed as 

independent issues. To better integrate both, quantitative measures for both - resilience and 

sustainable development – need to be accounted for the complexities across disciplinary and 

administrative boundaries. The so-called 'PEOPLES Resilience Framework' was developed to 

create partnerships and communicate pre- and post-disaster recovery of extreme events. As an 

example, PEOPLES can be combined with environmental, infrastructure, economic or any other 

quantitative model to assess future scenarios.

Keywords

Community, Infrastructure, Natural Resources, Measure, Modeling, Resilience

1. Background

This paper introduces a holistic methodology of a National Institute of Standards and 

Technology (NIST)-funded study towards a more integrated assessment: the PEOPLES 

Resilience Framework (Renschler et al., 2010) is a quantitative, scalable resilience framework, 

with the possibility to integrate process-based modeling capabilities for managing continuous use 

and extreme events at the watershed scale. PEOPLES is an interdisciplinary combination of prior 

research on community resilience focusing solely or only a few disciplines and/or a specific 

hazard such as Chang and Miles (2004), Chang and Shinosuka (2004), Cutter et al. (2008), 

Norris et al. (2008), Tierney (2009), Alesch et al. (2009). The more holistic PEOPLES 

Resilience Framework has the capacity to act as an umbrella-like, transdisciplinary methodology 

for the engineering and science community to assess, monitor, model and communicate the 

functionality of systems, their performance and recovery after extreme events objectively and 

across scale in order to systematically collect a temporally variable global reference data set 

based on qualitative and quantitative data sources across national, regional and other local 

administrative borders.

2. Extreme Events Management Cycle

In a disaster management cycle (response → recovery → mitigation → risk reduction → 

prevention → preparedness; or risk reduction → prevention) each stage requires a practical 

adaptation of reasonable measures based on the data and a future prediction derived from a past 

disaster. Without this step, the cycle of disaster management doesn't complete. Extensive and 

numerous categories of a future national resilience framework structure might need to be 

simplified to make it easier for the participants to implement such practical measures. To be able 

to move from the management challenge of disasters – trying to save lives – to avoiding the 

disaster if possible, the term Extreme Events Management Cycle is more appropriate and 
199

desirable as an outcome. That means, measuring the status of preparedness and being able to 

manage anticipated, naturally reoccurring events – even under global and/or climate change –

will enable the community to set benchmarks and clear goals for more resilient communities and 

a sustainable path for development.

In the United States, FEMA has established the National Planning Frameworks (FEMA, 2013a) 

that consist of four sub frameworks - National Prevention Framework, National Mitigation 

Framework, National Response Framework and National Disaster Framework, Recovery The 

National Disaster Recovery Framework (NDRF) was established 'to ensure coordination and 

recovery planning at all levels of government before a disaster, and defines how we will work 

together, following a disaster.' (FEMA, 2013b, 2013c). NDRF's Recovery Support Function 

consists of six functions, in which, as of September 2011, 26 U.S. government agencies are 

involved. FEMA's National Preparedness efforts are very extensive and require the participation 

of national, state, local governments and volunteers. Although the plan is thorough, it is

understandable that, considering the size of the United State government and its complexity, 

FEMA's frameworks are hierarchical and structured as agency based. Establishing a cross agency 

resilience and recovery assessment is always an issue in such a large organization.

3. Proposed Methodology: The PEOPLES Resilience Framework

The 'PEOPLES' acronym stands for a series of seven holistic, quantitative resilience dimensions 

and hierarchical lead indicators that stand for the state of functionality of systems in 

communities: Population and Demographics, Environmental/Ecosystem Services, Organized 

Governmental Services, Physical Infrastructure, Lifestyle and Community Competence, 

Economic Development, Social-Cultural Capital (Figure 1; Renschler et al., 2010).

3.1. Population and Demographics 

This dimension measures social vulnerability of a community. As described in Renschler et al. 

(2011), a measure of functionality of population and demographics Qp within a given 

community could be quantified by using the social vulnerability index (SoVI) proposed by 

Cutter et al. (2008). Social vulnerability (a counterpart of social resilience) is defined as the 

inability of people, organizations, and societies to withstand adverse impacts from multiple 

stressors to which they are exposed. These impacts are due in part to characteristics inherent in 

social interactions, institutions, and systems of cultural values. Social vulnerability is a preexisting condition of the community that affects the society’s ability to prepare for and recover 

from a disruptive event. It affects and is affected by both evolutionary occurrences (e.g., slow 

changes in median age) and transformative events (e.g., wholesale shifts in dominant ethnicity).

3.2. Environmental/Ecosystem 

Ecological or ecosystem resilience is typically measured by the amount of disturbance an 

ecosystem can absorb without drastically altering its functions, processes and structures, or by 

the ability of an ecosystem to cope with disturbance. This dimension measures disturbance and 

recovery progress (resilience when combined) of environmental or ecological systems. In the 

context of the PEOPLES Resilience Framework, environmental and ecosystem resources serve 

as indicators for measuring the ability of the ecological system to return to or near its pre-event 

state or a state defined by the community. A special attention needs to be paid that disturbance 

and resilience depend on timescale and geographical scale. For example, ecosystem services 
200

could include net primary production of biomass (Frazier et al, 2013), quality of air, water, 

and/or soil, biodiversity, or organic matter content in the soil etc.

Figure 1. PEOPLES Resilience Framework description and its associated geographical scale. 

(For more detailed information on key indicators of PEOPLES go to http://peoplesresilience.org) 

3.3. Organized Governmental Services

In contrast to the more or less spontaneous individual and neighborhood responses to extreme 

events, organized governmental services are designed to allow an orderly response (Renschler et 

al. 2011). Organized governmental services include traditional legal and security services such as 

police, emergency and fire departments and in extreme cases, the military. In this dimension, we 

also include the services provided by public health and hygiene departments as well as cultural 

heritage departments. Each of these organized government services plays a key role in sustaining 

communities both before and after extreme events. 

3.4. Physical Infrastructure

The physical infrastructure dimension incorporates both facilities and lifelines. Within the 

category of facilities, we include housing, commercial facilities, and cultural facilities. Within 

the category of lifelines, we include food supply, health care, utilities, transportation, and 

communication networks. In terms of housing, key indicators may include proportion of housing 

stock not rated as substandard or hazardous and vacancy rates for rental housing (Tierney, 2009). 

In terms of communication networks, key indicators may include adequacy (or sufficiency) of 

procedures for communicating with the public and addressing the public’s need for accurate 

information following disasters, adequacy of linkages between official and unofficial 

information sources, and adequacy of ties between emergency management entities and mass 

media serving diverse populations.

3.5. Lifestyle and Community Competence

This dimension measures the impact and recovery progress as a community. Community 

competence deals with actions and problem solving skills, flexibility and creativity, collective 

efficacy, empowerment, and political partnerships as a community. This dimension reflects the 

reality that community resilience is not simply a passive “bouncing back” to pre-disaster 

conditions but rather a concerted and active effort that relies on peoples’ ability to creatively 
201

imagine a new future and then take the requisite steps to achieve that desired future. It captures 

both the raw abilities of the community (e.g., ability to develop multifaceted solutions to 

complex problems, ability to engage in meaningful political networks) and the community’s 

perceptions of its ability to effect positive change. Communities that collectively believe that 

they can rebuild, restructure, and revive themselves are more likely to be persistent in the face of 

environmental, governmental, and other obstacles. Communities with positive experience 

dealing with extreme events may be more likely to possess high degrees of community 

competence.

3.6. Economic Development

This dimension measures a diverse array of products and services that are both produced in and 

available to the community. This dimension includes employment and financial services related 

to economic activities. Resilient communities are characterized by their involvement in a diverse 

array of products and services that are both produced in and available to the community. 

Diversity in production and employment is linked to a community’s ability to substitute goods 

and services and shift employment patterns as the situation demands. Efficient redundancy in 

operations and information systems enables relatively swift reopening of critical employers. The 

PEOPLES Resilience Framework incorporates three illustrative subcategories within this 

dimension: industry – production, industry – employment distribution, and financial services. 

Primary indicators of this dimension include the proportion of the population that is employed 

within the various industries, and the variability that might characterize a community’s industrial 

employment distribution. This dimension is closely interwoven with the Population and 

Demographics dimension.

3.7. Social-Cultural Capital

Measuring social/cultural capital requires acquisition of tallies, such as the number of members 

belonging to various civil and community organizations. It also requires surveys of community 

leaders and their perceptions (e.g., quality of life surveys). Communities with high degrees of 

social-cultural capital create “friction to exit” for their members, encouraging people to invest in 

those activities and organizations that make the community a “good place to live,” and 

encouraging people to return and reinvest in their communities after an extreme event. Disasterspecific indicators include existence of community plans targeting transportation- disadvantaged 

populations, adequacy of post-disaster sheltering plans, adequacy of plans for incorporating 

volunteers and others into official response activities, adequacy of donations management plans, 

and the community’s plans to coordinate across diverse community networks (Tierney, 2009).

4. Measuring Policy Impacts on Systems: Infiltration & Wetlands vs. Harvest & 

Floods

The above-mentioned seven dimensions can be assessed independently or interdependently on 

fixed time intervals, on all dimensions or focusing on the interdependence of one particular 

dimension to others. Table 1 illustrates the use of the PEOPLES Framework dimensions and 

their interdependencies in a policy analysis (e.g. to promote infiltration through water harvesting 

and to delay of runoff through wetland creation or preservation) to reduce the risk of floods and 

its impacts on water management issues in the sustainable development and infrastructure 

investment in the Cattaraugus Creek Watershed (Boyer et al., 2013).
202

Table 1. Interdependency assessment of water management issues in Cattaraugus Creek Project 

('x' is minor and ‘X’ is major)

PEOPLES Dimensions P E O P L E S

Promote water harvesting/ground water recharge X X X x X

Create wetland/nature reserve/impoundment X X X x X X

Sustained crop/timber/fishing harvest yields x X x X X

Design resilient bridge/culvert against runoff/flood X x x x X X

Access to shelter/food/hospital/emergency facility X x X X x X x

The interdependencies can also be quantified by their relevance or weighted by their level of 

interdependencies with values between 1 (100% dependent) or 0 (0% or independent). Using 

data or imagery on a fixed or non-fixed time interval, the PEOPLES data can be monitored or 

analyzed for each dimension (Figure 2) or modeled as overall sustainability and/or resilience.

Figure 2. Quantitative Mathematical model of the PEOPLES Resilience Framework

5. Conclusions

The PEOPLES Resilience Framework is a performance-based management framework 

applicable at scales ranging from individual, local, regional and national to global. It allows 

monitoring at each of those scales the performances on integration of disaster reduction measures 

and institutionalization of recovery providing parameters and measures for the review. The 

standardized PEOPLES Resilience Framework with its simple structure is capable to incorporate 

any mathematical model describing systems including those using Geographic Information 

Systems (GIS) data and remote sensing images. The data format consists of the respective 

PEOPLES dimension, functionality and interdependency percentages at a particular time and 

geographical scale. 

Once entered into the framework, the data can be reviewed in a tabular format or in a graph, 

stored, shared and analyzed, enabling:

 the sharing data among administrative entities, local/state/federal agencies, groups, 

 data conversion to a tabular format, graphics (including maps and videos), 

 data conversion to other measurement units (international/imperial/local), 

 data for statistical and analysis (including time –space statistics and trend analysis), 

 easier review and reproducibility of the analysis and/or modeling progress, and 

 identifying strength/weakness of each dimension for a target region and necessary 

adjustment.

Please note that Resilience (R) may be defined as a function 

indicating the capability to sustain a level of functionality or 

performance for a given service of an ecosystem, a 

building/bridge/lifeline network, an economic system, a 

community, etc., over a period defined as the control time TLC. 

The TLC is usually decided by a model planner and corresponds 

to the expected 100% functionality of infrastructure or a system. 

Resilience is defined graphically as the normalized shaded area 

underneath the functionality function of a system, defined as 

Q(t). Q(t) is a non-stationary stochastic process, and each 

ensemble is a piecewise continuous function as shown in Figure 

2 where Q(t) is the functionality function of the region 

considered. The functionality is the combination of all 

functionalities related to different facilities, lifelines, etc.
203

6. References

Alesch, D. J., Arendt, L. A., and Holly, J. N. 2009. Managing for long-term recovery in the 

aftermath of disaster. Fairfax, VA: Public Entity Risk Institute (PERI).

Boyer, B., Carpenter, B., Renschler, C.S. and Vallone Kellam, R. 2013. Cattaraugus Creek 

Watershed Resource Guide and Proposed Watershed Planning Strategy. URL: 

http://www.lake-erie-fff.org/FILES/Cattaraugus_Creek_Watershed.pdf (Dec 30 2013)

Chang, S. E., and Miles, S. B. 2004. The dynamics of recovery: A framework. In: Modeling the 

spatial economic impact of disasters. Y. Okuyama and S. E. Chang. Springer, New York.

Chang, S. E., and Shinozuka, M. 2004. Measuring Improvements in the Disaster Resilience of 

Communities. Earthquake Spectra 20(2): 739-755.

Cutter, S.L., Barnes,L., Berry,M., Burton, C., Evans, E., Tate,E., Webb, J. 2008. A place-based 

model for understanding community resilience to natural disasters. Global Environmental 

Change 18(4):598–606.

FEMA. 2013a. National Planning Frameworks. Federal Emergency Management Agency. 

September 12, 2013. Web. November 27, 2013. < http://www.fema.gov/national-planningframeworks>.

FEMA. 2013b. National Disaster Recovery Framework. Federal Emergency Management 

Agency. September 5, 2013. Web. November 27, 2013. <http://www.fema.gov/nationaldisaster-recovery-framework>.

FEMA. 2013c. National Disaster Recovery Framework: Strengthening Disaster Recovery for the 

Nation. Federal Emergency Management Agency. September 2011. Web PDF. November 

27, 2013. <http://www.fema.gov/pdf/recoveryframework/ndrf.pdf>.

Frazier, A.E., Renschler, C.S., Scott B. Miles, S.B. 2013. Evaluating post-disaster ecosystem 

resilience using MODIS GPP data. Intl. Journal of Applied Earth Observation and 

Geoinformation. Vol.21:43–52.

Norris, F.H., Stevens, S.P., Pfefferbaum, B., Wyche, K.F., and Pfefferbaum, R.L. 2008. 

Community Resilience as a Metaphor, Theory, Set of Capacities, and Strategy for Disaster 

Readiness. American Journal of Community Psychology 41(1-2): 127-150.

Renschler, C.S., Fraizer A.E., Arendt, L.A., Cimellaro, G.P., Reinhorn, A.M., and Michel 

Bruneau, M. 2010. A Framework for Defining and Measuring Resilience at the Community 

Scale: The PEOPLES Resilience Framework. U.S. Department of Commerce National 

Institute of Standards and Technology, Office of Applied Economics Engineering Laboratory 

NIST GCR 10-930. Gaithersburg, MD. 

Tierney, K. 2009. Disaster response: Research findings and their implications for resilience 

measures. CARRI Research Report 6. Oak Ridge, TN: Community and Regional Resilience 

Initiative (CARRI). URL: www.resilientUS.org. 2009.
204

Sikdar, Subhas K., National Risk Management Research Laboratory, US EPA, and Humberto 

S. Brandi, Instituto Nacional de Metrologia, Qualidade e Tecnologia, INMETRO, Xerém -

Duque de Caxias – RJ, Brazil

How to Quantify Sustainability Advancement in Construction and 

Manufacturing and the Needs for Standards

Abstract

Construction and manufacturing employ material and energy resources in refined forms and in 

large quantities. For sustainability, these two beneficial activities should be subject to scrutiny 

for upstream impacts of material and energy use intensity, for impacts from emissions and 

discharges during operations, and for downstream impacts of wastes generated. Quantitative 

accounting of these impacts requires indicators that reveal the overall sustainability footprints. 

There are various suggested ways of gathering required information for this objective, but the 

community of practice has not converged to a uniformity of approach either in choosing the 

required indicators or in standardized methods for analyzing the results. This article provides a 

critical look at the state of the art, and makes suggestions for research needed to advance our 

understanding of quantitative sustainability for these commercial activities.

Keywords

Indicators, metrics, sustainability assessment, metrics aggregation

1. Introduction and Background

Sustainability and sustainable development are two terms used in a variety of situations. A 

simple but useful way to distinguish the two is to recognize sustainable development as the path 

to the destination of sustainability. Started as a sociopolitical movement under the aegis of the 

World Council of Environment and Development (WCED), the concept grew out of widespread 

environmental degradation and unsavory industrial practice with attended health impacts. Also 

of concern to WCED are growing intra-general inequity between the rich and the poor, and intergenerational inequity resulting from accelerating depletion of finite natural resources by the 

current generation. The call to action was presented in the manifesto, Our Common Future 

(1987), which proposed elevating the economic, environmental, and social conditions of all by 

means of sustainable development. Thus the concept is essentially global in nature. First the 

non-governmental organizations (NGO), then industry and governments embraced the idea.

Practitioners of science and engineering have limited influence over actions that might be needed 

at global scale to implement sustainable development. Thus we need to recognize sustainable 

development at essentially four different scales (Sikdar, 2003): global where politics prevail; 

national or regional scale, where government policy, regulations, and jurisdictional authority are 

dominant; institutional scale, where regulations, science, engineering, and economics determine 

actions taken by industrial companies, and finally technology scale, where science and 

technology have a free hand in determining how technologies can be profitable, while obeying, 

or designing beyond, regulations. In the context of construction and manufacturing, we are 

primarily concerned about the fourth scale, perhaps even the third. At these scales the mantra 
205

should be: think globally, act locally. The presumption is that performance at lower levels 

integrates to a favorable global sustainability outcome.

Viewed from an engineering viewpoint, the pursuit for sustainability is a systems analysis 

approach. A Venn diagram of three intersecting circles each representing one of environmental, 

societal, and economic dimensions is useful in this context, as shown in Fig 1 (Azapagic and 

Perdan, 2000). Sustainability happens at the intersection of these three circles. For a system, 

picking indicators that represent one, two, or all three dimensions, can be used in sustainability 

analyses, and these indicators can be shown to belong in the various intersections, one type only 

of three dimensional indicators, three two-dimensional, and three one-dimensional types (Sikdar, 

2003). The chosen indicators together are understood to characterize the system adequately. 

Additionally it is paramount to recognize that there is no absolute sustainability; it is always 

relative to some reference.

Figure 1. Three Dimensions of Sustainability 

Now, an engineering definition of sustainable development for a man-made system can be given: 

sustainable development is continual improvement in one or more of the three domains of 

sustainability, i.e., economic, environmental, and societal, without causing degradation in any of 

the rest, either now or in the future, when compared, with quantifiable metrics, to a similar 

system it is intended to supersede.

Sustainability of systems at the fourth scale has been studied and reported in essentially one of 

two ways. First, representative indicators for a system can be chosen, data on them collected, 

and presented in a form conducive to inference making. Multinational corporations report 

corporate sustainability this way, simply by reporting year over year use reduction of various 

resource categories, and reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. A report of this type 

pertains to the corporation as the system, but this same method can be used for all other system 

types: for national, regional, or a single process or product. The second method involves 

modeling the chosen system so that the various interacting components of the system are 

mathematically captured in an algorithm in which the variables or factors are optimized for the 

best sustainability performance. Many chemical processes are modeled this year, and are 

successful in accomplishing some specific sustainability goals, such as energy use minimization 

by heat integration, material and energy use minimization by various highly mathematical 

3

Economy

Society

Environment

Sustainable 

Development

Three Dimensions

of Sustainability
206

process integration tools (El-Halwagi, 2011). In principle, environmental, economic, and 

societal impacts conducted on cradle to grave life cycle assessment (LCA) basis should be 

reflected in the indicators characterizing the system. Because of the difficulty of collecting such 

LCA-based data on resource use and pollution generation in cradle to gate and gate to grave 

domains, this is rarely practiced, and the data often reflect “gate to gate” accounting. In gate to 

gate LCA, the sustainability impacts inherited through the inputs, and those caused by the 

product in the environment are not accounted for.

There are suggested standard methods of collecting life cycle data for environmental impacts 

determination, such as ISO standards (2006, 2009, 2012). There are also voluntary standards for 

reporting sustainability stance of corporate enterprises, such as Dow Jones Industria ls Index, 

some being more popular with corporations than others. Corporations tend to rely upon 

reporting mainly resource and emission data on key pollutants of concerns. Though this is not an 

example of exhaustive and systematic sustainability accounting, when viewed from relative 

sustainability, year over year improvements of these indicators do provide a clear sense that the 

reporting entity is becoming more proficient in sustainable development. 

Standards are an effective tool for incorporating the three dimensions of sustainable development 

into sustainability policies. Sustainability may be introduced through standards and regulations 

that guide the sustainable development of a product, a service or a process, demanding reliable 

and widely accepted measurements. Standardization, Conformity Assessment with accreditation, 

and Metrology constitute the three interdependent pillars of knowledge for developing a 

technical infrastructure, also known as “Quality Infrastructure”, thereby enabling sustainable 

development and full participation in international trade (Senetra and Marban ,2007; ISO 2006; 

DCMAS 2005).

2. Standards

A standard is a repeatable, harmonized, agreed and documented way of doing something. 

Standards contain technical specifications or other precise criteria designed to be used 

consistently as a rule, guideline, or definition. Standards, to be accepted in the market, must be 

from a credible body, which can demonstrate that the standards have been developed with due 

diligence and on a consensus basis (e.g., IRENA report, 2013). Standards are often established 

using PCI schemes where Principles incorporate the general idea, concept or goal to be achieved; 

Criterion denotes an assessable requirement that defines what to reach in order to achieve the 

principle; and Indicator which is a quantitative, qualitative or descriptive measure which 

supports the assessment of the criterion. 

Standards are used by businesses and governments to optimize production, health, consumer 

protection, security, quality and environment. Their effective implementation supports 

sustainable development, social welfare, and facilitates trade. The Quality Infrastructure (QI) 

provides through Standardization the tools for government, business and organizations to express 

a clear understanding of their needs, aims and wishes. Conformity Assessment establishes the 

assurance that the requirements specified in Standardization are fulfilled. Metrology is the basis 

for accurate measurements, the accepted performance of which can then be written in 

international documentary standards, and be used as the basis for standardization and conformity 
207

assessment activities (Brandi and de Souza, 2009). A well written sustainability standard must 

fulfill certain requirements such as to be measurable (indicators), to be established on a 

minimum consensus of expert opinions, to be harmonized across borders with other standards, 

to have coherence and credibility, to adopt core requirements, terminology, and definitions, to be 

frequently updated, to add value to products, processes or services, to be friendly and flexible, to 

have transparency and accountability and to be used as base for regulation or voluntary guidance. 

The three pillars of sustainable development/ QI, are described in details elsewhere (Brandi and 

de Souza 2009, ISO 2006, DCMAS 2005).

Standards can be broadly sub-divided into three categories: product, process and management 

systems. Product standards refer to the quality and safety of goods or services. Process ones refer 

to the conditions under which products and services are produced, packaged or refined. 

Management system standards help organizations manage their operations and are often used to 

create a framework within which an organization consistently achieves the requirements set out 

in product and process standards (DCMAS 2005). Standards, by definition, must be measurable 

but we still do not have a consensus on how to measure sustainability for construction and 

manufacturing; hence there are no commonly accepted sustainability standards in this area. 

Nevertheless, we may model a conceptual sustainability standard for construction and 

manufacturing as a process standard and describe the steps to establish a model standard, as 

performed in establishing a real standard. This conceptual process standard could have the 

following general attributes (ISO 2009): (1) The standard provides sustainability principles, 

criteria and measurable indicators for the processes involved throughout the construction 

and/or manufacturing supply chain. These principles, criteria and measurable indicators are 

intended to provide objective information for the assessment of sustainability aspects. The 

standard shall define PCIs regarding social, economic and environmental aspects considered 

necessary to evaluate degree of sustainability. (2) The sustainability of a product is assessed by 

looking at its whole life cycle (3) The standard does not contain thresholds, does not describe 

specific processes and production methods and is not a certification system. Conformity with this 

standard does not imply sustainability, but rather will provide information that can inform the 

judgments of economic operators or external evaluators – therefore additional systems are 

needed to provide guidance for demanded level of sustainability. (4) The standard is intended to 

facilitate comparison between various constructions and manufacturing processes. (5) The 

indicators give a checklist/scorecard to which the economic operator shall give answers. (6) The 

customer, end user, a governmental body etc. can then decide whether the sustainability level is 

good enough. Examples of general principles of economic, social and environmental aspects that 

may be incorporated to any sustainability standard are given in Figure 2.
208

Figure 2. Examples of General Principles of Economic, Social and Environmental Aspects

3. Indicators and Metrics

Indicators (or metrics) provide quantitative measures that reveal the condition of sustainability of 

a system, much like the vital signs of a living human reveal the physical health of the person. 

Some of these indicators are fundamental such as energy consumed, others are derived from 

fundamental variables but are more difficult to measure, such as emergy or exergy, and still 

others are composite such as impacts on human health or ecosystems. The number and nature of 

indicators needed for a specific system are scale-, and system-dependent. Thus there is not a set 

of indicators that apply to all systems.

For industrial processes there are some common indicators that are suggested for measuring by 

nearly all methods. As an illustration the list that was composed by an industry consortium led 

by the Center for Waste Reduction Technologies of the American Institute of Chemical 

Engineers (in Dal Pont, 2012) had energy intensity, material intensity, water intensity, pollution 

intensity, toxics intensity and GHG emission intensity. From a standard perspective all these 

result from the PCI principle. The relative sustainability of a process, using indicators, can be 

assessed by comparing different modifications of a process, or by comparing dissimilar 

processes producing the same product. One could plot the indicator data on one of several 

options, the most popular being a spider diagram, and make sustainability inferences about the 

competing processes. Similar analyses can be done for a process over time intervals. UK’s 

Institute of Chemical Engineers (in Cavani et al., 2009)) produced an indicator list that followed 

the categories of environmental, societal, and economic dimensions. This indicator system was 

designed to apply to enterprise (i.e, institutional scale) as well as to individual processes 

(technology scale). Corporate sustainability reporting follows some of the commercial services 

such as Dow Jones Sustainability Index, Global Reporting Initiative, etc. These systems are 

described in details elsewhere (Blackburn, 2007). Manufacture of mechanical products and 

building of structures may require additional indicators, such as product quality, customer 

satisfaction, product safety, and end-of-life management ((Lu et al., 2011). 

There is no formal way to choose indicators for a chosen system but PCI is a good place to 

begin. Generally resource use, GHG emission, land use and pollutant emissions are compatible 

with the idea of sustainability. Since the toxicity of pollutants can be of many types, some prefer 

to compute human health and ecosystems impact from the releases, for instance, by using a 

software called TRACI (Bare, 2011). However, such level of granularity may not be needed 

when one is focused on comparing similar alternatives for which the indicator set is exactly the 

same. 

General Requirements /Principles: 

Be measurable

Legality

Monitoring/evaluation procedures

Continuous improvement

Coherence and credibility

Transparency and accountability 

Flexibility/Relevance

Terminology and definitions

Comparability

Stakeholder involvement

Not undue administrative burden

Social principles:

Human rights

Labour rights

Land use rights, 

Water use rights, Water 

scarce regions

Economic principles:

Economic sustainability

Fair business practices

Financial viability

Market transparency

Environmental principles:

GHG emission

Water use or withdrawal

Soil contamination

Air quality

Waste genrated 

Mineral resources used

Energy efficiency
209

4. Sustainability Analysis

Computational algorithms belonging to the technique of process integration use combinations of 

process synthesis, process intensification, and process optimization to design systems that are 

more sustainable. The approach is multi-criteria optimization where some of the criteria can be 

seen as indicators, derived PCI framework. These modeling tools can consider many realistic 

process modifications to arrive at an optimized course of operation which serves sustainability 

quite well, provided no important indicator is left out. However process integration techniques 

suffer from not being able to compare different systems producing the same product. The other 

consideration of life cycle based data requirement for raw materials, products and wastes is 

important but both computational and non-algorithmic approaches are equally handicapped by 

lack of such data. The process integration is a vibrant field of research at this time. To date, 

research has encompassed only energy, raw material, water use, and GHG emissions in the 

multi-objective optimization.

When discrete indicator datasets are available, sustainability analysis can be made transparent. 

But comparing data sets in which some indicators are up and some down, inference can be a 

difficult task. Furthermore, whenever indicators in a dataset are incompatible with each other, or 

involve different measurement units, it is necessary to bring these indicators to the same basis 

through a proper normalization procedure. Many practitioners prefer to use an aggregate index 

for such data sets for easy determination of comparative sustainability. There are many ways of 

creating such aggregate index and the most recent ones are statistically based (Sikdar et al., 

2011). One of those, for instance, uses a normalized Euclidean distance measure to make 

inferences (Mukherjee et al., 2012). A more recent attempt uses a Canberra distance (Brandi et 

al. 2013). Finally one still needs to check if all the applied indicators are needed (sufficiency) 

and also the order of importance of the indicators that are significant in inference making. 

Mukherjee et al. has recently produced a calculation based on multivariate partial least squares 

variable importance in projection (PLS-VIP) method to make decisions on sufficiency as well as 

order of importance of the indicators. Given credible data these conclusions are statistically 

valid.

5. Conclusions

In summary, for comparative assertion on sustainability of products and processes we need 

indicators that need to be chosen using the PCI framework that ensures consideration of the three 

dimensions of sustainability. These indicators should be chosen to preserve the principle of 

necessity and sufficiency. Under the leadership of international organizations, business groups 

and professional societies some guidance on the choice of indicators, especially for 

manufacturing, are available, though no uniform guidance is yet generally accepted or practiced. 

Standardization is important so that harmonized methods are used and the results are accepted by 

all interested parties for facilitating regulatory compliance, public perception, and international 

trade. Much research is being done on modelling that attempts to do sustainability analysis using 

multi-criteria optimization. In parallel, indicator data are being treated statistically leading to 

successful decision making on relative sustainability. 

6. References

Azapagic A, Perdan S (2000), Indicators of sustainable development for industry: a general

framework. Process Safety Environ Prot, (78) 243
210

Bare J (2011). TRACY 2.0, Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy 13 (5), 687-696

Blackburn WR (2007). The Sustainability Handbook: The Complete Management Guide to

Achieving Social, Economic, and Environmental Responsibility. Environmental Law Institute, 

2007. ISBN 9781585761029

Brandi HS, and de Souza TL (2009), Accred Qual Assur, 14:567–573 and references therein.

Brandi HS, Daroda R and Olinto A C (2013), The use of the Canberra metrics to aggregate

metrics to sustainability, CTEP, DOI 10.1007/s 10098-013-0690-7

Cavani F, Cent G., Perathoner S. And Trifiro F., Ed.(2009), Sustainable Chemistry:

principles, tools, and industrial examples. Wiley-VCH, Weinhein, Germany

DCMAS 2005-Joint Committee on coordination of assistance to developing countries in

metrology, accreditation and standardization (JCDCMAS). “Building corresponding technical 

infrastructures to support sustainable development and trade in developing countries and 

countries in transition”. The original document is available on www.dcmas.net, 

Dal Pont JP (2012), Process Engineering and Industrial Management, John Wiley &Sons,

Hoboken, NJ 

El-Halwagi MM (2011), Sustainable design through process integration, Elsevier, New York.

IRENA Report (2013), International Standardization in the Field of Renewable Energy.

http://www.irena.org/documentdonloads/pyblications/international standardization %20in the 

field of renewable energy.pdf, accessed March 2014

ISO 2006. “Three pillars of sustainable development - Metrology, standardization and

conformity assessment”- ISBN 92-67-10416-0 • © ISO, 2006-02/3 000 

http://www.iso.org/iso/home/store/publication_item.htm?pid=PUB100031, accessed March 

2014

ISO 2009- ISO 13065/ PC 248 -Sustainability criteria for bioenergy – for facilitating trade of

sustainable bioenergy

ISP 14031 (1999),International Standards Organization. Env Management- environmental

performance evaluation, guidelines. 

Lu T, Gupta A, Jayal AD, BadurdeenF, Feng SC, Dillon OW, and Jawahir IS (2011), A

framework of product and process metrics for sustainable manufacturing p333, in Advances in 

Sustainable Manufacturing, Seliger G, Khraisheh MK, and Jawahir IS, Ed. Springer, 

Heidelberg, Germany

Mukherjee R, Sengupta D, Sikdar SK (2013), Parsimonious use of indicators for evaluating 

sustainability systems with multivariate statistical analyses. Clean Technologies and 

Environmental Policy, DOI 10.1007/s 10098-013-0614-6

Senetra C and Maraban RM (2007) The Answer to the Global Quality Challenge: A National

Quality Infrastructure. PTB, OAS and SIM, 137p

Sikdar, SK (2003), Sustainable development and sustainability metrics, AIChE J, (49) 1928

Sikdar SK , Sengupta D, Harten P. (20121), More on aggregating multiple indicators into a 

single index for sustainability analyses. Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy, 

14(5): p. 765-773.

WCED, Our Common Future (1987), Oxford University, Oxford, UK.
211

[This page is internationally left blank]
212

Srebric, Jelena, and Mohammad Heidarinejad, University of Maryland

Sustainability in the Built Environment

Abstract

Green building (GB) rating systems typically represent prescriptive, innovative, and 

advantageous sustainable building design scenarios in the built environment. In principle, the 

aim of these GB rating systems is to mitigate the buildings’ life cycle costs, environmental 

impacts, and energy consumption. Originally, the GB rating systems have focused on an 

individual building. In the past decade, BREEAM Communities, CASBEE for Urban 

Development, and LEED for Neighborhood Development (ND) have established GB rating 

systems at the neighborhood scale. Computer simulation tools usually are one of the methods for 

the GB rating systems to assist designers during the design phase, especially in the water and 

energy efficiency categories, to establish the building’s water and energy baselines. Due to the 

lack of efficient design tools and methodologies at the neighborhood scale, there are 

opportunities to improve the existing simulation tools and methodologies, to disseminate the 

accumulated knowledge through the GB rating systems for the built environment at the 

neighborhood scale.

Keywords

Green rating systems, LEED ND, BREEAM Communities, Urban built environment, Energy 

consumption of buildings, Energy Efficiency

1. Background

A method to evaluate sustainability in the built environment uses the Green Building (GB) rating 

systems. The aim of different GB rating systems is to reduce the building life cycle costs that 

account for environmental impacts as a part of the building performance optimization process. In 

general, to compare different optimized solutions, GB rating systems consider five categories of 

sustainability measures including (1) energy, (2) Indoor Air Quality (IAQ), (3) materials, (4) 

water, and (5) land use. In different countries, GB rating systems differ in the distribution of the 

credits for the certification process primarily due to the cultural and climatic differences. 

Sometimes the distribution of the credits within a GB rating system depends on the location of 

the building. For example, GBCA Green Star considers different distribution of the credits for 

different locations in Australia (Zuo and Zhao 2014). In addition, most of the GB rating systems 

entail different rating systems based on the building types. Examples of the GB rating systems 

based on the building type include LEED EBOM and BREEAM In-Use for existing buildings, 

LEED NC and BREEAM New Construction for new construction buildings, as well as LEED for 

Homes and BREEM New Construction: Multi-Residential for residential buildings (Happio and 

Viitaniemi 2008, LEED 2013, BREEAM New Construction 2013, BREEM In-Use 2012). A 

simple method to quantitatively account for all life cycle costs and environmental implications 

does not exists yet because the fundamentals of understanding urban eco-systems are still under 

development (Srebric 2010). Therefore, the existing GB rating systems are prescriptive 

suggestions to promote sustainable practices in the built environment. Table 1 presents examples 

of the existing GB rating systems in the world.
213

Table 1. Commonly used GB rating systems in the world (Note: It is important to notice that this 

list is by no means an exhaustive list, and many new GB rating systems have been developed 

recently; this list only provides examples of GB rating systems in different countries)

Country Examples of Green Building Rating System(s)

United States  Leadership in Energy and Environment Design (LEED)

 Living Building Challenge – Living Future

Canada  LEED (US / Canada)

 Green Globes Rating System (Canada / U.S.)

United 

Kingdom

 Building Research Establishment’s Environmental Assessment Method 

(BREEAM)

Australia  Green Building Council of Australia Green Star (GBCA)

France  High Quality Environmental standard

Germany  DGNB (German Sustainable Building Council)

Singapore  Green Mark Scheme

Malaysia  Green Building Index

Japan  Comprehensive Assessment System for Building Environment Efficiency 

(CASBEE)

Hong Kong  Hong Kong Building Environmental Assessment Method (HK-BEAM)

India  LEED India

2. Quantitative vs. Quantitative Criteria

An observation from direct comparisons between the GB rating systems show that the energy 

and water efficiency criteria are mostly quantitative, while the Indoor Environmental Quality 

(IEQ) criteria tend to be prescriptive (Srebric 2010). Additional detailed comparisons among 

different GB rating systems from different regions of the world are available in the literature 

(Bunz et al. 2006, Happio and Viitaniemi 2008, Happio 2012, Lee and Burnett 2008, Mao et al. 

2009). Energy efficiency in the GB ratings systems is a good example of quantitative criteria to 

evaluate the energy performance of buildings. Typically, building energy compliance codes, such 

as ASHRAE Standard 90.1 or California Title 24, determine the minimum requirement for the 

building components and systems for energy efficient buildings. A common methods to design 

energy efficient buildings utilizes computer simulation tools (LEED 2013, BREEAM New 

Construction 2013). In fact, the new construction buildings, representing the largest building 

stock assessed by GB rating systems, are designed with assistance of computer simulation tools 

during the design phase. Due to the influence of the building occupants and other changes in the 

building operation, the energy consumption of constructed buildings during the operational and 

maintenance phases may be different from the expectations set in design phase (Perez-Lambard 

et. al 2009). Therefore, providing building owners with realistic performance expectations for 

energy efficient buildings is important (Heidarinejad et al. 2013).

3. GB Rating Systems for the Built Environment

The GB rating systems originally were developed to evaluate sustainability of an individual 

building. In the past decade, these GB rating systems have considered to include neighborhood 
214

developments in their rating systems. BREEAM Communities, CASBEE for Urban 

Development, and LEED for Neighborhood Development (ND) are examples of green rating 

systems to measure sustainability in the built environments at a scales much larger than a single 

building (Happio 2012). Due to a relatively long process of certification and a relatively recent 

establishment of these rating systems, only few case studies have received the fully certification 

at the neighborhood scale. Examples of the case studies are available on the BREEAM 

Communities page and USGBC project directory (BREEAM Communities Case Studies 2014, 

LEED ND Projects 2014). 

Table 2 provides the primary categories required to achieve the certification in BREEAM 

Communities and LEED ND (BREEAM Communities 2012, LEED ND Version 4). Both of the 

GB rating systems endeavor to decrease environmental impacts in the built environment by 

emphasizing the quantitative energy and water efficiency criteria at the neighborhood scale. The 

criteria to optimize the building energy performance for these two GB rating systems are in the 

“Resources and Energy category” for BREEAM Communities, and in the “Green Infrastructure 

and Buildings” for LEED ND. It is important to note that these GB rating systems include 

opportunities to use software tools to evaluate the building energy performance at the 

neighborhood scale. Therefore, the existing modeling methodologies and simulation tools need 

to enable accurate energy and water modeling at the neighborhood scale to support assessments 

in the GB rating systems.

Table 2. Categories in BREEAM Communities and LEED ND

BREEAM LEED ND

Governance Smart location and linkage

Social and economic wellbeing Neighborhood pattern and design

Resources and energy Green infrastructure and buildings

Land use and ecology Innovation 

Transport and movement Regional priority

Innovation

4. Opportunities to Facilitate the Building Design at the Built Environment Scale

Existing simulation tools for the building energy efficiency modeling focus on individual 

buildings. Therefore, the GB rating systems would benefit from the improvements in the existing 

simulation tools that would need to provide accurate evaluations of the environmental 

parameters, economic outcomes, occupant’s health and productivity, IEQ, and indoor/outdoor 

thermal comfort at the neighborhood scale. Even with the development of the methodologies and 

tools that can focus on the neighborhood scale, the simulations at the neighborhood scale in the 

built environment are computationally intense. Therefore, a potential solution is to develop 

methodologies and tools that define urban design performance metrics to simplify the modeling 

while the accuracy of the simulations is not sacrificed. Figure 1 illustrates an example of building 

energy modeling at the neighborhood scale. In the following, two requirements for the building 

energy simulation methodologies and tools at the neighborhood scale are provided as examples:

a. Connection of the local outdoor conditions with the building energy performance : The 

neighborhood configuration influences (i) the outdoor airflow pattern around the 

buildings, resulting in different outdoor convective heat transfer coefficient patterns and 

infiltration rates for the built environment (Liu et al. 2013), and (ii) outdoor solar 
215

radiation on the building and ground surfaces (Gracik et al. 2014). Therefore, the 

neighborhood configuration changes the energy use pattern buildings. Some of the 

building energy simulation tools, such as EnergyPlus, have features to account for the 

neighborhood’s influence on an individual building by including the shading from the 

neighboring buildings. However, accurate consideration of the building energy efficiency 

at the neighborhood scale requires more detailed modeling of local outdoor airflow and 

temperature.

b. Building size: GB rating systems at the neighborhood scale usually focus on a new 

neighborhood development or renovation of the existing neighborhoods. One 

consideration in the tool development is to provide a simulation tool enabling modeling 

small-sized buildings (less than 5,000ft2such as Building 1 in Figure 1) and spacious 

buildings (more than 500,000ft2such as Building 2 in Figure 1). Simulation methods to 

account for the energy losses due to the longer loops in the heating and cooling systems, 

simplifications for the reduced order energy modeling, and occupant’s behavior are 

different for these two types of buildings. Building size is one of the key features that 

need to be addressed with the simulation tools since statistically most of the new 

construction buildings tend to have smaller sizes compared to the existing buildings. For 

example, LEED NC buildings are one order of magnitude smaller than the LEED EBOM 

buildings (Todd et al. 2013).

Figure 1. An Example of Building Energy Modeling at the Neighborhood Scale

5. Conclusions

In conclusion, there are many comparative studies focusing on the GB rating systems. A 

potential contributions to support improvements of the existing GB rating systems at the 

neighborhood scales could be to develop simulation tools enabling to support the simulation 

based compliance with the GB rating system requirements. In this way, the effectiveness of the 

existing prescriptive recommendations could be improved and the accumulated knowledge could 

be used for continuous maintenance of the existing energy efficiency recommendations and 

standards. This approach is already underway, and different simulation tools at the neighborhood 

/ city scales are under development to support the mission of GB rating systems.

6. References

BRE Environmental & Sustainability Standard, BREEAM In-Use., 2012, BRE Global 2012.

BREEAM International New Construction Technical Manual., 2013, Technical Manual: SD5075 

Version: 2013 – Issue: 1.0 – Issue Date: 09/04/2014.

BREEAM Communities, 2012. Technical Manual: SD202 Version: 2012 Issue: 0.2 Issue Date: 

21/08/2013.
216

BREEM Communities UK, 2014, Accessible link: http://www.breeam.org/page.jsp?id=372.

Bunz K.R., Henze G.P., and Tiller D.K., 2006, Survey of Sustainable Building Design Practices 

in North America, Europe, and Asia, Journal of Architectural Engineering, 2006: 33-62.

Gracik, S., Sadeghipour Roudsari, M., Heidarinejad, M., Liu, J., Pitchurov, G., Liu, K., and 

Srebric, J. 2014, A Parametric Analysis on Limitations and benefits of using EnergyPlus, 

Radiance, and Daysim for Outdoor Computational Fluid Dynamics Simulations for Buildings 

Built in Urban Environments (Submitted to ASHRAE Building Simulation 2014).

Happio, A., 2012, Towards sustainable urban communities, Environmental Impact Assessment 

Review 32 (2012) 165–169.

Haapio, A. and Viitaniemi, P., 2008, A critical review of building environmental assessment 

tools, Environmental Impact Assessment Review 28 (2008) 469–482.

Heidarinejad, M., Dahlhausen, M., McMahon, S., Pyke, C., and Jelena Srebric, J., 2013, 

Building classification based on simulated annual results: Towards realistic building 

performance expectations, Proceedings of Building Simulation 2013, Chambéry, France, 

August 26-28, pp. 1706-1713.

Lee, W.L. and Burnett, J., 2008, Benchmarking energy use assessment of HK-BEAM, BREEAM 

and LEED, Building and Environment 43 (2008) 1882–1891.

LEED v4 Guide., 2013, October 2013, Accessible link: 

http://www.usgbc.org/sites/default/files/LEED%20v4%20User%20Guide_Final_0.pdf

LEED ND version 4, 2013. Accessible link: http://www.usgbc.org/credits/neighborhooddevelopment-plan/v4/green-infrastructure-%26-buildings

LEED ND Projects, 2014. Accessible link: http://www.usgbc.org/projects/neighborhooddevelopment.

Liu, J., Srebric, J., Yu, N., 2013, Numerical simulation of convective heat transfer coefficients at 

the external surfaces of building arrays immersed in a turbulent boundary layer, Intentional 

Journal of Heat Mass Transfer, 61 (0) (2013) 209-225.

Mao X., Lu H., Li Q., 2009, A Comparison Study of Mainstream Sustainable/Green Building 

Rating Tools in the World, Proceedings of the 2009 International Conference on 

Management and Service Science. 

Perez-Lombard, Ortiz, J., Gonzalez, R., Maestr, I.R., 2009, A review of benchmarking, rating 

and labelling concepts within the framework of building energy certification schemes, 

Energy and Buildings 41 (2009) 272–278.

Srebric, J., 2010, Opportunities for green building (GB) rating systems to improve indoor air 

quality credits and to address changing climatic conditions, Report prepared for the Indoor 

Environments Division Office of Radiation and Indoor Air, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency.

Todd, J.A., Pyke, C., and Tufts R., 2013, Implications of trends in LEED usage: rating system 

design and market transformation, Building Research & Information, 41:4, 384-400.

Zuo, J. and Zhao, Z.Y., 2014, Green building research–current status and future agenda: A 

review, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 30 (2014) 271–281.

Acknowledgements

This study is sponsored by the EFRI-1038264 award from the National Science Foundation 

(NSF), Emerging Frontiers in Research and Innovation http://www.buildsci.us/efri-pulse.html.
217

[This page is internationally left blank]
218

Stumpf, Annette L., Franklin H. Holcomb, Ilker Adiguzel, and James C. Dalton, U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers

Measuring High Performance Army Facility

Construction and Renovation

Abstract

The Army manages almost 1 billion sq ft of buildings and is the largest user of facility energy in 

the Federal Government. Facility managers seek to reduce the total cost of ownership while 

complying with Executive Orders, federal laws, mission requirements, and Army net-zero 

energy, water, and waste goals. Understanding and predicting how facility performance and 

repair expenses change over time and with building occupancy is difficult. Army facility 

managers at-tempt to determine the total cost of facility ownership by understanding the 

scientific interrelationship of building systems. Predictive building sustainment models are being 

developed to help minimize the total cost of ownership. However, a key technical gap is the need 

for a feedback loop to calibrate and improve the performance of both buildings and models over 

time and at different occupancy levels, in various geographic locations and climate zones.

Keywords

Military, Construction, LEED, Resiliency, Performance, Metrics, Measurement

1. Background

The Army manages almost 1 billion sq ft of buildings. It is the largest user of facility energy in 

the Federal Government, using 72.7 trillion British Thermal Units (BTUs) of energy in FY13 

(DASA(E&S) 2013). The Army has been working hard to reduce energy and water consumption, 

with total Army facility energy use in 2013 being 14 trillion Btu lower than 2003 consumption 

(DASA(E&S) 2013). Approximately 2% of 165,000-plus buildings in the inventory are certified 

at LEED Silver or higher, and are designated as high-performance sustainable buildings 

(DASA(E&S) 2013). Total square footage of Army facilities was reduced by more than 15 million sq ft in FY13. However, the impact of training simulator buildings and significant new 

MILCON buildings, combined with exogenous factors and limitations of the square-footage 

metric, resulted in a 1.5% increase in energy-use intensity (DASA(E&S) 2013). It is very 

challenging to operate and maintain such a large facility footprint in an austere financial 

environment, so energy and water conservation is taken very seriously. Facility managers seek to 

reduce the total cost of ownership while complying with Executive Orders, laws, and federal 

requirements in the context of the Army’s Triple Bottom Line: Cost, Environment, and Mission. 

Federal government facilities must meet performance metrics established by Executive Orders, 

laws, and agency policies. Strict mandates to reduce consumption of fossil fuels, energy, water, 

waste—and to increase renewable energy use—must be accomplished throughout the 

organization. Performance measurement is key to understanding how to build, renovate and 

operate Army facilities so they satisfy mandates such as the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 

2005), Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA), Code of Federal Regulations, 

Executive Orders 13423 and EO 13514, Department of Defense (DoD) Unified Facilities Criteria 

(UFCs), and relevant Army and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) policies.
219

2. Holistic Life-Cycle Approach to Facility Management

The Army uses a life-cycle approach to master planning, planning, designing, constructing, 

operating, and repurposing or deconstructing buildings. Integrated collaborative planning 

processes are used to ensure that mission requirements are met while incorporating innovative 

technologies that are life-cycle cost effective (Napier 2012). DoD collaborates to update and use 

Unified Facilities Criteria (UFCs) whenever possible to standardize planning, design, 

construction, sustainment, restoration and modernization criteria among the services. Most 

recently, the Army directive on Net Zero Installations has given additional emphasis on a holistic 

life-cycle approach to master planning and facility management.

The Army operates buildings for many years, adapting and updating them over time to meet new 

functional requirements, so it is important that new buildings are designed to be as sustainable as 

possible. Post-occupancy performance is measured against the design energy-use intensity (EUI), 

modeled using commercial standards compared to actual metering data. Performance metrics 

include energy and water efficiency, building envelope tightness, LEED certification, ASHRAE 

189.1, and compliance with the High-Performance Sustainable Building (HPSB) Guiding 

Principles captured on the Energy & Sustainability Record Card (ECB 2013-25).

UFC 2-100-01 Installation Master Planning (05-15-2012) defines sustainable planning principles 

for military bases, including compact, mixed-use, transit-oriented development to encourage 

people to walk, bicycle, and use mass transit. The quality of life of people living and working on 

installations is key to attracting and retaining military families and skilled personnel. 

EO 13423 establishes high-performance and sustainable goals for the federal government. New 

construction and major renovations must comply with the Guiding Principles for Federal Leadership in High Performance and Sustainable Buildings (“Guiding Principles”) as described in 

http://www.wbdg.org/references/fhpsb.php. 

UFC 1-200-02 High Performance and Sustainable Building Requirements (03-01-2013) defines 

how the Army and other services will apply the “Guiding Principles” to new construction, 

additions, renovations, operation and maintenance activities and leased buildings. (Reference 

UFC 1-200-02, Table 1.1 Project/Work Type Compliance). Life Cycle Cost Analysis is key to 

evaluating new technologies and system alternatives which are being considered. 

The goal of the Army’s Sustainable Design and Development Policy Update (12-16-2013) is to 

“provide productive, safe, and healthy facilities and installations that enhance mission 

effectiveness, reduce the Army’s environmental footprint, and achieve levels of energy 

independence that enhance continuity of mission-essential operations. Guided by federal 

mandates, the Army will plan, design, build, and operate facilities to achieve the highestperforming sustainable de-sign that is life-cycle cost-effective within the program amount.” 

Facility performance is important, but the Army has bigger mandates to encourage installations 

and facilities to reach towards net zero energy, water and waste as defined by the Army Directive 

2014-02 Net Zero Installations Policy (1-28-2004). This directive explains the Army’s “vision to 

appropriately manage our natural resources with a goal of Net Zero in energy, water, and solid 

waste at installations.” This holistic strategy helps increase resiliency where fiscally responsible 
220

and will enable the Army to appropriate steward available resources, manage costs and pro-vide 

Soldiers, Families and Civilians with a sustainable future.

3. Role of Technology and Innovation

The U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Construction Engineering Research 

Laboratory (ERDC-CERL), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Districts, and Army 

installations are all working to adopt new technologies and investigate innovative solutions to 

work toward Army energy and sustainability goals. Highlights of several ongoing efforts are 

described in Center for the Advancement of Sustainability Innovations (CASI) 2014 Work Plan 

(ERDC/CERL TN-14-1). Recent innovations include the Army’s implementation of LEED, 

Building Information Modeling (BIM) standards, Construction Operations Building information 

exchange (COBie), and Corps development and adoption of an Air Tightness Standard for new 

construction and major renovation. A new and expanding area of research is focused on reducing 

the resource and logistics footprint of contingency bases for improved mission sustainment.

In 2009, on behalf of the Army, ERDC-CERL won the US Green Building Council (USGBC) 

Leadership in the Public Sector Award for

commitment to LEED certification in the facility acquisition process, with far-reaching 

impacts on the multi-billion-dollar annual Military Construction (MILCON) program 

both in the United States and overseas. Beginning in 2008, the team instituted a policy 

that requires all new MILCON projects to achieve LEED Silver certification and that all 

design teams are required to include at least one LEED AP. The Army team was able to 

carry out a major change of culture in a long-standing facility acquisition process, 

committing to improving its infrastructure for current and future generations.

The Army has 380 LEED Certified buildings as of March 2014: Certified – 12; Silver – 229; 134 

– Gold; and 5 – Platinum. The Army has been actively involved in continuing development and 

application of LEED Rating Tools. 

The Corps of Engineers is a nationwide leader in adopting Building Information Modeling 

(BIM). USACE has developed BIM requirements that Architectural/Engineering firms could 

apply to military construction projects (JBIM 2012):

USACE did not want to develop BIM Contract Requirements in a “black box”; and the 

collaborative effort with industry representatives has proven to be a winning formula. 

The USACE BIM Contract Requirements were an essential component of USACE's 

successful BIM delivery on the MILCON program, as demonstrated by the 500-plus 

single- and multi-facility BIM projects executed since January 2008, comprising 46 

million-plus square feet, and more than $9 billion in construction programming. More 

than 600 facilities, comprising 25 million-plus square feet, have been constructed as of 

January 2013. Accordingly, the committee has been recognized within USACE as a 

thought leader in developing groundbreaking contract requirements that serve as a model 

for the industry.

USACE is working with the National Institute of Building Sciences and the building S MART 

alliance to create tools and standards that allow projects to be built electronica lly before they are 

constructed using BIM. The Construction Operations Building Information Exchange (COBie) 
221

data specification enables project team members to enter data as it is created during design, 

construction, and commissioning to provide the owner with electronic as-built data.

Another success was Army adoption of an Air Tightness Standard for new construction and 

major renovation projects. In the face of some skepticism, the Army initiated a higher standard 

for air tightness to conserve energy, eliminate mold growth, and improve indoor air quality. The 

results have far exceeded the initial goals. In 2009 the Army became one of the first major 

building owners in the United States to implement a requirement for air tightness in all new 

building construction and building enclosure renovation projects. The mandatory whole-building 

air leakage test, “Air Leakage Test Protocol for Building Envelopes,” was developed jointly by 

USACE, the Air Barrier Association of America (ABAA), and ABAA industrial partners.

ERDC-CERL and the industry partners of ABAA have collected and published performance data 

on over 200 of these newly constructed or newly renovated Army buildings and found that the 

average air leakage rate for these buildings was 0.17 cubic feet per minute (cfm) per square foot 

of exterior envelope at 0.3 in. of water gage (75 Pa) pressure difference. The Army air tight-ness 

requirement has proven to be achievable, applicable to all building types and locations, and does 

not limit the design and construction process to any single set of materials or systems. The 

requirement for air tightness is already rewarding the Army with more durable buildings that 

consume less energy to operate, eliminate mold growth, and improve indoor air quality.

4. Partnerships and Communication

Public/private partnerships are key to achieving the Army vision to build, operate, and maintain 

installations and facilities in a sustainable, resource-efficient, cost-effective manner. Due to an 

unprecedented surge in Army construction requirements in 2004, USACE transitioned to 

centrally managed designs under the Centers of Standardization and transformed contracting 

procedures from Design-Bid-Build to primarily Design-Build. USACE sought industry input on 

how best to accomplish its goals on a regional and national basis and under a national acquisition 

strategy. The improved process relies on national industry standards to define criteria and clearly 

articulate requirements to contractors in quantifiable terms for new construction, renovation, repairs, and operations and maintenance. There is less risk to the bidder when UFCs and industry 

standards are used because the design/construction industry should be familiar with the 

requirements. When appropriate industry standards are not available, the Army will initiate an 

effort to update or develop new standards with national standardization bodies such as ASHRAE. 

Innovative acquisition strategies have been tested on recent projects such as the National 

Geospatial Intelligence Agency Campus East (NGE).

All projects are planned, programmed, budgeted, designed, built, and reported to meet the 

requirements of UFC 1-200-02, High Performance and Sustainable Building Requirements. The 

Army standard for high-performance sustainable building/project rating and certification is the 

U.S. Green Building Council’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) rating 

system. UFC 1-200-02 contains references to ASHRAE Standard 189.1-2011 and ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1-2010, and helps project teams comply with EPAct 2005, EISA 2007, EO 13423, 

EO 13514, and the federally required HPSB guiding principles. USACE has developed templates to help contractors to meet EPACT 05 compliance standards, meet Federal mandates for 
222

the five most common Army standard designs, and to help project teams accomplish deep energy 

retrofits (Schneider, Stumpf 2006).

The recently constructed National Geospatial Intelligence Agency Campus East (NGE), located 

near Fort Belvoir, was the largest USACE construction undertaking since the Pentagon. The 2.4 

million sq ft building was completed under budget and reached substantial completion 6 months 

ahead of time while pilot-testing a new acquisition strategy. The LEED Gold Certified building 

was a successful partnership between three government contracting entities and six prime contractors using the Fast-tracked Early Contractor Involvement implementation strategy. The NGE 

project was recognized by Engineering News Record Southeast as the Region’s Best 

Government/Public Building project. The key lessons learned from this Fast-tracked Early 

Contractor approach were that it was (1) very flexible, resulting in significant cost and schedule 

benefits, but (2) very complicated to administer. The $1.7 billion project was the largest U.S. 

Federal Government building to earn LEED certification, and is a contemporary building that 

provides a collaborative work environment with state of the art technology such as chilled 

beams.

5. Closing the Loop

Current and future projects are expected to consider renewable energy systems and new, 

underutilized technologies that are proven to be life-cycle cost effective while fulfilling the total 

building commissioning requirements prescribed in UFC 1-200-02. To ensure buildings operate 

efficiently, there is a major emphasis on post-occupancy performance assessment. The Energy 

and Sustainability Record Card (ECB 2013-25) directs project teams on how to report 

compliance with multiple policies related to energy and sustainability for new and renovated 

facilities. The Record Card is intended to capture design goals and measured performance post 

occupancy, and will be transferred to the building owner documenting compliance with multiple 

policies and mandates related to energy and sustainability. It also provides guidance on 

determining and re-porting the new “Sustainability Code” for new and renovated facilities. The 

Record Card will be updated at each phase of the facility delivery process, starting at 

Concept/Parametric Design, then 100% Design, Solicitation/Request for Award Authority, 

Completing of Design/Build Con-tractor’s Design, Initial Beneficial Occupancy Date (BOD), 

and at the Final Turnover. The Record Card documents energy and water use intensity; waste 

diversion; baseline, model and actual Annual Energy Usage (kBTU); and has a compliance 

dashboard for EPAct 2005, EISA 2007, Low Impact Development, and the Guiding Principles. 

To address the need for energy-related maintenance and repair of the Army’s building portfolio, 

DoD uses the BUILDER Sustainment Management System (SMS) as an asset-management 

solution. BUILDER helps to ensure facility mission readiness, optimizing infrastructure 

investment and reducing the total cost of ownership. With data about building condition, 

degradation trends, and remaining service life, BUILDER can be used to develop short- and 

long-range work plans based on strategic investment concepts, mission-prioritization criteria, and 

budget constraints. The life-cycle emphasis on sustainability and adaptive reuse also requires 

consideration of non-condition related problems such as functional obsolescence and energy 

inefficiencies in buildings. ERDC-CERL is currently executing interdisciplinary research to 

provide the SMS toolset needed to develop these new sustainability-related capabilities. Tenets 
223

of SMS theory are being extended through an enhanced analysis framework that considers 

facility performance up-grades using a holistic approach.

6. Conclusions

The Army is one of the largest facility stakeholders in the United States, and uses a holistic life 

cycle approach to meeting numerous federal and Army requirements while minimizing the total 

cost of ownership. Technology and innovation play a big role in the life cycle approach to master 

planning, new construction, post occupancy evaluation, management and renovation of existing 

buildings, and finally deconstruction. The Army utilizes industry standards when available, and 

leads adoption of new standards when needed. A key metric for success is how the building performs post occupancy as compared to how it was designed to perform. Finally, an ongoing, 

continuous challenge is planning and obtaining resources to upgrade facilities so they meet the 

high performance sustainable building requirements that are mandated. Due to limited resources 

and the large building footprint, public private partnerships will be necessary to help the Army 

achieve installation net zero energy, water, and waste goals.

7. References

Army Directive 2014-02. 28 January 2004. Net Zero Installations Policy. Washington, DC: 

Headquarters, Department of the Army.

ASHRAE Standard 189.1-2011. 2011. Standard for the Design of High-Performance Green 

Buildings. Atlanta, GA: ASHRAE.

ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010. 2010. Energy Standard for Buildings Except Low-Rise 

Residential Buildings. Atlanta, GA: ASHRAE.

Energy Policy Act of 2005. Washington, DC: US Department of Energy.

Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. Public Law 110-140.

Executive Order (EO) 13423. 2007. Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy, and 

Transportation Management.

Executive Order (EO) 13514. 2009. Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and 

Economic Performance.

CASI. 2014. Center for the Advancement of Sustainability Innovations (CASI) 2014 Work Plan. 

ERDC/CERL TN-14-1. Champaign, IL: ERDC-CERL.

Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Energy and Sustainability. 2013. FY 2013 Annual 

Energy Management Report. 2013. Washington, DC: DASA (E&S).

ECB 2013-25. Implementation of the Energy & Sustainability Record Card and New DD 1354 

Sustainability Codes. Washington, DC: Headquarters, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 

Foster, S., Hutsell, S., Journal of the National Institute of Building Sciences. January 2013. 

“Win-Win BIM: How USACE and Industry Established Mutually Beneficial BIM 

Requirements.” JBIM Edition; Building Information Modeling. Washington DC: National 

Institute of Building Sciences.

Napier. T., Schneider R., Stumpf, A., Goran, W., 2012. “Building Green.” Army Sustainability 

and National Security. Carlisle, PA: Army War College.

Schneider, R., Stumpf, A., 2006. Implementation of the U.S. Green Building Council’s LEED® 

as the Army’s Green Building Rating System. ERDC/CERL TR-06-1. Champaign, IL: 

ERDC-CERL.

Unified Facilities Criteria UFC 2-100-01. 2012. Installation Master Planning. 
224

Unified Facilities Criteria UFC 1-200-02. 2013. High Performance and Sustainable Building 

Requirements.
225

[This page is internationally left blank]
226

Tatari, Omer, Murat Kucukvar, and Nuri C. Onat, University of Central Florida

Towards a Triple Bottom Line Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment of 

Buildings

Abstract

Buildings consume significant amount of energy and natural resources as well as provide direct 

and indirect social and economic impacts through all of their life cycle phases. Instead of 

focusing only environmental impacts of buildings, there is a vital need for sustainability metrics 

that would take the direct and indirect environmental, economic and social impacts into account. 

To achieve this goal, triple bottom line economic input-output based hybrid life cycle assessment 

model is identified and developed for assessing building sustainability. This approach can extend 

life cycle sustainability assessment framework for buildings in two directions; horizontal 

direction by integrating several social and economic indicators, and vertical direction by 

consideration of all indirect supply chain related impacts within the LCSA framework.

Keywords

Buildings, Life cycle sustainability assessment, Triple bottom line, Economic input–output 

analysis

1. Background

1.1. Impact of Buildings

Buildings consume significant amount of energy and natural resources through all of their life 

cycle phases from construction to disposal. Construction sectors are the largest raw material 

consumers in mass (USGS 2009). Energy consumption of residential and commercial buildings 

accounts for roughly 40% of the total U.S. energy consumption in 2012 (US EIA 2013). 30% of 

landfill content is composed of construction demolition and debris (NRC 2009). Building 

construction and operations are responsible for 38.9% of greenhouse gasses (GHGs) emitted in 

the U.S. (EIA 2008). Several national initiatives put certain goals and initiated action plans 

toward decreasing or in the very least stabilizing the exponential growth in steeply increasing 

GHG emissions trend by the middle of the 21st century. 

According to the U.S. Environmental Protections Agency’s annual report, the earth’s climate 

continue to change and global climate change could affect our environment through sea-level 

rise, drought, loss of natural capital, decrease in agricultural productivity; society through 

occurrence of diseases, loss of household income, increasing poverty, etc.; and economy through 

disruption of power generation and transportation activities, productivity loss in industrial 

facilities, and reduced gross domestic product (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2012). 

From a complex system perspective, triple bottom line (TBL) consequences of the climate 

change impacts are inevitably interconnected, and therefore such complexity requires a novel 

system thinking approach in which all possible outcomes, ripple effects, and unforeseen impacts 

must be estimated. Although there is a wide range of studies addressing carbon footprint of 

buildings, there has been limited research on quantifying the TBL impacts of U.S. buildings or to 

understand their relationship (Kucukvar and Tatari 2013).
227

1.2. Life Cycle Assessment

Life cycle assessment (LCA) is a widely used approach to quantify the environmental impacts of 

products or processes from cradle to grave including material extraction and processing, 

transportation, use, and end-of-life phases (Finnveden et al. 2009). LCA was developed in the 

early 1990s as powerful methodology in which potential environmental impacts are analyzed in a 

systematic way. LCA has been utilized extensively to analyze the environmental impact of the 

buildings from cradle to grave. LCA is a well-known and widely used approach for assessing the 

potential environmental impacts and resources used throughout a product’s life cycle, including 

raw material acquisition, production, use, and end of life phases (Rebitzer et al., 2009).

Three LCA approaches, including process-based LCA (P-LCA), economic input-output LCA 

(EIO-LCA), and hybrid-LCA have been mainly used in environmental analysis of products or 

processes (Finnveden et al., 2009). The EIO-LCA model augments the environmental impact 

data with the EIO tables of the nation’s economy to form a comprehensive system boundary 

(Joshi, 2000). This approach quantifies the environmental impacts of the products or processes of 

direct and indirect suppliers considering the interactions among the economic sectors (Suh and 

Huppes, 2005; Hendrickson et al. 2005). The EIO based LCA models have been extensively 

used to analyze the environmental impacts of buildings in the U.S. (Bilec et al. 2009; Guggemos 

and Horvath 2006; Junnila et al. 2006; Ochoa et al. 2005; Sharrard et al. 2005; Tatari and 

Kucukvar 2012a). Most of the reviewed studies focused on the direct and indirect environmental 

performance of buildings considering several important environmental impact categories such as 

toxic releases, waste generation, energy use, and global warming potential using the EIO-LCA 

tool. However, due to the large impacts on economy and the society, it is necessary to account 

for the direct and indirect social and economic implications from holistic perspective. 

GHG emissions resulting from energy consumption in buildings depend on various factors and 

these factors constitute a wider complex system that includes numerous interacting components 

from the TBL. Taking all three dimensions of sustainability into consideration is vital to enable 

decision-makers to quantify trade-offs between different dimensions of sustainability. Effective 

green building strategies such as shifting to renewable energy resources and energy-efficient 

building retrofitting towards reducing GHG emissions of U.S. buildings will have a significant 

impact not only on the environment, but on the economy and the society, as well. While LCA 

studies are able to quantify environmental pressures of buildings, the TBL approach is capable of 

quantifying not only environmental pressures, but also the social and economic impacts 

(Kucukvar and Tatari 2013; Wiedmann et al. 2009). The TBL concept focuses on the three main 

pillars of sustainability: environment, economy, and the society (Elkington 1999; Jeurissen 

2000). This analysis can be achieved by employing an integrated approach, which takes these 

three dimensions into consideration.

2. Research Needs

With the increasing concerns related to integration of social and economic dimensions of 

sustainability into LCA, a traditional LCA approach has been transformed into a new concept, 

which is called as Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment (LCSA). This concept was suggested by 

Kloepffer (2008) and Life Cycle Cost (LCC) and Social Life Cycle Assessment (SLCA) methods 

were integrated into the LCA framework in order to evaluate economic and social dimensions 

(Zamagni 2012). In accordance with the recent developments in LCSA research, there is a dire 
228

need to extend the existing LSCA framework in two directions; namely (1) horizontal direction: 

integrating several social and economic indicators into LCSA framework, and (2) vertical 

direction: consideration of all indirect supply chain related impacts within the LCSA framework, 

which was called as economy-wide macro-level analysis in (Guinee et al. 2011). Although 

previous studies analyzed the life cycle environmental impacts successfully, there is a need to 

identify metrics for assessing and quantifying the sustainability of the U.S. residential and 

commercial buildings using LCSA framework.

Figure 1. Future Research Direction in Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment for Buildings

3. Method

In order to fill this gap, the first input-output based TBL based LCA (TBL-LCA) model for the 

entire U.S. economy was developed by researchers at the University of Central Florida. This 

holistic life-cycle sustainability assessment tool has been utilized for environmental, economic, 

and social impact analysis of electricity production from wind turbines, U.S. construction 

industry, highway designs, and manufacturing sectors (Egilmez et al. 2014; Kucukvar and Tatari 

2013; Kucukvar et al. 2014; Noori et al. 2013). This research is in need to be extended to include 

more metrics and to be utilized in hybrid LCA methods.

The TBL-LCA, is based on the EIO analysis, which was developed by Wassily Leontief in the 

1970s (Leontief 1970). The EIO model consists of identical sectors and monetary transactions 

among those sectors which make up the economic structure of a country (Hendrickson et al. 

2006). EIO based models integrate the environmental impacts and the financial flow data derived 

from the supply and use tables of an economy. In addition to environmental impact indicators, 

the TBL-LCA model merges comprehensive social and economic indicators with the EIO 

accounts. 

Many countries publish their EIO tables routinely. Financial flow data are represented by the 

supply and use tables. The U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, as a part of the International 

System of National Accounts, publishes the supply and use tables in the United States (BEA 

2010). All sectors within the supply and use tables are classified according to North American 

Industry Classification System (NAICS). Typical processes that are well represented in EIO 

P-LCA	

EIO-LCA	

TBL	

	

Supply	Chain	

Eco-LCA	

TBL-LCA	

Ver cal	Direc on	

Horizontal	Direc on	

Life	Cycle	Sustainability	Assessment	
229

categories at sector level can be accounted through EIO models, while the rest the processes can 

be modeled through process level data (Suh et al. 2004). This approach is known as hybrid LCA, 

which has been mostly preferred for studies at county, city and national scales (Peters 2010). 

Moreover, with the hybrid approaches, it is possible combine the advantages of both the process 

and EIO models (Suh and Lippiatt 2012).

Table 1. A brief summary of the sustainability indicators

TBL Indicators Unit Definition

Environmental

Carbon Footprint t CO2-eqv Total GHG emissions of each sector in terms of CO2

equivalent.

Water Footprint kgal The total water withdrawals and consumption of each sector.

Energy Footprint MJ The total energy consumption of each sector.

Toxic Footprint Mt Toxic chemical emissions into air, water and soil by industrial 

sectors. 

Built-up land gha The area of land used by human infrastructure, such as 

transportation, housing, industrial structures and reservoirs for 

hydroelectric power generation.

CO2 uptake land gha The amount of forestland required to sequester given carbon 

emissions.

Economic

Total Economic 

Output (TEO)

$M The total economic transaction (direct plus indirect) related to 

the output of each sector in the national economy.

Gross Operating 

Surplus (GOS)

$M The capital available to corporations, to pay taxes and to 

finance their investments.

Import $M The value of goods and services purchased from foreign 

countries to produce domestic commodities by industries.

Gross Domestic 

Product (GDP)

$M The market value of goods and services produced within the 

country in a given period of time.

Social

Tax $M Government revenue, which includes the taxes on production 

and imports.

Income $M The compensation of employees, including wages and salaries

Employment emp-hr The net employment hours represent the full-time equivalent 

employment for each U.S. sector in the units of hours per 

year.

Injuries person Rate of nonfatal injuries per 100 equivalent full-time workers.

Many macro-level sustainability assessment indicators can be chosen as environmental, social, or

economic indicators. Several federally available public data sources, including Bureau of 

Economic Analysis (BEA, 2007), Energy Information Administration (EIA, 2011), Bureau of 

Labor Statistics (BLS, 2007), U.S. Geological Survey (USGS, 2007), Global Footprint Network 

(GFN, 2007), and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA, 2011) will be utilized to obtain 

these multipliers. Table 1 includes some of the multipliers that has been used in previous studies, 
230

and is not exhaustive. Other indicators may be added to quantify different aspects of 

sustainability.

4. Conclusions

Sustainability is not only limited to the environment, and other indicators of sustainability, such 

as economic and social should also be taken into consideration for a more holistic analysis. LCA 

studies that consider all dimensions of sustainability impacts of civil infrastructures are very 

limited, and it is imperative to integrate economic and social indicators. Considering the recent 

trends also emphasize the inclusion of three pillars of sustainability, as well as, supply chain 

related indirect impacts; the proposed methodology perfectly fits to the needs of such a 

comprehensive sustainability assessment understanding. To achieve this goal, triple bottom line 

economic input-output based hybrid life cycle assessment model is identified and developed for 

assessing building sustainability. This approach can extend life cycle sustainability assessment 

framework for buildings in two directions; horizontal direction by integrating several social and 

economic indicators, and vertical direction by consideration of all indirect supply chain related 

impacts within the LCSA framework.

5. References

BEA. (2010). “Benchmark Input-Output Data.”

Egilmez, G., Kucukvar, M., Tatari, O., and Bhutta, M. (2014). “Supply chain sustainability 

assessment of the US food manufacturing sectors: A life cycle-based frontier approach.” 

Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 82, 8–20.

Elkington, J. (1999). Cannibals with Forks: Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business. 

Capstone Publishing Ltd.

Finnveden, G., Hauschild, M. Z., Ekvall, T., Guinée, J., Heijungs, R., Hellweg, S., Koehler, A., 

Pennington, D., and Suh, S. (2009). “Recent developments in Life Cycle Assessment.” 

Journal of environmental management, Elsevier Ltd, 91(1), 1–21.

Hendrickson, C. T., Lave, L. B., and Matthews, H. S. (2006). “Environmental life cycle 

assessment of goods and services: an input-output approach.” Resources for the Future.

Jeurissen, R. (2000). “John Elkington, Cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of 21st 

century business.” Journal of Business Ethics.

Kloepffer, W. (2008). “Life cycle Sustainability assessment of products.” International Journal 

of Life Cycle Assessment, 13(2), 89–94.

Kucukvar, M., Noori, M., Egilmez, G., and Tatari, O. (2014). “Stochastic decision modeling for 

sustainable pavement designs.” International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 1–15.

Kucukvar, M., and Tatari, O. (2013). “Towards a triple bottom-line sustainability assessment of 

the US construction industry.” The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

Leontief, W. (1970). “Environmental Repercussions and the Economic Structure: An InputOutput Approach.” The Review of Economics and Statistics, 52(3), 262–271.

Noori, M., Kucukvar, M., and Tatari, O. (2013). “A macro-level decision analysis of wind power 

as a solution for sustainable energy in the USA.” International Journal of Sustainable Energy, 

1–16.

Peters, G. P. (2010). “Carbon footprints and embodied carbon at multiple scales.” Current 

Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 2(4), 245–250.

Suh, S., Lenzen, M., Treloar, G. J., Hondo, H., Horvath, A., Huppes, G., Jolliet, O., Klann, U., 

Krewitt, W., Moriguchi, Y., Munksgaard, J., and Norris, G. (2004). “System Boundary 
231

Selection in Life-Cycle Inventories Using Hybrid Approaches.” Environ. Sci. Technol, ACS 

Publications, 38(3), 657–664.

Suh, S., and Lippiatt, B. C. (2012). “Framework for hybrid life cycle inventory databases: a case 

study on the Building for Environmental and Economic Sustainability (BEES) database.” 

The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 17(5), 604–612.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2012). Climate Change Indicators in the United States. 

Washington, DC, USA.

Wiedmann, T. O., Lenzen, M., and Barrett, J. R. (2009). “Companies on the Scale.” Journal of 

Industrial Ecology, Blackwell Publishing Inc, 13(3), 361–383.

Zamagni, A. (2012). “Life Cycle Assessment and Sustainability.” The International Journal of 

Life Cycle Assessment, (R. Cassidy, D. Barista, J. Yoders, L. Nigh, B. Patton, and B. James, 

eds.), Reed Business Inc., 86(November), 256–263.
232

Tinkleman, Michael, Point of Contact, ASME

ASME Sustainable Products & Processes Strategic Plan, February 2011

Abstract

ASME’s Center for Research and Technology Development (CRTD) Research Committee on 

Sustainable Products and Processes has been working since 2006 to examine the societal, 

environmental, and economic aspects of sustainability and to identify what ASME and its 

members can do to help improve and promote a more sustainable economy. A Sustainable 

Products and Processes Strategic Plan was developed from the recommendations of participants 

at a June 2010 workshop. The Plan outlines activities that ASME can accomplish that have the 

most potential for improving sustainability. The collection of activities such as sustainability 

standards and methodologies, conferences and seminars, education for engineers and consumers, 

and collaborative research projects outlined in the Strategic Plan have provided ASME with a 

targeted path forward for achieving a more sustainable manufacturing sector.

Keywords

Sustainability, Sustainable Manufacturing, Sustainable Products

1. ASME’s Role

Despite economic pressures on and trends in the manufacturing industry, there is an expressed 

need to enable managers and policymakers to evaluate different solutions, options, policies, and 

programs. In a recent survey by Autodesk, 63% of companies expected that their companies 

would have an increasing involvement with green or sustainable design specifications over the 

next year, due in large part to regulatory requirements, rising energy costs, and client demand. 

The American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) could have a significant role by 

bringing objectivity and expertise to defining what constitutes a sustainable product or process.

ASME’s Center for Research and Technology Development (CRTD) Research Committee on 

Sustainable Products and Processes has been working since 2006 to examine the societal, 

environmental, and economic aspects of sustainability and to identify what ASME and its 

members can do to help improve and promote a more sustainable economy. On June 17, 2010, 

the committee convened leading experts at the ASME Washington, DC office for a strategic 

planning workshop devoted to the development of a strategic plan identifying high-priority 

projects that ASME can pursue to enhance sustainable manufacturing. Experts representing the 

U.S. Department of Energy, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Army, national 

laboratories, universities, and leading auto manufacturers and suppliers joined the committee to 

identify projects that use ASME’s unique resources and capabilities to address sustainability 

concerns.

The following material from the Sustainable Products & Processes Strategic Plan are a result of 

these efforts. They reflect the suggestions and recommendations from the Sustainable Products 

& Processes Strategic Plan Workshop participants. It outlines activities that ASME can 

accomplish that have the most potential for improving sustainability. This collection of 

sustainability standards and methodologies, conferences and seminars, education for engineers 
233

and consumers, and collaborative research projects will provide ASME with a targeted path 

forward for achieving a more sustainable manufacturing sector.

2. Ideas for Enhancing Sustainability

As previously emphasized, the actions taken to improve the sustainability of the manufacturing 

sector must minimize negative environmental impacts while aiding in economic growth and the 

advancement of the manufacturing sector. Advances in the following areas stand to have the 

most significant impact on improving sustainability in an economically feasible way:

 Product design for sustainability – Improvements to components of the product in the 

conceptual phase of development that make the product more sustainable as a whole

 Sustainable manufacturing processes – Improvements to parts of the manufacturing 

process that are determined to be inefficient and/or wasteful 

 Systems approach to water management – An approach that takes all aspects of water 

management into account—from the flow of water into the plant through the handling of 

used water at the end of the manufacturing process—including its interaction with energy 

use

Within each of these areas that aim to improve sustainability are activities that ASME can use its 

vast engineering expertise and unbiased third-party status to accomplish. These activities include 

sustainability standards and methodologies; conferences, seminars, and meetings; education for 

engineers and consumers; and research and products.

3. Product Design for Sustainability

Sustainable product design encompasses the “redesign” aspect of the six Rs of global 

sustainability. To truly become more sustainable, designers must consider and improve each step 

along the entire life cycle, and potentially multiple life cycles, of the product—from material 

extraction through processing, use of the product, and disposal or remanufacture. Optimizing 

material and energy resources; making sure materials are produced responsibly with 

environmental best practices; choosing materials that are nontoxic, bio-based, or made from 

renewable resources; and designing for resources recovery or reintegration back into nature after 

use are among the many methods that could potentially help to improve sustainability through 

product design. Factoring these ideas into the conceptual phase of design is an even more 

efficient and effective way to ensure the overall sustainability of the product.

The following four specific actions have the greatest potential to enhance sustainability through 

product design:

 Create a sustainable product rating system including a national standard and testing 

procedures to assess conformity

The nationwide focus on environmental responsibility is convincing an increasing number of 

consumers to buy “green” products. Third-party rating systems, such as Energy Star, enable 

consumers to quickly spot such a product and select it for purchase. The unbiased nature of these 

systems also builds a sense of trust in the consumer. By appealing directly to the consumer, 

rating systems provide manufacturers with an incentive to meet environmental standards and, as 

a result, encourage more manufacturers to do so. 
234

The development of a green product rating system requires not only that the standards be set but 

that there are a set of testing procedures in place to ensure that manufacturers are truly in 

compliance. In applying such a system to sustainability, ASME should first determine which 

sustainability attributes are desired in products from both a consumer appeal standpoint as well 

as a potential environmental impact standpoint. ASME should use these definitions as a guide to 

develop a set of standards and metrics for sustainability that could be translated into a rating 

“score” for a particular product to make cross-comparison easy for the consumer. As an 

unbiased, third-party organization known for its standard-setting abilities, ASME could tackle 

some or all of the components of developing a sustainable product rating system.

 Develop methodologies and technologies for verification of performance with respect to 

sustainability metrics

Manufacturers are, at times, unwilling to invest in sustainable product design because of a 

perceived low return on investment. Performance metrics are an essential part of ensuring that 

products designed in a sustainable way are achieving the reductions in negative environmental 

impacts, wasted energy and resources, and cost that they were designed to attain without 

sacrificing productivity. Ways to measure this performance are also needed to provide insight to 

the development of future sustainable products.

ASME can facilitate the collaboration and support the research needed to develop these 

methodologies and technologies. An important first step of this process is to ensure that 

sustainability metrics are defined and in place so that the methodologies and technologies can 

consistently reflect them. These methodologies and technologies can help show manufacturers 

that incorporating sustainable product design are performing at intended levels, which makes the 

investment less risky to their operations.

 Develop common, standard terminology for sustainability, using the ASME Y14.5 

dimensioning and tolerancing standard as a possible model from the tolerances field

Because sustainability is a relatively new concept, common language for talking about it does 

not yet exist. The definition of sustainability itself varies from person to person, making it 

difficult to address the aspects of the issue and develop effective ways to measure it. Establishing 

consistent, standard terminology for talking about sustainability will help to align researchers 

and manufacturers communicating about common issues and designing products that address 

those needs.

Much as ASME did when developing the Y14.5 standard for the tolerance field, it can also use 

its position as a respected mechanical engineering authority to develop a common terminology 

for sustainability. The Y14.5 standard establishes uniform practices for stating and interpreting 

dimensioning, tolerancing, and related requirements for use on engineering drawings and in 

related documents. ASME should use this standard as a model to ease the development of this 

terminology. ASME should also develop a manual to educate designers and manufacturers about 

the standard terminology to ensure that it is known by those who need to use it.
235

 Create an online toolkit for sustainable product design regarding water, energy, and 

materials 

A major part of encouraging manufacturers to implement sustainable product designs is sharing 

best practices and methodologies. Being informed about methods for sustainable product design 

in water, energy, and materials use could encourage researchers to think a way they had not yet 

considered before. Having this information at the conceptual phase of the development process 

makes it more likely to be incorporated and, therefore, to have an impact.

ASME should develop a toolkit to address the front end of the development process before 

design. The kit should include standards that consider end-of-life recover and reuse in the design 

phase. It could also serve as a portal to other similar toolkits (e.g., Autodesk). By providing howto information and the tools with which to accomplish it, this toolkit can help make it easier for 

manufacturers and designers to consider sustainability in the conceptual phase of product design.

4. Sustainable Manufacturing Processes

Significant sustainability improvements can be made in the process of manufacturing products. 

By rethinking and improving the technology used or the flow of the process itself, manufacturers 

can reduce the amount of water, energy, chemicals, and fuel used. In doing so, manufacturers can 

help conserve resources and minimize their negative effect on the environment while, in many 

cases, also reducing cost. Minimizing outputs such as waste produced and resulting GHG 

emissions can also have a similar cost benefit. To make these improvements to current processes, 

researchers and plant engineers can gather and use data on inputs and outputs that can help 

determine where inefficiencies lie and make specific improvements to those areas to improve 

overall sustainability and reduce cost.

The following four specific actions have the greatest potential to enhance sustainability through 

improvements to the manufacturing process:

 Define the critical factors that determine the sustainability of manufacturing processes

Before any amount of refining of the manufacturing process design occurs, manufacturers and 

researchers as a whole must determine and agree on the critical factors that can help make 

manufacturing processes more sustainable. Identifying and sharing these critical factors can help 

researchers and manufacturers reflect on those aspects of their own processes and determine 

where sustainability improvements can be made.

ASME can convene field experts, manufacturers, and researchers to identify a set of consensusdriven factors that determine the sustainability of manufacturing processes. As an unbiased thirdparty, ASME can also use these factors to develop standard measurement methodology in the 

manufacturing processes. By setting this standard, ASME can help manufacturers focus on what 

improvements they can make to their own processes and help researchers and designers take a 

targeted approach to sustainable process innovation going forward.

 Develop a standard that could brand sustainable manufacturing and that addresses all 

utilities (e.g., energy, water, steam, etc.), including metrics, verification, and branding
236

Similar to the sustainable product rating system for products, manufacturing processes can also 

be labeled as “sustainable” to encourage manufacturer adoption and consumer purchase. 

Providing a well-publicized standard, ways to measure and verify that processes meet the 

standard, and a label to make this adherence visible to consumers could encourage manufacturers 

to adopt practices into their manufacturing processes that are more sustainable.

ASME can help develop and act as third-party verification for such a standard. Since the 

standard will need to be developed for a wide range of manufacturers, ASME could also play a 

pivotal role in addressing the challenge of including small- and medium-sized enterprises in the 

standard. ASME should also ensure that the standard is transparent.

 Educate manufacturing plant engineers on how to conduct an energy audit and on best 

practices for all utilities

A key component of improving the sustainability of manufacturing processes is making energy 

use more efficient. Reducing energy consumption, relying on more renewable energy sources, 

and utilizing byproducts of energy use, like waste heat, in other parts of a manufacturing process 

can all contribute to a more sustainable process. Enabling plant engineers to measure the energy 

involved in their processes and to indicate areas where improvements can be made can help 

improve sustainability and energy costs for a manufacturer.

By developing how-to information on conducting an energy audit, ASME can serve as a source 

of information for manufacturing plant engineers interested in determining where improvements 

can be made in their own processes. ASME can distribute this information, as well as 

information about working with utilities, in a variety of ways: making it available on their 

website, providing a guide to interested engineers, or hosting conference and seminars to 

disseminate this information.

 Conduct a remanufacturing survey measuring market size; new technologies; and how 

much energy, cost, and CO2 is saved

Remanufacturing involves disassembling products, replacing or refurbishing worn out or 

obsolete components, and putting the product back together for sale “like new.” Because 

remanufactured products should match the same customer expectation as new products, there are 

some sustainability benefits to this procedure on the manufacturing scale. However, current 

knowledge about the demand for remanufactured products, the technologies that can help 

achieve it, and its benefits is minimal.

ASME can support efforts to understand the role of remanufacturing in sustainable processes by 

conducting a survey measuring market size; new technologies; and how much energy, cost, and 

CO2 is saved. Using its members as a base to reach out to manufacturers currently employing 

remanufacturing techniques in their processes, ASME can garner knowledge based on real-world 

experience to determine whether or not there are substantive sustainability benefits to using 

remanufacturing. ASME can then use the results to educate researchers looking to advance this 

technique and manufacturers interested in employing it to improve sustainability.
237

5. Systems Approach to Water Management

The manufacturing sector is a heavy user of water, relying on it as a coolant and a cleaner 

throughout material extraction, production, and disposal or remanufacturing processes. However, 

in the United States, an aging water infrastructure and inefficient water usage are combining to 

make the current growth in water demand unsustainable. While some major industrial water 

users, such as the pharmaceutical, electronics, and semiconductor industries, have paid attention 

to water issues, water conservation today has not received as much attention as energy 

conservation. Water use needs to be viewed as the essential part of the many aspects of the 

manufacturing sector that it is and made more sustainable through an approach that takes all 

aspects of water management into account, including its interaction with energy use. Engineering 

professionals, like ASME members, must take a leadership role in educating politica l leaders, 

industry, leaders, and the general public if the complex issues surrounding water usage are to be 

thoughtfully addressed.

The following three specific actions have the greatest potential to enhance sustainability through 

a systems approach to water management:

 Develop a research consensus document for water reuse in industrial operations

Water reuse has the potential to improve the sustainability and reduce the cost of manufacturing 

processes by reducing the need for “new” water to be introduced into the process. However, 

there is currently no overarching consensus document on the logistics and best practices of water 

reuse, making it difficult for plant engineers to determine if and how they can safely and 

efficiently integrate water reuse to improve the sustainability of their manufacturing processes.

ASME should support the development of a research consensus document for water reuse in 

industrial operations. This effort involves surveying real-world manufacturing processes that 

incorporate water reuse as well as researching new ways to achieve it. ASME should then 

convene leading researchers in this field to reach a consensus on the methods for and merits of 

water reuse in industrial operations. ASME should publicize the findings in a research consensus 

document, distributing it to water treatment plants, manufacturing plant engineers, and 

government regulators.

 Link the flow of gray water from wastewater treatment plants to steam-electric power 

plants and link the flow of gray water to its use in manufacturing facilities in general

As demands for scarce or more costly potable drinking water increase, industry will increasingly 

be asked to find ways to use nonpotable “gray” water. Determining how water is used in 

manufacturing processes and whether the infrastructure to transport it exists is a key factor in 

determining the economic feasibility of incorporating this type of water into plants. By mapping 

the flow of gray water to its use in manufacturing facilities, such as steam-electric power plants, 

manufacturers can determine whether or not it is feasible for them to use gray water in their 

processes and, in turn, aid in the sustainable use of water. 

ASME can support the development of a map of the flow of gray water from wastewater 

treatment plants to its use in manufacturing facilities. Steam-electric power plants are well 

known for using gray water, so determining the link for that facility will serve as a good model 
238

for the development of a more general map for all manufacturing facilities. ASME can support 

the research needed to develop this map and aid in publicizing it to manufacturing facilities to 

ensure that they are aware of the ways gray water can be incorporated into their plants. 

 Develop life cycle analysis methodologies for assessing water use and develop a watercontent metric for products and processes

Reducing the amount of water used in a product or process is a way to improve overall 

sustainability. To effectively determine where improvements can be made, designers and plant 

engineers should examine water use from a life cycle perspective—from the material extraction 

part of the product’s development or manufacturing process through disposal. Designers and 

engineers need consistent methodologies that can be applied across plants and product types to 

enable them to effectively measure water use and content and identify where sustainability 

improvements can be incorporated.

ASME should develop life cycle analysis methodologies for assessing water use in 

manufacturing products and processes. ASME should also develop water-content metrics that 

can help characterize water content in products separately from water used in manufacturing 

processes. Providing consistent methodologies for measuring water use and content helps 

engineers and designers to better identify areas of wasted water, associating cost and efficiency 

losses with wasteful water use. This could help to encourage the use of less water in products and 

processes or perhaps different sources for water, such as gray water or reuse within processes.

6. Other ASME Sustainability Programs

ASME 8th Annual International Conference on Energy Sustainability

http://www.asmeconferences.org/ESFUELCELL2014/
239

[This page is internationally left blank]
240

Uddin, Nasim, University of Alabama at Birmingham and Craig Taylor, Imagecat, Inc.

Advances in Measurement Science to Enhance the Resilience of 

Infrastructure to Natural and Manmade hazards

Abstract

Standard methods of predicting, evaluating, and assessing the disaster resilience of structures as 

they respond to extreme loads are much needed by the engineering community. Moreover 

standard methods of assessing disaster resilience and measurement metrics for use in making 

disaster preparedness and mitigation decisions are lacking. In addition extensive research is 

needed to address the gap between basic research and building codes, standards, and practice 

through measurement science research to predict structural performance up to failure under 

extreme loading conditions, predict disaster resilience at the building and community scale, 

assess and evaluate the ability of existing structures to withstand extreme loads. The papers 

discusses approaches for improvement in performance prediction of infrastructure, risk 

consistent design approach for designing innovative hazard resistant structures and for ensuring 

infrastructure performance under all weather conditions, risk consistent design approach for 

multiperil, and robust simulation as assessment tools to predict consequences of disasters, 

leading in turn to increased resilience.

Keywords

Infrastructure, Robust Simulation, natural and manmade hazards, Measure, Measurement

1. Background

The US infrastructure sector and its design professionals are facing several fundamental 

challenges that pose both threats and opportunities. In the area of sustainability, construction 

wastes constitute minimum 25% to over 40% of all waste representing both environmental 

challenges and lost opportunities with societal pressure is growing to reduce the environmental 

footprint of construction. Infrastructure is deteriorating accelerated by climate change - growing 

deficit in maintenance and replacement. Natural resources are being challenged with construction 

consuming over 50% of primary resources. Climate change impact needs to be addressed 

including how does one identify infrastructures most at risk for climate change impacts, the 

possible method for prioritization as a first step in climate change adaption, how to explore the 

types of adaptation strategies which would be most beneficial in terms of social, economic and 

environmental value. Moreover, global climate trends and the consequent global sea level rise 

and increased temperature, combined with potentially increased rates of extreme natural hazards, 

necessitate the consideration or reconsideration of current planning, engineering and 

management practices of infrastructure. All these forces discussed above create a great need for 

more effective materials, methods, and techniques for designing sustainable structures. In 

addition, there have been major revisions to the structural codes to better withstand natural 

phenomena, such as hurricanes, floods and earthquakes. Despite the widespread attention given 

to hazard mitigation and sustainability in the last decade, societal interest has been minimal. 

Adoption of green building (sustainability) or building code ‘plus’ standards (resilience) has 

been poor. The barriers for implementation are not well understood, although socioeconomic 

factors are generally seen as the constraints. Current civil infrastructure design is based on 
241

designing each “member” for its “most critical” combination of multiple load combinations 

based on code prescribed load. The sensitivity of the final design to sustainable alternatives, for 

example unexpected deviations in flood or wind loads (for example, black swan) on a structure 

whose final design have been dominated by an assumed earthquake load is routinely ignored. 

Potential consequences due to occupational loads, indoor health effect, targeting energy 

efficiency with low carbon foot print and reduced environmental effect, environmental 

degradation of construction materials with resulting interaction, and socio-economic effects from 

natural hazards and intentional hazards have not been fully incorporated into structural design.

2. Gaps and Research Needs

2.1. Improvement in Performance Prediction of Infrastructure

To accommodate the performance of current and novel materials and/or design and construction 

techniques, as well as different conditions (such as different climatic conditions), a better 

prediction of how infrastructure assets will perform is needed. Current best practices have a large 

uncertainty in the prediction of infrastructure performance, which is largely based on empirical 

knowledge making design, construction and maintenance tend to be conservative. In addition, 

the introduction of new materials, systems and techniques is time consuming. New (e.g. 

probabilistic or deterministic) models need to be developed for the prediction of material and 

structural performance and deterioration including testing protocol for full scale flood, storm, 

and hurricane level wind testing at the system level (Fig. 1 shows full scale flood testing). Their 

validation and demonstration in practice shall prove their ability to predict infrastructure 

performance with appropriate accuracy. This shall include various conditions, current designs 

and materials as well as novel design materials for which no knowledge exists at present. The 

models should be based on sound physical principles and they might be either numerical or/and 

empirical methods, e.g. through the application of artificial intelligence, requiring a minimum of 

(time-consuming) empirical testing.

For example, probabilistic frameworks for performance assessment of low buildings under 

hurricane multi-hazards are mostly limited to non-engineered timber structures. The 

Performance-Based Design (PBD) approach, originally developed in seismic engineering, offers 

the potential for designing smarter, hurricane-resilient structures. Previous studies on 

performance-based wind engineering (PBWE) mostly focused on light-frame wood buildings for 

which construction quality and workmanship issues, including missing fasteners, are common. 

Many past failures were attributed to inadequate building code enforcement and poor 

workmanship, rather than to shortcomings of prescriptive requirements. The discrepancy 

between what is designed and what is built makes application of PBWE to light-frame wood 

buildings difficult. If a building can be assembled from a few large engineered components using 

well engineered connection methods, then quality control moves from the building site to the 

much more easily controlled conditions of the factory floor. A systematic performance-based 

design approach for engineered low-rise buildings, validated through test-based results, remains 

to be developed. This gap in scientific knowledge hinders performance-based design of 

engineered low-rise structures, and impairs the nation’s ability to prevent hurricane hazards from 

becoming disasters. The multi-hazard nature of the phenomena related to hurricanes and their 

effects on the built environment should be modeled in the following three different scenarios 

(Barbato et al. 2013): (a) Independent hazards that can occur individually or simultaneously, e.g., 

wind borne debris and flood hazard can be considered as independent of each other because no 
242

mutual interaction between the two hazards has the effect to f modifying the intensity of the 

corresponding actions; (b) Interdependent hazards, e.g., wind and windborne debris hazards are 

interacting hazards as the actions produced on a structure by these hazards are interdependent 

(increase in wind speed will enhance the kinetic energy of wind-borne debris and escalate the 

risk of building envelope breach); (c). Sequential hazards, e.g., windborne debris damage to the 

envelope may increase the wind loading due to internal pressurization and modify sequentially 

the vulnerability of the structure; wind induced deformation of member joints can sequentially 

lead to rainwater ingress.

Figure 1. Full scale flood testing and performance assessment

2.2. Developing Risk Consistent Design Approach for Innovative Hazard Resistant 

Structures and Ensuring Infrastructure Performance under all Weather Conditions

Extreme weather events, will increase over the coming years and decades with the changing 

climate. Solutions are needed that mitigate these impacts to the extent that service performance 

levels are maintained regardless of the weather conditions. This requires advanced systems, 

materials and processes that strongly reinforce the infrastructure’s resistance to the adverse 

impacts of extreme weather. Novel materials and techniques will be needed and demonstrated 

that allow full service under wide-ranging weather conditions. These might include materials that 

are highly resistant to cold weather (e.g. freeze-thaw), survive extended flooding and other 

extreme events. In addition, focus is on the development of specific infrastructure assets that 

enable rapid repair actions in case of major disasters and emergency situations, such as through 

the use of composite lightweight materials.

Uddin et al (2014) first introduces an innovative Composites Structural Insulated Panels (CSIPs) 

for structural wall and floor applications against multiple hazards, and then presents an 

innovative risk consistent design approach for designing such system. The proposed composite 

panel is made of low cost thermoplastic orthotropic glass/polypropylene (glass-PP) laminate as a 

facesheet and Expanded Polystyrene Foam (EPS) as a core with very high facesheet/core moduli 

ratio. The proposed CSIPs are intended to overcome problems of traditional wood panels against 

multiple natural hazards including earthquake, flood and windstorm to poor penetration 
243

resistance against wind borne debris, termite attack and mold buildups etc. Wide spread failure 

of structures due to recent hazards has shown the weakness of the available design methods and 

therefore has highlighted the need for a new design procedure for building and other 

infrastructures that are hazard-prone. The main reason of the failures is that the uncertainty in 

both loading and material strength was not taken in to consideration accurately during the design 

process. To achieve the desired balance between the high initial cost and the damage costs due to 

structures’ failure, the life-cycle cost (LCC) and the uncertainty in both loading and system 

strength should be considered. In an effort to design structures against multi-hazard load, a 

method will be investigated that accounts for the uncertainty in both loading and strength. A new 

type of structural sandwich panel was presented in this study for structural wall applications. 

These panels are namely as Composite Structural Insulated Panels (CSIPs) and are made of 

orthotropic glass-PP laminates as facesheets with EPS foam as a solid core. Further, an approach 

for optimum design for structures against multiple natural hazards was developed. The proposed 

methodology is based on the LCC and target safety index (β). The LCC method accounts for 

future damage costs resulting from hazards based on the QRA concept. The safety indices were 

calculated for the two main criteria controlling the design (strength and drift). The uncertainty in 

loading, strength was considered. The main purpose of the QRA concept is to reduce the cost due 

to structures’ damages as a result of hazard loading. Further, involving the safety indices would 

enable optimum design of structure to significantly reduce the consequences expected to occur 

from any potential future hazard effect. In addition, considering the epistemic uncertainty in the 

calculated probability of failure and safety index will minimize the expected risk. To this end, a 

methodology is presented to achieve the combination of LCC and safety indices for strength and 

drift developed for structure model. The structural engineer can then optimize the design by 

selecting the most appropriate structure that satisfies the project requirements. The approach was 

demonstrated with case studies on two structures: one for traditional wood and another for CSIP. 

Seismic and wind hazard were considered in the analysis. Two locations were considered; Los 

Angeles, CA and Charleston, SC. These locations are critical for seismic and wind load; 

respectively. The results showed that CSIP building is cost effective and provides higher safety 

indices than traditional wood structure. Based on the findings of the case study, the optimum 

design (Fig. 2) was observed to be different than that of the code demonstrating the shortcoming 

of the current code design and potential of the proposed method.
244

Figure 2. LCC and safety indices for wood building models in Los Angeles

2.3. Developing Risk Consistent Design Approach for Multiperil

Multi-peril design criteria are often ignored if only because it is time-consuming to become 

expert in one peril and controversies can rage over design levels for any one peril. For quake 

and wind perils, it is often assumed that one peril dominates the design criteria. However, a 

prima facie case of considerable interest has been developed to indicate that there needs to be 

multi-peril design criteria at least for quake and wind, and for risk reasons this design level is 

greater than the level for either quake or wind. Reformulating the reasoning in Datinh and Simui 

(2010), one begins by assuming that for each site there is a PML of total loss for each peril. One 

assumes that for a given return interval, one of the two perils has the higher PML of total loss. If 

for the lesser of the two perils, there is some probability that this peril can exceed this higher 

PML of total loss, then at the specified return interval, PML of total loss is higher for the 

combined perils than for either peril. This reformulation does not assume that total loss is 

identical with collapse, a fairly good assumption for quake but not for wind.). The importance of 

this procedure is to illustrate how persuasion, not compulsion, should be a prominent approach in 

developing major decisions on multi-peril issues (or other issues such as those pertaining to 

climate change). Using ensemble outcomes and a variety of quantitative decision procedures can 

illuminate this (Toulmin-like) hypothesis about how persuasion rather than compulsion is 

desirable in major social and scientific issues.
245

Based on Taylor et al (2014) this multi-peril consideration can be evaluated with respect to (a) 

multiperil, and (b) with regard to different acceptable risk criteria. First, only a uniform risk 

level can be postulated. Second, marginal design costs can be used to limit cases in which 

designs against collapse become very steep at a certain return interval. Third, instead of using 

collapse criteria, life-safety criteria can be used. Incorporating “marginal cost” criteria may 

appear to be a “welfare” issue, but these criteria have been used in for instance seismic design 

criteria. Given these three perspectives on the multi-peril issue, methods can be used to show 

various alternative design levels and design combinations that may be suitable in a multi-peril 

setting. The methods proposed also can be readily extended to a community basis as needed. The 

goal will be to identify a robust ensemble of such combinations rather than a single “optimal” 

combination. Moreover, a decision making framework can be formulated to assess mitigation 

and adaptation to future uncertainty projections in terms type I error i.e., the decision to design 

for a future condition and to eventually find out reliably through empirical evidence that the 

original condition persists, and type II error where the decision to not design for a future 

condition and to eventually find out reliably through empirical evidence that the future condition 

is defensible as discussed by Ayyub and Klir (2006).

2.4. Robust Simulation as Assessment Tools to Predict Consequences of Disasters, 

Leading in Turn to Increased Resilience

Robust simulation based on Taylor et al (2014) consciously acknowledges the scientific 

challenges when adopting the diverse but plausible models into modeling the catastrophic risk in 

a region, and makes the best effort to reveal the uncertainties associated with these models in the 

risk analysis results, through a coherently designed simulation approach. This approach has 

become common for instance in climate change studies and used in 100-year planning studies. 

And future uncertainties may appear to increase when we include or know more (e.g., how 

rupture propagation moves onto secondary branches). Or, future data may reduce uncertainties. 

And this of course depends on how we measure "uncertainty." In general, what future science 

will yield is not a measurable uncertainty. As portfolio methods have evolved, they are wellsuited to address this issue. However, additional insights into catastrophe risk methods have 

arisen chiefly as a result of the presences of very enhanced computer techniques, policies that 

have encouraged different teams of investigators to compete in developing some key sub-models 

in catastrophe risk modeling, and the increasing recognition that there are profound reasons why 

alternative professional investigative teams may indeed develop divergent sub-models regardless 

of the size of the “base” [finite] database to which all investigative teams have access. An 

advantage of robust simulation is that it forces us to confront the limitations and uncertainties of 

our catastrophe models. It is better to acknowledge and tolerate this uncertainty, rather than using 

methods that conceal or suppress uncertainty. Acknowledging the limitations in models will 

highlight the value of improved exposure data (age and quality of construction) and encourage 

efforts to gather and manage exposure data to reduce the impacts of exposure uncertainty.

One of the desirable features of robust simulation is the ability to identify and trace back through 

consequence trajectories that produce extreme consequences. Rather than focusing on mean or 

median responses and effects, robust simulation can readily be used to explore the paths and 

sequences of events and conditions that produce optimal success or catastrophic failure. This 

can provide unforeseen opportunities to improve the outcomes, as means are used to enhance the 

most positive outcomes and reduce or eliminate the most negative consequences. The contrast in 

solutions provided by these rival models can help identify the full span of potential 
246

consequences. Conversely, with logic trees and conventional (atomistic) models, these cases are 

lost, and so never get explored. Furthermore, the random-walk methods employed in robust 

simulation are ideally suited to the evaluation of challenges such as aftershocks exposing 

buildings to multiple ground shaking events before repairs can be completed. In this case, the 

building models must “remember” previous damage. The statistical sampling techniques can 

allow the exploration of the consequences of maximum direction ground motions for buildings 

with disparate systems and capacities in different framing directions. Models capable of 

representing both wind and earthquake response can be integrated within random walks to 

explore the life-safety and economic consequences of multi-peril environments.

3. Conclusions

Traumatic failure and destruction caused by the massive storm, earthquake and tsunami 

motivated renewed emphasis on sustainable approaches to managing public infrastructure. 

Technologies that help reduce climate change are in demand more than ever before. In the future, 

ecology and the economy will become inseparably connected, as preventive measures will be 

more cost effective in the long term than remedying the damage caused. Research is needed to 

enhance the resilience and robustness of structures by focusing on improvement in performance 

prediction, risk consistent design approach, multiperil design and robust simulation as 

assessment tools to predict consequences of disasters, leading in turn to increased resilience

4. References

Barbato, M., Petrini, F., Unnikrishnan, V. U., Ciampoli, M. (2013).”Performance-based 

hurricane engineering (PBHE) framework.” Structural Safety, 45, 24-35.

Uddin, N., Mousa, M. A., Dong, L,. (2014).”Risk consistent design approach for designing 

innovative hazards resistant structures.” Second International Conference on Vulnerability 

and Risk Analysis and Management (ICVRAM2014, University of Liverpool, UK, 13 - 16 

July 2014.

Duthinh, Dat and Emil Simiu, 2010, “Safety of Structures in Strong Winds and Earthquakes: 

Multihazard Considerations,” pp. 330-333, ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering, Volume 

136, Issue 3 (March 2010)

Ayyub, B. M., and Klir, G., 2006, Uncertainty Modeling and Analysis in Engineering and the 

Sciences, Chapman & Hall/CRC Press.

Taylor, C.E., Uddin, N., Graf, W., Liu, F., and Lee, Y. Robust Simulation: Why and When 

Needed and What Should be Qualified” Second International Conference on Vulnerability 

and Risk Analysis and Management (ICVRAM2014) 13 - 16 July 2014, University of 

Liverpool, UK, Michael Beer, Ivan S.K. Au & Jim W. Hall (editors).
247

[This page is internationally left blank]
248

Wallace, William A., Founder and President, Wallace Futures Group, LLC

Research Needs for Sustainable Infrastructure Engineering for a New 

Harsh and Resource-Constrained World

Abstract

Projects in the built environment, e.g., buildings, roads, bridges, dams, water treatment plants, 

have always been planned, designed, constructed and operated based on assumptions of 

stationarity. That is, project owners and engineers assumed with good confidence that the cost 

and availability of resources, and environmental operating conditions will be relatively constant 

and predictable throughout the project lifecycle. Unfortunately, multiple decades of working 

under a non-sustainable economic development model have made these assumptions unreliable. 

Increasing shortages of energy and fresh water along with more frequent, extreme weather events 

provide ample evidence of this change. Continuing application of these assumptions creates a 

significant risk to health, life, property, and the environment. Research is urgently needed to 

learn how these assumptions are changing and affecting infrastructure performance. New timeand risk-based design assumptions and associated methodologies are needed to create projects 

that operate safely and effectively in this new and continually changing world.

Keywords

Infrastructure, Measurements, Risk, Stationarity, Sustainability, Vulnerability.

1. Purpose

This paper shows that multiple decades of excessive resource consumption and environmental 

degradation have changed significantly the conditions under which buildings and infrastructure 

are expected to operate. Research and development efforts are urgently needed to provide 

project owners and engineers with adequate knowledge of how key design variables are 

changing, along with a new project delivery methodology capable of addressing this level of 

change. Without this new knowledge and methodology, the engineering community will 

continue to deliver buildings and infrastructure that add unnecessary risks to human health, life, 

property and the environment.

2. Background

Contrary to Shakespeare, what is past is no longer prologue, at least not for engineers 

working in the built environment.” William A. Wallace

Over the last twenty years, the notion that society’s approach to economic development is not 

sustainable has moved from extremist thinking toward mainstream opinion. Spiking energy 

prices, water shortages, extended droughts and heat waves, record storms and flooding, frequent 

forest fires – incidents once seen as disturbing but manageable – are now viewed as serious 

challenges to sustaining and improving our quality of life. 

These trends and events should not be surprising. Decade after decade of excessive resource 

consumption and environmental degradation has seriously depleted important non-renewable 

resources and damaged the provisioning and regulating functions of the Earth’s ecological 

systems. The consequences of this behavior are starting to emerge, expressed as shortages of 

fuels and fresh water, more frequent extreme weather events, ocean dead zones, and more. 
249

These consequences create serious problems for engineers working in the built environment. 

They alter significantly the cost and availability of important resources, and change the operating 

conditions under which buildings and infrastructure are supposed to operate. 

Engineers have responded to these problems, at least in part. They are working to improve 

sustainable performance by reducing resource consumption and protecting the environment. In 

doing so, they are learning that such efforts can yield significant benefits in terms of operating 

cost reductions and public acceptance. They are also finding new ways to generate energy from 

renewable sources, use recycled materials, and protect, enhance and restore ecosystem resources 

and functions.

Unfortunately, engineers are working on the wrong problem, or at least not the complete 

problem. Today’s critical issue in buildings and infrastructure project sustainability is not just 

how to improve sustainable performance, but also how to address the consequences of multiple 

decades of non-sustainable performance. Recent events such as the devastation from Hurricane 

Sandy, flooding in Colorado and the upper mid-west, extreme drought and forest fires in 

California, and a mudslide in the Pacific Northwest suggest that our existing buildings and 

infrastructure designs are not sufficiently robust or resilient to handle these new conditions.

3. Three Challenges to Solve Simultaneously

In delivering projects in the built environment, engineers are now faced with three challenges:

a) Meet the project owner’s needs, objectives and specifications. The project must be 

designed and delivered so that it performs in the way the owner intended. However, 

these may have to be modified to address the changes noted in “c” below.

b) Contribute to improved sustainable performance. The project should also set objectives 

for maintaining, enhancing and/or restoring ecosystem and social/cultural services. Not 

doing so makes the project a contributor to further depletion and degradation. Such 

objectives should be incorporated into decisions made in response to “a.”

c) Account for a changing operating environment. The project must identify and address 

any significant changes in the environmental operating conditions the project may face 

over its design life. Changing conditions must be managed so that the project will still 

meet owner needs, objectives and specifications determined in “a.” However, if the 

probable extent of these changes exceeds the capacity of the project design to 

accommodate, the owner may be forced to reset project objectives and specifications 

accordingly.

These challenges need to be addressed through an iterative process. That process must balance 

owner needs for certain levels of functionality and performance against the need to perform 

satisfactorily under new extreme conditions while reducing the lifecycle ecological and social 

impacts of the project.

4. Gaps and Research Needs

“If we want things to stay as they are, things will have to change.” Giuseppe di 

Lampedusa, The Leopard (1957)

The current processes for planning, design, construction and operation of buildings and 

infrastructure assume a high degree of what is called “stationarity.” Stationarity means that the 

design assumptions about resource costs and availability, and environmental operating 
250

conditions closely follow stable historical trends, and can be applied confidently as a predictor of 

future conditions. Unfortunately, multiple decades of resource depletion and ecosystems 

degradation have made those assumptions questionable. See Figure 1 below. Consequently, 

using historical assumptions, especially for long-lived infrastructure projects, could result in a 

degradation of project functionality and performance. Worse, that project could pose a 

significant risk to human health, life, property and the environment.

Figure 1. Design Assumptions: Historic vs. New Mean, Variance and Plausible Extremes

Conditions of “non-stationarity” have created three significant gaps in project delivery for the 

built environment. These are:

 Little or no understanding of how and the extent to which changes in resource costs and 

availability, and changes in environmental operating conditions will affect key design 

variables over time. The implications of non-stationarity are that many of the current 

design assumptions for buildings and infrastructure need to be scrapped, replaced by 

dynamic, time- and risk-based assumptions about future conditions. 

 Lack of accepted practices for designing and delivering projects under conditions of nonstationarity. The current linear project delivery practices are not sufficient to address the 

high degree of change, particularly when the rates of change and possible secondary and 

tertiary effects are poorly understood. The engineering community needs to develop new 

project delivery methods that anticipate and account for significant changes in design and 

operating variables.

 A huge disconnect between what should become standard engineering practices and the 

current legal standard of care. The legal yardstick for determining negligence, the 

standard of care that governs engineering work in the built environment is essentially, 
251

“Did you design and build the project like everyone else would have done?” This is a 

standard based on assumptions of stationarity. In our highly litigious society, advances in 

the application of different but more appropriate design assumptions and project deliver 

methods will be curtailed significantly.

5. Research Needs

The processes for planning, design and construction of buildings and infrastructure need to be 

revised to address these challenges. As part of those processes, new design assumptions need to 

be established that take into account the changing nature of resource cost and availability, and 

environmental operating conditions. These assumptions need to be both time based and risk 

based. They need to be time based in the sense that the values of key design variables (mean, 

variance and plausible extremes) are expected to change over time in ways that are not readily 

predictable. They also need to be risk based in the sense that the variables could reach values 

that create significant risks to human health, life, property and the environment. Some values of 

these variables may hit tipping points, creating additional effects which are significant but not 

necessarily intuitive.

This raises a number of important questions that can only be answered through coordinated and 

systematic research programs.

 Can we bound with confidence the expected design variable change to a range that is 

within the economic design life of the project and is still protective of human health, life, 

property and the environment? If not, can we develop satisfactory ways to handle these 

changes?

 Can we identify significant secondary and tertiary effects that may emerge at certain 

values of these variables, and which in turn may have significant effects on project 

performance? 

 Can we design economically into projects sufficient levels of robustness, adaptability and 

resiliency that can account for changes in the mean, variance and extremes of key design 

variables?

 Can we identify, measure and set thresholds for values of operating performance metrics 

which if exceeded, would trigger predetermined operational and/or structural 

modifications? These modifications would be implemented to maintain economic and 

effective operation, protect health, safety, property and the environment.

The objective of this research program would be to develop a workable set of engineering design 

information and project delivery processes appropriate for these challenges. One outcome would 

be a dynamic building and infrastructure design database containing time- and risk-based 

information about design variables and associated assumptions. The database would be 

maintained and updated regularly as resource costs and availability and environmental operating 

conditions change. Another outcome would be new, iterative project design and delivery 

processes that enable engineers to address these challenges effectively and systematically.

The following steps are suggested.

1. Disaggregate the various forms of buildings and infrastructure into various project types, 

classified by the design variables associated with resource requirements and 

environmental exposures.
252

2. For each project type, determine the values of the mean, variance and reasonable 

extremes of the variables typically used in the planning, design, construction and 

operation of these projects. These will vary based on geographic location, intended 

operation and other factors. Existing engineering standards and building codes should be 

taken into consideration.

3. For each variable, conduct research to determine the probable ranges of the variables 

(mean, variance and reasonable extremes) over time. These ranges should be based on 

location, intended operation, and other factors.

4. For each variable, conduct research to determine the existence of potential secondary and 

tertiary effects that may emerge at certain variable values. Determine the significance of 

these effects on project performance. For example, an extreme storm could cause high 

velocity stormwater runoff, which would test the adequacy of early warning systems and 

stormwater controls.

5. For each project type, conduct research to determine ways to balance the economies of 

long-lived designs against the risk of premature loss of functionality due to unanticipated 

changes in resource availability or environmental operating conditions. Factor in 

alternatives such as additional robustness, adaptability and resiliency. Also consider 

issues such as overall system redundancy. 

6. For each project type, conduct research to determine the kinds of measurements, 

performance assessments and controls that could be put in place to determine if the 

operating performance metrics (e.g., cost, availability of operating supplies, 

environmental operating conditions) are still within an acceptable range. This research 

should also determine the thresholds for values of these operating performance metrics. 

If these thresholds were exceeded, those events would trigger operational and/or 

structural changes to maintain efficient and effective operation.

6. Conclusions

This research work is both important and urgent. As author and educator Mathis Wackernagel 

pointed out, “We are building 2050 today.” With no other basis to proceed, owners and 

engineers are delivering buildings and infrastructure using flawed assumptions about future cost 

and availability of resources and environmental operating conditions. In addition, they are using 

project delivery methodologies that do not take into account the consequences of change. 

Finally, the current legal test for engineering negligence (“Did you design and build the project 

like everyone else would have done?”) creates significant resistance to the necessary 

modification of current practices.

Regardless, the engineering community needs press forward to develop new set of design 

assumptions and project delivery methodologies commensurate with the challenges at hand. 

Any delays will inevitably result in additional risk to health, life, property and the environment.

7. References

Wallace, William A., “Working to Engineer Infrastructure Resiliency in a Changing Operating 

Environment,” ASCE GeoCongress, Atlanta, GA. (2014)

Institute for Sustainable Infrastructure. (2012). Envision, Version 2.0: A Rating System for 

Sustainable Infrastructure. Washington, DC, Institute for Sustainable Infrastructure. 
253

McKibben, Bill. (2010). Eaarth: Making a Life on a Tough New Planet, New York, NY. Times 

Books, Henry Holt and Company.

Acknowledgements

The author acknowledges and greatly appreciates the contributions by S. David Ellison, 

President of Synergy Connects, Inc. for his contributions to the development of a process for 

sustainable project management. Dave designed and delivered the recorded ASCE course, 

“Sustainable Project Management: Delivering Projects for a More Sustainable Infrastructure.” 
254

Wang, Zhichao, Shapour Azarm, and P. K. Kannan, University of Maryland

Design for Supply Chain and Interoperability in 

Profit-Sustainable Market Systems

Abstract

This paper describes some of the main challenges in the design for supply chain and 

interoperability considerations in profit-sustainable market systems. Some previous works in this 

area are briefly reviewed, a few gaps are identified and research needs are described. Highlights 

of a research framework are presented which accounts for upstream suppliers and 

interoperability by considering: (i) product modularity, (ii) interoperability among the modules 

of a product, and (iii) valuation of a product design from a marketing perspective. In such a 

context, sourcing components upstream and focusing on interoperability among all interfaces in 

order to achieve the product’s functionalities can become an important undertaking in the design 

for profit-sustainability.

Keywords

Design Decisions, Modularity, Supply Chain, Interoperability, Profit-Sustainability

1. Background

According to the International Trade Administration’s Sustainable Manufacturing Initiative 

(SMI)21, sustainable manufacturing is defined as: “the creation of manufactured products that use 

processes that minimize negative environmental impacts, conserve energy and natural resources, 

are safe for employees, communities, and consumers and are economically sound.” Among 

others, SMI considered goals such as: “analyzing inputs, processes and products; linking 

improvements to financial costs and benefits and providing frameworks to help make decisions; 

providing information and links to more detailed metrics and guidance; using normalized 

indicators to allow for comparison between facilities...” Also, in 2009, in a workshop22 entitled: 

“NIST Workshop on Sustainable Manufacturing: Metrics, Standards, and Infrastructure,” 

different viewpoints of sustainability by experts from government, industry and academia were 

presented. These viewpoints include sustainable information based manufacturing, supply chain 

sustainability, economic opportunities, regulations and standards – metrics for sustainable 

performance, sustainable design and manufacturing methods, and design for sustainability.

An important precursor to manufacturing sustainability is through product design decisions. By 

some accounts, the solution to manufacturing sustainability is anchored to design decisions (e.g., 

Ramani 2009). For instance, while about 5% of the Product Development Cost (PDC) is spent 

during a design stage, by the time the design is complete, 70% or more of PDC has already been 

decided (e.g., Suh 1990). 

One can consider manufacturing to be as profit-sustainable as its supply chain. The conventional 

wisdom has always been to start first with the design decisions – which specify the features that 

 

21 http://www.trade.gov/competitiveness/sustainablemanufacturing/how_doc_defines_SM.asp (last visited on 

4/13/2014)

22 http://www.mel.nist.gov/msid/conferences/Agenda_SMW.htm (last visited on 4/13/2014)
255

the product should contain – and then tackle the other decisions such as manufacturing and 

supply chain considerations. However, not much attention has been given to the linkages or 

interoperability among design, manufacturing and supply chain considerations. Indeed, the 

supply chain focused manufacturing continues to challenge product decision makers in finding 

profit-sustainable design solutions. One possible way to overcome this challenge is by design 

solutions that are modular and interoperable. Modularity means that the product is configured 

from smaller subsystems or modules. Modular products lend themselves well to outsourcing. 

However, modularity also requires attention to interoperability. Interoperability means to have 

compatible interfaces and smooth operations among the modules. 

Sourcing different modules (e.g., parts, components, assemblies or subsystems) for modular 

products from domestic and overseas suppliers has become increasingly prevalent. For example, 

manufacturers of electronic products such as laptops, smartphones and tablet computers 

outsource a majority of their product modules from upstream suppliers. Such practice has also 

been common in other industries such as automobiles, aircrafts and shipbuilding for decades. 

However, as shown in Figure 1, meeting the specifications of product modules by suppliers, in 

particular the interoperability among modules (i.e., whether the sourced modules can work well 

together) remains a challenge particularly when the manufacturer does not have full control of its 

global supply chain and when there is uncertainty. For example, Boeing recently experienced 

significant interoperability problems among the parts that were outsourced to different suppliers 

across the globe so much so that their Dreamliner 787 deliveries were significantly delayed 

(Guardian, 2013).

The design outlining the specific components and modules making up a product system 

specifically in the context of suppliers and sourcing of the components is an important factor that 

determines the cost of the product, the reliability of the input supply, and interoperability of the 

components. As seen in recent times, global sourcing of components to reduce costs can increase 

the vulnerability to significant supply chain disruptions – due to earthquake, floods, riot and 

political unrest – which, in turn, can lead to increased cost and time to re-source supplies or 

delay in delivery due to interoperability concerns. The cost and reliability of supply chain, in 

turn, have a significant impact on the market share and demand of the product and, ultimately, its 

profitability.

2. Gaps and Research Needs

Several modular and platform based design approaches have been reported (e.g., Dahmus et al., 

2001), including modularity definition, commonality measurements and cost modeling 

techniques (e.g., Kota et al., 2000). From a supply chain perspective, several articles have 

considered supply chain and its integration with product design (e.g., Huang et al., 2005). For 

example, a concurrent engineering framework was developed to assess concepts such as 

commonality, product platforms and modularity when product platform design is to link process 

and supply chain design decisions (Fixson, 2005). A number of case studies and literature 

reviews reports on models and methods for product design and planning with supply chain 

design considerations, e.g., Appelqvist et al. (2004). A preliminary model in this domain was 

recently presented by Wang et al. (2014) that can consider modularity and supply chain design 

with interoperability considerations. However, there is a need for a more comprehensive 

framework.
256

From the interoperability perspective, existing works have proposed standards and qualitative 

recommendations for improving interoperability in IT systems, for instance, in software 

engineering applications and in a network of systems to exchange information, e.g., Tolk and 

Muguira (2003). Also, examples of methods that handle couplings (or interoperability) are 

reported in a different context, in multidisciplinary design optimization. Yet these methods can 

become difficult to implement in a market system where manufacturers source modules from 

different suppliers and often do not have full control over suppliers, when compared to designing 

and building all of the modules in-house (e.g., Wang, 2012).

Figure 1: Elements of Design for Supply Chain and Interoperability in a Market System

3. Design for Supply Chain and Interoperability Considerations

A supply chain configuration can be obtained by a mapping from the modular product design to 

the upstream supply chain design space (Wang et al., 2014). In an upstream supply chain, there 

can be raw material suppliers, part suppliers, module suppliers, subassembly suppliers and so on, 

all the way to the supplier who does the final product assembly. The upstream supply chain 

configuration model may consider several factors (Murphy, 2012). These can include: i) 

Redundancy: Depending upon criticality of the supplier(s), there can be redundant (backup) 

suppliers considered in the model. Note that the redundancy increases the cost and does not 

payoff unless there is a disruption in the supply chain. The disruption can last for a significant 

period of time and can even be due to a catastrophic event, such as the Icelandic volcano 

eruption of 2010, the catastrophic earthquake in Japan in the spring of 2011, factory collapse in 

Bangladesh in the spring of 2013, and when a government collapses. ii) Speed and flexibility of 

suppliers: It is important that the suppliers are selected so that they are fast and flexible in their 

response to a demand change. iii) Coordination of supplies: This is an important factor and can 

be a challenging task to model. For example, in the case of Apple Inc., there are over 150 

primary (and many more secondary) suppliers whose activities need to be coordinated. It has 

UPSTREAM DOWNSTREAM DESIGN

DECISION

Designer

Retail Channels and/or 

Service Providers

Customers

Global 

Suppliers

Interoperable?

Competition
257

been reported that poor coordination among suppliers can cost as much as $30 billion dollars 

(Fisher, 1997). iv) Parameters such as the needed material/part/module/sub-module variety that 

suppliers can deliver; price of item to be delivered; lead time; inventory (% of demand met by instock goods). v) Supplier responsiveness to unexpected change in demand. And finally vi) 

interoperability which can become critical. 

Interoperability can refer to a range of operations or interactions along which two (or more) 

coupled modules operate well together. One possible direction is to further explore the notion of 

interoperability and devise a measure of interoperability in the context of modular design and 

find ways for determining an acceptable level of interoperability for a product system. 

Determining an acceptable level of interoperability is important because it will give the designer 

an indication as to whether or not coupled modules in a product system can work with each other 

under uncertainty. This information can be used to assess interoperability feasibility. There are a 

number of questions and challenges. For example, how can interoperability be quantified and 

what is an acceptable level of interoperability between two (or more) coupled modules? As the 

number of coupled modules increases, does the computational effort for solving interoperability 

change. The ultimate goal is to determine whether interoperability in the design of a modular 

product system is within an acceptable threshold and decide on that threshold.

Using a model of interoperability as discussed above, the designer will be able to evaluate the 

reliability (or risk) involved in the supply chain. Specifically, the risks in a product’s supply 

chain can be considered to be design-related or manufacturing-related. Design-related supply 

chain risks result from uncertain changes of design from one or more upstream suppliers. Such 

changes can happen due to discontinuation of an existing part, upgrade or refresh of an existing 

part, or introduction of a new product module as a replacement. The changes of design for one 

module can influence its interoperability with other modules which are coupled with it; the effect 

can also ripple through the rest of the supply chain and eventually impact the product’s ability to 

function properly. The challenge for the designer is to quantitatively model, evaluate and 

minimize such risks. On the other hand, the product can also be subject to manufacturing-related 

supply chain risks. Such risks can be represented as the variations of key performance indicators 

(KPIs) such as total production lead time, supply chain availability. Given the configuration of a 

supply chain, some modules can have a higher impact on the KPIs than others. By identifying the 

“bad actors” for KPI and redesigning the configuration of supply chain the manufacturing-related 

supply chain risks can be minimized. However, once the product design is fixed the 

manufacturer would have limited flexibility to execute such changes. Considering that the 

configuration of the supply chain is ultimately dictated by the synthesis of product functions 

and/or modules, such decisions regarding supply chain needs to be incorporated into the early 

stages of product design. 

Finally, interoperability and creation of supply chain redundancies, identification and 

development of suppliers who can be flexible with speedy deliveries, all come at increased costs. 

Given this, it is important to prioritize which design components need to be modular and 

interoperable and which components need to be designed with redundancy consideration in the 

supply chain. It is argued that cost is only one aspect of consideration for such prioritization. It is 

also important to understand the role the component or component system plays in determining 

market demand (e.g., Wang et al. 2011; Williams et al. 2011). This can be performed in two 
258

complementary ways. First, it is important to determine how much customers value the different 

functionalities inherent in the product. Extant research (e.g., Ofek and Srinivasan 2002) provides 

some economic based approaches to determine how much consumers are willing to pay for 

different functionality, and one can adopt such methods to “price” functionalities and through 

them to price the different components. Second, the value of components can be determined 

through the development of scenarios as to how consumers would change their choices if the 

firm’s products were to have reduced functionality or non-availability for a period of time. Using 

demand modeling of consumer choices, such scenarios should provide alternate methods to price 

the components. Combining the costs of interoperability and supply chain modifications with 

tradeoffs against the benefits (values) of the components will allow the firm to develop metrics 

such as value per dollar of cost to prioritize the components for interoperability and supply chain 

efforts.

4. References

Appelqvist, P., Lehtonen J. M., and Kokkonen, F., 2004, “Modeling in Product and Supply 

Chain Design: Literature Survey and Case Study,” Journal of Manufacturing Technology 

Management, 15(7), pp. 675-686.

Dahmus, J.B., Gonzalez-Zugasti, J.P., and Otto, K.N., 2001, “Modular Product Architecture,” 

Design Studies, 22(5), pp. 409-424.

Fisher, M. L., 1997, “What is the Right Supply Chain for Your Product,” Harvard Business 

Review, Reprint Number 97205.

Fixson, S. K., 2005, “Product Architecture Assessment: A Tool to Link Product, Process and 

Supply Chain Design Decisions,” Journal of Operations Management, 23, pp 345-369.

Huang G. Q., Zhang X. Y., and Liang L., 2005, “Toward Integrated Optimal Configuration of 

Platform Products, Manufacturing Processes, and Supply Chains,” Journal of Production 

Management, 23, pp. 267-290.

Kota, S., Sethuraman, K., and Miller, R., 2000, “A Metric for Evaluating Design Commonality 

in Product Families,” Journal of Mechanical Design, 122(4), pp. 403-410.

Murphy, M., 2012, “Reinforcing the Supply Chain: Disasters Spur Companies to Assess 

Potential for Disruptions,” The Wall Street Journal, January 11.

Ofek, E., and Srinivasan, V., 2002, “How Much Does the Market Value an Improvement in a 

Product Attribute?” Marketing Science, 21(4) , pp. 398–411.

Ramani, K., 2009, “Sustainable Early Design Methods,” NIST Workshop on Sustainable 

Manufacturing: Metrics, Standards, and Infrastructure, Gaithersburg, MD, October 13-15.

Suh, N.P., 1990, The Principles of Design, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.

Tolk, A., and Muguira, J. A., 2003, “The Levels of Conceptual Interoperability Model”, 2003 

Fall Simulation Interoperability Workshop, Orlando, Florida, September.

Wang, Z., 2012, “Strategic Product Design Decisions for Uncertain, Converging and Service 

Oriented Markets,” Ph.D. Thesis, University of Maryland, College Park, MD.

Wang, Z., S. Azarm, and P. K. Kannan, 2011, “Strategic Design Decisions for Uncertain Market 

Systems Using an Agent Based Approach,” Journal of Mechanical Design, 133(4), pp. 

041003-1 to 041003-11.

Wang, W., Azarm, S., and Kannan, P.K., 2014, “Design for Upstream and Downstream Market 

Systems with Interoperability Considerations,” ASME International Design Engineering 

Technical Conferences, Buffalo, NY (to appear).
259

Williams, N., P. K. Kannan, and S. Azarm, 2011, “Retail Channel Structure Impact on Strategic 

Engineering Product Design,” Management Science, 57(5), pp. 897-914.
260

[This page is internationally left blank]
261

Wei, Hsi-Hsien, and Miroslaw J. Skibniewski, University of Maryland

Catastrophe Modeling for Assessing Sustainability of Hazard Mitigation

Abstract

While the economic and social performance of natural hazard mitigation have been widely 

investigated and understood, the environmental performance has not been fully recognized due 

to its inherent unpredictability and lack of reliable measurement methodology. As a result, the 

suitability of hazard mitigation cannot be fully assessed due to the lack of consideration on its 

environmental impacts, such as embodied energy, waste generation and greenhouse gas emission 

(CO2) from demolition of damaged buildings and reconstruction of new buildings. Therefore, a 

standardized methodology and metrics for assessing environmental impacts is needed to conduct 

a comprehensive assessment on sustainability of hazard mitigation. 

The particular objectives of this study are to: (1) identify factors affecting sustainability of 

hazard mitigation in terms of environmental impact, (2) measure environmental performance of 

hazard mitigation using life cycle greenhouse emission analysis with considering all 

aforementioned factors, and (3) verify the applicability of the present methodology by a case 

study. This study intends to provide public decision makers and stakeholders with a standardized 

methodology for measuring the environmental performance of seismic mitigation so that a 

comprehensive seismic mitigation strategy can be developed to achieve sustainable development.

Keywords

Catastrophe Modeling, Greenhouse Emission, Hazard Mitigation, HAZUS, Seismic Risk 

Assessment, Sustainability

1. Background

1.1. The Triple Bottom Lines of Sustainability

The concept of sustainability is defined by the triple bottom lines- economic, social and 

environmental aspects (USGBC 2008). The three lines determine the goal of sustainability. The 

economic bottom line produces a long-term, positive economic impact. The social bottom line 

improves human lives. Environmental bottom line determines the benefit to the natural

environment by removing negative externalities to the environment.

1.2. Performance Measures

A performance measure is a means of quantifying the consequences associated with the response 

of a system to hazards in terms that are meaningful to stakeholders (Hamburger et al. 2012). In 

the Next-Generation Building Seismic Performance Assessment Methodology developed by 

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA 2012), performance of a build in seismic

events us expressed as the resulting consequences using following performance measures: (1) 

casualties, including loss of life or injury requiring hospitalization, (2) repair cost, necessary to 

reconstruct or replace a damaged building to its pre-hazard condition, (3) repair time, necessary 

to reconstruct or replace a damaged building to its pre-hazard condition, and (4) unsafe 

placarding, a post-hazard inspection on damaged buildings which poses immediate risk to safety. 

Although the economic and social performances of buildings in a hazard event are recognized by 

those performance measures, the environmental performance is not addressed by any of them. 
262

Therefore, to achieve a comprehensive assessment of sustainability of disaster mitigation by 

considering all three bottom lines, additional metrics, such as embodied energy for 

reconstruction, and waste generation and greenhouse gas emission due to damaged buildings, are 

needed to develop.

1.3. Catastrophe Theory and Modeling

Catastrophe modeling was originally developed in the field of property insurance and the science 

of natural hazards to manage the risks of natural disasters (Grossi et al. 2005). Although it is not 

rooted in any particular field or study, it is convinced by most relevant studies that the 

Framework for Performance-based Earthquake Engineering developed by the Pacific Earthquake 

Engineering Research Center (Moehle and Deierlein 2004) built the foundation of the modern 

catastrophe models. Applying the framework of the catastrophe risk model, a basic hazard 

assessment model can be comprised by four modules: (1) hazard module, characterizing hazards 

in a system at risk to be investigated. In this study, a ground motion hazard is defined by its 

location, magnitude and frequency of occurrence; (2) inventory module, collecting data of 

geological characteristics such as site effects and soil attenuation for calculating local seismic 

intensity, and data of built environment such as occupancy types and building structural types; 

(3) vulnerability module, calculating social and physical vulnerability of built environment 

exposed to hazard. The social vulnerability generally includes social-economic information like 

income, ethnicity, age or ownership of property. The information of social vulnerability is the 

main factor in estimating the number of displaced household and temporary shelters after 

earthquakes. Physical vulnerability is usually defined by the fragility curve of a structure, which 

determines the expected building damage in a particular level of seismic intensity; and (4) loss 

module, evaluating the loss to the inventory by interpreting its corresponding vulnerability to the 

hazard. Losses, characterized as direct or indirect, can then be assessed in terms of social, 

economic and environmental losses. Adopting the four modules of catastrophe model, the state 

of damage of a building during an earthquake and the consequences of that damage, which is 

represented by its three performance measures, is determined by all aforementioned factors.

2. Methodology

2.1. Seismic Risk Assessment Tools

Several hazard risk assessment methodologies have been developed based on the typical seismic 

risk assessment model. (Erdik et al. 2005) and (Korkmaz 2009) provided losses assessment 

models for long-term disaster management considering probabilistic seismic hazards. Also, 

different methodologies and frameworks for seismic loss estimation have been developed and 

used to conduct a benefit-cost analysis for different seismic retrofit alternatives (Smyth et al. 

2004), (Kappos and Dimitrakopoulos 2008) and (Valcárcel et al. 2013). Correspondingly, a 

number of standardized software packages have been developed with friendly user-interface and 

open-source database. Most also utilize Geographic Information System (GIS) in presenting the 

geographic distribution of losses for analyzing particular issues like emergency facilities layout.

2.2. HAZUS Methodology and Application

Hazard United States (HAZUS), developed by the US Federal Emergency Management Agency, 

is a free standardized GIS-based risk assessment tool for hazard analysis and it have been widely 

validated for its applicability in the U.S. (Kircher et al. 2006) (Tantala et al. 2008) (Schmidtlein 

et al. 2011) (Remo and Pinter 2012) (Rein and Corotis 2013). Despite the fact that HAZUS was 

originally designed for the use in the United States, this standardized seismic risk estimation 
263

software has been adopted and validated worldwide because it was possible to allow for its 

modification for international use (Gulati 2006) (Peterson and Small 2012) (Ploeger et al. 2010). 

The possibility to supplant the databases and to modify the default functions with local 

parameters forms the basis for the application of HAZUS in an international setting. Therefore, 

adopting HAZUS for an international local scale setting requires careful performance of a series 

of operations with each module. HAZUS comprises four major modules: hazard identification, 

built environment inventory, physical and socio-economic vulnerability, and the loss module. 

The estimated loss is calculated by linking the hazard scenario to the inventory collection with 

consideration of its vulnerability. The output of loss estimation includes the number of damaged 

buildings at different levels of damage, the number of casualties, injuries, displaced households

and shelters, the amount of generated debris, and both direct and indirect economic losses.

2.3. Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Analysis for Reconstruction and Replacement

In a process of building construction, greenhouse gas (CO2) emissions come mainly from sources 

that can be placed in four categories: site preparation, material production, equipment usage and 

waste management (Liu et al. 2012). In this study, a similar framework is modified to the needs 

of the process of post-hazard reconstruction of damaged buildings, as depicted in Fig.1.

Figure 1. Scheme of the life cycle greenhouse gas analysis for post-hazard reconstruction

Emissions from Equipment Usage - The CO2 emission based on equipment usage is affected 

by the type of equipment used, its operation hours and consumption of fuel during construction 

work. The equation is for any building model type under any repair/rebuild stage, including 

slight, moderate, extensive and complete stage.

GHG Emission by Equipment Usage: 

EE = ∑(∑EDim ∙ FRElm

m

) ∙ FEl

l

i: Repair/Rebuild stage

l: Fuel Type (Electricity included)

m: Equipment Type

Site Preparation Material Production Equipment Usage Waste Management  Production of raw materials  Transportation of materials to sites  Soil movement  Waste movement  Demolition of collapsed buildings  Reconstruction and repaire  Waste from collapsed buildings  Waste from reconstruction buildings

Total Project Emission
264

EDim Net Operation Duration for Equipment m in Repair/Rebuild 

Stage i

hrs

FEl CO2 Emission Factor for Fuel Type l tons/gal

FRElm Fuel Type l’s Requirement for Using Equipment m for unit 

time period

gals/hr

Emissions from Material Usage - The CO2 emission based on material usage is mainly affected 

by the type of material used for a construction work. The equation is for any building model type 

under any repair/rebuild stage.

EM = ∑QSij ∙ EMj

j

i: Repair/Rebuild stage

j: Material Type

QSij Quantity of Material j for Repair/Rebuild Stage i tons

EMj Embodied CO2 Emission for Material j 1

Emissions from Transportation - The CO2 emission based on transportation can be affected by 

several factors, such as the quantity of material or waste transported to/from construction site and 

the distance of transportation. The equation is for any building model type under any 

repair/rebuild stage.

ET = ∑[∑(∑

MTjk

Ck

∙ DMjk

j

+ ∑

WTkn

Ck

∙ DWkn

n

) ∙ FRTkl

k

] ∙ FEl

l

s.t.∑MTjk

k

= QSij,∀j;

∑WTkn

k

= Win, ∀n

i: Repair/Rebuild stage

j: Material Type

k: Transportation Type

l: Fuel Type (Electricity included)

n: Waste Type
265

QSij Quantity of Material j for Repair/Rebuild Stage i tons

Win Quantity of Waste n Collected from Demolition/Waste 

Management in Repair/Rebuild Stage i

tons

DMjk Transporting Distance for Material j from Source to Site Using 

Transportation Method k

miles

Ck Transporting Capacity for Each Unit of Transportation Method 

k

tons

FRTkl Fuel l’s Requirement for Transportation k for unit distance gals/mile

FEl CO2 Emission Factor for Fuel Type l tons/gal

MTjk Quantity of Material j Transported from Source to Site Using 

Transportation Method k

tons

WTkn Quantity of Waste n Disposed from Site to Plant Using 

Transportation Method k

tons

Total CO2 Emission Calculation - The net CO2 emission for one rehabilitation or rebuild 

project can be calculated by summing up the GHG emission from equipment usage, material 

usage and transportation in all activities of the work. 

E = ∑ (EE + EM + ET)

building activity

Emissions from Site Preparation – This section outlines a systematic approach for calculating 

CO2 emissions resulting from carbon stock changes in biomass, dead organic matter and mineral 

soils, for all managed lands. The six top-level categories of land use form the basis of this 

estimation - forest land, cropland, grassland, wetlands, settlements and other land. The categories 

are broad enough to classify all land areas in most countries and to accommodate differences in 

national land-use classification systems, and can be identified through use of approaches 

provided by Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Eggleston et al. 2006). Emissions 

from soil movement: although both organic and inorganic forms of C are found in soils, land-use 

conversion typically has a larger impact on organic C stocks (Eggleston et al. 2006). Where the 

organic matter had been removed, the annual CO2 efflux rates measured from the mineral soil are 

lowered to around 314 g CO2/m2, accounting for 1.6% of the soil carbon pools. On the other 

hand, site preparation enhances the rate of decomposition by forming mounds, the mix of organic 

material with mineral soil.

Emissions from Material Production – This section outlines a systematic approach for 

calculating CO2 emissions resulting from materials manufacture. CO2 emissions from materials 

manufacture mean mainly embodied CO2 emissions in construction materials. Embodied CO2 

emissions are primarily from materials’ stoichiometric relationships based on respective 

chemical compositions and energy consumption for manufacture installations before transporting 

to construction sites.

Emissions from Equipment Usage – This section outlines a systematic approach for calculating 

CO2 emissions resulting from the operation of off-road equipment. CO2 emissions from 
266

equipment operation are estimated from the daily use hours, operation duration, and equipmentspecific parameters, such as emission factor and horsepower. 

In this study, adopting HAZUS software to fully assess the sustainability of hazard mitigation 

considering all three aspects: social, economic and environmental performances, we first 

evaluate the seismicity of the study area through careful consideration of soil condition and 

attenuation function. Next, the data of building inventory and demographics data are collected. 

Finally, adopting the aforementioned life cycle greenhouse gas methodology, the embodied 

energy for reconstruction and waste generation and green gas emission can be obtained by 

analyzing the output of HAZUS including the number of damaged buildings and generated 

debris and the number of needed shelters.

3. Research Needs and Conclusions

Much research has been performed in the last few years on the application of information 

technologies for greenhouse gas emissions monitoring and control in relation to various aspects 

of engineering and construction processes. Examples of such recent works include Wong et al. 

(2013), Hasan et al. (2013), Jaillon and Poon (2013), Pignataro et al. (2014) and Akbarnezhad et 

al. (2014). However, the majority of these studies mainly focused on new construction process 

but did not address the environmental impact of construction activities in hazard mitigation 

process, which includes demolishment and waste generation of collapsed buildings, and repair or 

reconstruction for damaged buildings. 

The issues and problems presented in this paper point at the fragmentation of effort among the 

research and development community and at the need to develop a comprehensive approach to 

the use of consistent metrics in hazard mitigation works. This need requires development of a 

new quantitative analysis toolbox to allow engineering practitioners a reliable collection and 

processing of design documentation and field data for the purpose of determining various 

environmentally relevant parameters related to environmental performance of hazard mitigation 

activities. Together with the catastrophe modeling and life cycle greenhouse gas analysis, the 

relevance and applicability of existing software environments such as HAZUS for triple bottom 

line determination should be considered, but new approaches taking advantage of the latest data 

modeling and processing, and web-based communication technologies should be explored to 

their full potential.

4. References

Akbarnezhad, A., Ong, K. and Chandra, L. (2014), "Economic and environmental assessment of 

deconstruction strategies using building information modeling", Automation in Construction, 

Vol. 37, pp. 131-44.

Eggleston, S., Buendia, L., Miwa, K., Ngara, T. and Tanabe, K. (2006), "IPCC guidelines for 

national greenhouse gas inventories", Institute for Global Environmental Strategies, Hayama, 

Japan.

Erdik, M., Rashidov, T., Safak, E. and Turdukulov, A. (2005), "Assessment of seismic risk in 

Tashkent, Uzbekistan and Bishkek, Kyrgyz Republic", Soil Dynamics and Earthquake 

Engineering, Vol. 25 No. 7, pp. 473-86.

FEMA. (2012), "Seismic Performance Assessment of Buildings, FEMA P-58", Federal 

Emergency Management Agency.
267

Grossi, P., Kunreuther, H. and Patel, C.C. (2005), "Catastrophe Modeling: A New Approach to 

Managing Risk", Springer.

Gulati, B. (2006), "Earthquake risk assessment of buildings: applicability of HAZUS in 

Dehradun, India", in Enschede, ITC.

Hamburger, R., Rojahn, C., Heintz, J. and Mahoney, M. (2012), "FEMA P58: Next-Generation 

Building Seismic Performance Assessment Methodology", Fifteenth World Conference on 

Earthquake Engineering, Lisbon, Portugal.

Hasan, S., Bouferguene, A., Al-Hussein, M., Gillis, P. and Telyas, A. (2013), "Productivity and 

CO2 emission analysis for tower crane utilization on high-rise building projects", 

Automation in Construction, Vol. 31, pp. 255-264.

Jaillon, L. and Poon, C. (2013), "Life cycle design and prefabrication in buildings: A review and 

case studies in Hong Kong", Automation in Construction, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 195-202.

Kappos, A.J. and Dimitrakopoulos, E. (2008), "Feasibility of pre-earthquake strengthening of 

buildings based on cost-benefit and life-cycle cost analysis, with the aid of fragility curves", 

Natural hazards, Vol. 45 No. 1, pp. 33-54.

Kircher, C.A., Seligson, H.A., Bouabid, J. and Morrow, G.C. (2006), "When the Strikes Again 

Estimated Losses due to a Repeat of the 1906 San Francisco Earthquake", Earthquake 

Spectra, Vol. 22, pp. S297.

Korkmaz, K.A. (2009), "Earthquake disaster risk assessment and evaluation for Turkey", 

Environmental Geology, Vol. 57 No. 2, pp. 307-320.

Liu, X., Hsu, S. and Cui, Q. (2012), "Carbon Accounting Protocol in Construction", paper 

presented at Carbon Management Technology Conference, 7-9 February 2012, Orlando, 

Florida, USA.

Moehle, J. and Deierlein, G.G. (2004), "A framework methodology for performance-based 

earthquake engineering", in Proceedings of the 13th World Conference on Earthquake 

Engineering, pp. 3812-14.

Peterson, J. and Small, M.J. (2012), "Methodology for benefit–cost analysis of seismic codes", 

Natural hazards, Vol. 63 No. 2, pp. 1039-1053.

Pignataro, M.A., Lobaccaro, G. and Zani, G. (2014), "Digital and physical models for the 

validation of sustainable design strategies", Automation in Construction, Vol. 39, pp. 1-14.

Ploeger, S., Atkinson, G. and Samson, C. (2010), "Applying the HAZUS-MH software tool to 

assess seismic risk in downtown Ottawa, Canada", Natural hazards, Vol. 53 No. 1, pp. 1-20.

Rein, A. and Corotis, R.B. (2013), "An overview approach to seismic awareness for a 

“quiescent” region", Natural hazards, Vol. 67 No. 2, pp. 1-29.

Remo, J.W. and Pinter, N. (2012), "Hazus-MH earthquake modeling in the central USA", 

Natural hazards, Vol. 63 No. 2, pp. 1055-1081.

Schmidtlein, M.C., Shafer, J.M., Berry, M. and Cutter, S.L. (2011), "Modeled earthquake losses 

and social vulnerability in Charleston, South Carolina", Applied Geography, Vol. 31 No. 1, 

pp. 269-281.

Smyth, A.W., Altay, G., Deodatis, G., Erdik, M., Franco, G., Gulkan, P., Kunreuther, H., Lus, 

H., Mete, E. and Seeber, N. (2004), "Probabilistic benefit-cost analysis for earthquake 

damage mitigation: Evaluating measures for apartment houses in Turkey", Earthquake 

Spectra, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 171-203.

Tantala, M.W., Nordenson, G.J., Deodatis, G. and Jacob, K. (2008), "Earthquake loss estimation 

for the New York City metropolitan region", Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 

Vol. 28 No. 10, pp. 812-835.
268

USGBC. (2008), "LEED 2009 for Existing Building: Operations & Maintenance Rating 

System", US Green Building Council.

Valcárcel, J.A., Mora, M.G., Cardona, O.D., Pujades, L.G., Barbat, A.H. and Bernal, G.A. 

(2013), "Methodology and applications for the benefit cost analysis of the seismic risk 

reduction in building portfolios at broadscale", Natural hazards, Vol. 69 No. 1, pp. 845-868.

Wong, J.K., Li, H., Wang, H., Huang, T., Luo, E. and Li, V. (2013), "Toward low-carbon 

construction processes: the visualisation of predicted emission via virtual prototyping 

technology", Automation in Construction, Vol. 33, pp. 72-78.
269

Wright, Richard N., and Bilal M. Ayyub, University of Maryland

Measurement Needs for Adaptation to Climate Change

Abstract

Advances in measurement science are needed for the building community to provide facilities 

and systems that will be functional, safe and sustainable throughout the 21st century while 

exposed to changing climate, weather and their extremes. Uncertainties in projections for 

climate, weather and their extremes are described, robust decision making strategies are 

recommended to deal with the uncertainties, and cooperative research involving climate 

scientists and the building community is recommended to meet the measurement needs.

Keywords

Buildings, Climate, Design, Extremes, Infrastructure, Weather

1. Background

Weather, climate and extreme events are key considerations in sustainability of the built 

environment. Weather is defined as “the state of the atmosphere with respect to wind, 

temperature, cloudiness, moisture, pressure, etc.” (NWS, 2013). Weather generally refers to 

short-term variations on the order of minutes to about 15 days (NSIDC, 2012). Climate, on the 

other hand, “is usually defined as the average weather, or more rigorously, as the statistical 

description in terms of the mean and variability of relevant quantities over a period of time 

ranging from months to thousands or millions of years” (IPCC, 2007). An extreme event is a 

weather event that is rare at a particular place and time of year (IPCC, 2007). For instance for 

Washington Reagan National Airport on June 25 (Washington Post June 26, 2013): the normal 

high temperature is 87oF (climate), the high on June 25, 2013 was 93oF (weather) and the record 

high was 100oF in 1997 (extreme event).

Scientists have reached a consensus that weather, climate and extreme events of the past 

generally will not be representative of those of the future. Moreover, climate science is not able 

to precisely forecast the climate, weather and extreme events of future decades. This nonstationarity and uncertainty pose a challenge to those who design, construct, operate and 

maintain the built environment because their standards are based on the assumptions of 

stationary - climate, weather and extreme events as observed in the past. The Committee on 

Adaptation to a Changing Climate (CACC) of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) 

is addressing this challenge in its white paper Bridging the Gap between Climate Change Science 

and Civil Engineering Practice (ASCE 2014). The purpose of this paper is to describe the 

measurement needs for support of the building community’s response to the challenge.

Two recent reports summarize current knowledge of weather, climate and extreme events and the 

links between the science and decision making.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the leading international body for the 

assessment of climate change. It was established by the United Nations Environment Programme 

(UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in 1988 to provide the world with a 

clear scientific view on the current state of knowledge in climate change and its potential 
270

environmental and socio-economic impacts. Table 1 shows the recent, qualitative IPCC 

assessment, based on observations and global climate models, of future weather and extreme 

events relevant to structural engineering design (IPCC 2012). Additional information is 

available in the Fifth Assessment Report (IPCC 2014).

The U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) involves thirteen federal agencies, is led 

in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, and has prepared the Third 

National Climate Assessment (NCA 2014). The NCA was prepared by the National Climate 

Assessment and Development Advisory Committee involving over 240 authors including climate 

and social scientists and engineers. It has sustainability-related chapters on urban systems, 

infrastructure and vulnerability, U.S. regions, mitigation and adaptation. 

Figure 1, U.S. Average Temperature Projections, taken from (NCA 2014), illustrates both the 

potential significance of climate change for the built environment and why climate science 

cannot now quantitatively forecast future climate, weather and extreme events.

The solid line for the 20th century shows an increasing trend, amounting to about 2oF for the 

century, with the observed variations from the trend as large as 2o F. The projections for the 

21st century are derived from global climate models which consider a variety of scenarios for 

economic development and control of green house gas emissions (Moss et al. 2010). The lowest 

curve is based on green house gas concentrations peaking at 490 ppm carbon dioxide (CO2) 

equivalent and then declining; it leads to an additional 2oF increase in U.S. average temperature 

in the 21st century. The highest curve is based on emissions continuing to produce green house 

gas concentration of 1370 CO2 equivalent in 2100; it leads to an additional 9oF increase. The 

historical trend of atmospheric CO2 is shown in Figure 2. The CO2 data (red curve), measured as 

the mole fraction in dry air, on Mauna Loa constitute the longest record of direct measurements 

of CO2 in the atmosphere. The black curve represents the seasonally corrected data. 

Greenhouse gas emissions in the 21st century will depend upon worldwide private and public 

policy decisions and actions, which are unpredictable, but can be represented by scenarios such 

as those used in preparing Figure 1. 
271

Table 1 Extreme Events from IPCC (2012)

Physical Impact Observed Changes Projected Changes

Temperature Very likely decrease in number of unusually cold days 

and nights at the global scale. Very likely increase in 

number of unusually warm days and nights at the global 

scale. Medium confidence in increase in length or 

number of warm spells or heat waves in many (but not 

all) regions. Low or medium confidence in trends in 

temperature extremes in some subregions due either to 

lack of observations or varying signal within subregions.

Virtually certain decrease in frequency and magnitude 

of unusually cold days and nights at the global scale. 

Virtually certain increase in frequency and magnitude of 

unusually warm days and nights at the global scale. Very 

likely increase in length, frequency, and/or intensity of 

warm spells or heat waves over most land areas.

Precipitation Likely statistically significant increases in the number of 

heavy precipitation events (e.g., 95th percentile) in more 

regions than those with statistically significant 

decreases, but strong regional and subregional variations 

in the trends.

Likely increase in frequency of heavy precipitation 

events or increase in proportion of total rainfall from 

heavy falls over many areas of the globe, in particular in 

the high latitudes and tropical regions, and in winter in 

the northern mid-latitudes. 

Winds Low confidence in trends due to insufficient evidence. Low confidence in projections of extreme winds (with 

the exception of wind extremes associated with tropical 

cyclones).

Tropical 

Cyclones

Low confidence that any observed long-term (i.e., 40 

years or more) increases in tropical cyclone activity are 

robust, after accounting for past changes in observing 

capabilities.

Likely decrease or no change in frequency of tropical 

cyclones. Likely increase in mean maximum wind speed, 

but possibly not in all basins. Likely increase in heavy 

rainfall associated with tropical cyclones.

Extratropical 

Cyclones

Likely poleward shift in extratropical cyclones. Low 

confidence in regional changes in intensity.

Likely impacts on regional cyclone activity but low 

confidence in detailed regional projections due to only 

partial representation of relevant processes in current 

models. Medium confidence in a reduction in the 

numbers of mid-latitude storms.

Droughts Medium confidence that some regions of the world have 

experienced more intense and longer droughts, in 

particular in southern Europe and West Africa, but 

opposite trends also exist. [

Medium confidence in projected increase in duration and 

intensity of droughts in some regions of the world, 

including southern Europe and the Mediterranean 

region, central Europe, central North America, Central 

America and Mexico, northeast Brazil, and southern 

Africa. Overall low confidence elsewhere because of 

insufficient agreement of projections.

Floods Limited to medium evidence available to assess climatedriven observed changes in the magnitude and frequency 

of floods at regional scale. Furthermore, there is low 

agreement in this evidence, and thus overall low 

confidence at the global scale regarding even the sign of 

these changes. High confidence in trend toward earlier 

occurrence of spring peak river flows in snowmelt- and 

glacier-fed rivers.

Low confidence in global projections of changes in flood 

magnitude and frequency because of insufficient 

evidence. Medium confidence (based on physical 

reasoning) that projected increases in heavy 

precipitation would contribute to rain-generated local 

flooding in some catchments or regions. Very likely

earlier spring peak flows in snowmelt- and glacier-fed 

rivers.

Extreme Sea 

Level and 

Coastal Impacts

Likely increase in extreme coastal high water worldwide 

related to increases in mean sea level in the late 20th 

century.

Very likely that mean sea level rise will contribute to 

upward trends in extreme coastal high water levels. High 

confidence that locations currently experiencing coastal 

erosion and inundation will continue to do so due to 

increasing sea level, in the absence of changes in other 

contributing factors.

Other Impacts 

(Landslides and 

Cold Regions)

Low confidence in global trends in large landslides in 

some regions. Likely increased thawing of permafrost 

with likely resultant physical impacts.

High confidence that changes in heavy precipitation will 

affect landslides in some regions. High confidence that 

changes in heat waves, glacial retreat, and/or permafrost 

degradation will affect high mountain phenomena such 

as slope instabilities, mass movements, and glacial lake 

outburst floods.
272

Figure 1. U.S. Average Temperature Projections (NCA 2014)

Figure 2. Atmospheric CO2 at Mauna Loa Observatory 

(http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/)
273

2. Measurement Needs of the Building Community

The writers have been working with the ASCE Committee on Adaptation to a Changing Climate 

(CACC) to develop the white paper Bridging the Gap between Climate Change Science and 

Civil Engineering Practice (ASCE 2014). Its purpose is to:

 Foster understanding and transparency of analytical methods necessary to update and 

describe climate, weather and extreme events for planning and engineering design of the 

built and natural environments.

 Identify (and evaluate) methods to assess impacts and vulnerabilities caused by changing 

climate conditions on the built and natural environments

 Promote development and communication of best practices for addressing uncertainties 

associated with changing conditions, including climate, weather, extreme events and the 

nature and extent of the built and natural environments, in civil engineering practice.

The CACC study has evaluated methods for uncertainty analysis and transforming uncertainties 

into robust designs (related to the cascading uncertainties associated with vulnerability 

assessments and climate change science). Engineers use statistical methods to quantify 

uncertainty for empirical probability distributions used in engineering design. However, the 

uncertainty associated with climate projections is not completely quantifiable and, therefore, if it 

is to be used in engineering practice it will require engineering judgment. Decision methods that 

account for this uncertainty may be employed, such as robust decision making (Groves and 

Lempert, 2007; Groves et al, 2008; Lempert et al., 2003). One approach to decision making is to 

choose robust alternatives that do well across a range of possible future conditions. The 

mathematical objective here could be to “minimize the maximum regret,” where regret is the 

difference between a plan’s payoff in a given scenario and the payoff of the best performing plan 

under that same scenario. In common usage, low regret strategies are policies that would work 

well under both the current climate and an uncertain future climate.

3. Recommendations

Engineers and other building community professionals should join in research with climate and 

weather scientists to improve observations and develop integrated models for climate, weather 

and extreme events at local levels (National Academies 2012), which can give probabilistic 

guidance for the conditions for which facilities and systems should be designed, constructed, 

operated and maintained.

Measurement science should be advanced to systematically inform practices and standards 

implementing robust and sustainable decision making strategies for the facilities and systems of 

the built environment contributing to and affected by climate change.

The quantification of uncertainty in trends, projections and predictions is necessary as a basis for 

risk-informed decision making. Appropriate methods for this purpose and quantifications are 

necessary for bridging the gap between science and engineering.

Understanding and measuring interdependence among temperature, precipitation, winds, 

cyclones, droughts, floods, etc. are necessary for addressing sustainability issues. For example, 

Lombardo and Ayyub (2014) recently examined the correlation between high temperature and 

low wind for heat wave cases in order examine and urban heat islands.
274

4. References

ASCE (2014) “Bridging the Gap between Climate Change Science and Civil Engineering 

Practice,” ASCE Committee on Adaptation to a Changing Climate, will be available later in 

2014 on the ASCE web site.

IPCC (2012) “Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change 

Adaptation,” Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, available at www.ipcc.ch.

IPCC (2014) “Fifth Assessment Report,” Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, available 

at www.ipcc.ch.

Groves, D.G., and R.J. Lempert, (2007). “A new analytic method for finding policy-relevant 

scenarios,” Global Environmental Change 17: 73-85.

Groves, D. G., D. Yates, and C. Tebaldi, (2008). Developing and Applying Uncertain Global 

Climate Change Projections for Regional Water Management Planning,” Water Resources 

Research, 44, W12413, doi:10.1029/2008WR006964, 2008.

Lempert, R. J., S.W. Popper, and S.C. Bankes, (2003). Shaping the Next One Hundred Years 

New Methods for Quantitative Long-Term Policy Analysis, Rand Corporation.

Lombardo, F., and Ayyub, B. M., (2014) “Climate Change Adaptation: Wind and Temperature 

Extremes for Washington, DC,” ASCE-ASME J. of Risk and Uncertainty in Engineering 

Systems, to be submitted.

Moss, et.al. (2010), “The next generation of scenarios for climate change research and 

assessment,” Nature, 463, 747-756, [Available online at: 

http://emf.stanford.edu/files/docs/262/nature08823_proof1(2).pdf] 

National Academies (2012). A National Strategy for Advancing Climate Modeling, National 

Academies Press.

NCA (2014) “Third National Climate Assessment,” available at http://www.globalchange.gov/

NSIDC (2012) Arctic Climatology and Meteorology Glossary 

(http://nsidc.org/arcticmet/glossary/weather.html; accessed October 9, 2012).

NWS (2013) National Weather Service Glossary (http://w1.weather.gov/glossary/; accessed on 

March 14, 2013.
275

Yudelson, Jerry, Green Building Initiative, Portland, Oregon

Problems with Measuring and Achieving High-Performance Green 

Buildings: Case Studies from 18 Countries

Abstract

This paper presents results of a two-year investigation by the author and a colleague into the 

measured energy performance of nonresidential buildings around the world that achieved the 

highest ratings in third-party certifications (e.g., in the US, LEED Platinum). The research 

reported on 55 projects in 18 countries, in buildings ranging from approx. 5,000 sq.m. (50,000 

sq.ft.) to approx. 50,000 sq.m. (500,000 sq.ft.), with building types ranging from commercial 

office and corporate headquarters, to university and government facilities. The research also 

investigated the basis for high-performance design in terms of design process. Based on results 

of this research, the author concludes that in a new building project, designers should be able to 

achieve the same energy use as High-Performance buildings around the world, because there is 

nothing magical or geographically specific about good design. What is required is a specific (and 

early) designers’ intention to meet clear numerical targets for energy use, such as an EUI of less 

than 35 (i.e., less than 35,000 BTU/sq.ft./year) prior to subtracting any contributions from onsite 

renewables. Key issues remain in terms of standardizing the measurement of annual energy use, 

with respect to such parameters as occupancy, weather, process loads and occupant engagement.

Keywords

Green building, energy use, LEED, high-performance design, energy efficiency, design process

1. Background

For two years, my colleague Ulf Meyer and I worked on a book, The World’s Greenest 

Buildings: Promise vs Performance in Sustainable Design (London and New York: Routledge 

Taylor & Francis, 2013), published in January of 2013. We were interested particularly in 

reviewing high-performance green buildings from both the US and Canada, as well as those from 

Europe and the Asia/Pacific region, to see if we could discern some “universal” goals for green 

building projects. We aimed at getting operating data from LEED Platinum (or equivalent 

buildings) built since 2003 that represented non-residential typologies and were at least 50,000 

square feet in size, in other words, the typical commercial/institutional building type.

In many ways, this work was a follow-on to my 2009 book, Green Building Trends: Europe 

(Island Press), which looked specifically at European examples and focused on particularly green 

building technologies and design approaches. What we found was a series of great examples of 

sustainable design and a lively tradition of such buildings that went back 15 years or more. But 

what was lacking was real information on actual performance. In other words, the same problem 

is in Europe (and elsewhere): a lack of solid information on actual field performance that would 

help us link design approaches with actual energy and water use. So the most recent effort 

attempts to remedy that deficiency.

The most surprising result of our two years of research: how few “high performance” buildings 

were actually willing (or even able) to share operating results, even those built on university 

campuses or for government agencies, which should in theory be more open about such matters. 
276

In fact, nothing in law or professional practice compels building owners to share results, but how 

are designers supposed to do a better job without feedback from actual operating data? (To my 

mind, it is a scandal that the standard AIA contract does not require building owners to disclose 

operating data to the Building Team and to allow them to publish it, a change that AIA could 

easily make in support of its commitment to the 2030 Challenge.)

Fortunately, the landscape is shifting dramatically, partly as a result of a number of local 

initiatives in large cities requiring buildings over 50,000-sq.ft. to disclose operating data in 

publicly accessible databases. (California’s AB 1103 law now requires energy use disclosure but 

only when a whole building is sold or leased, so it’s going to be a while before we have any 

significant data from that mandate.) But if we could fast forward to 2015, we’re likely to have 

much more data to feed back to building designers, contractors, owners and operators.

In The World’s Greenest Buildings, we did our best to locate and solicit data from 55 highperformance projects from 18 countries in the three major regions of the world where sustainable 

design has taken off: North America, Europe and Asia/Pacific, especially Australia. In fact, we 

were able to gather building operating data from projects in 18 countries in these regions and to 

compare it within a region and across regions.

Here are five key findings from the book:

1. In a new building project, designers should be able to achieve the same energy and water 

use as High Performance buildings around the world, because there is nothing magical or 

geographically specific about good design. What is required is a specific (and early) 

designers’ intention to meet clear numerical targets for energy and water use, such as an 

EUI of less than 35 (i.e., less than 35,000 BTU/sq.ft./year) before adding any 

contributions from renewables.

2. What makes high-performance projects stand out is the commitment of owners, designers 

and builders to achieving ‘best in class’ results. The projects we studied were all LEED 

Platinum, which means they started with high-performance energy-efficiency goals. 

What also stands out is the commitment to an integrated design process; it’s almost the 

case that without the right process, one doesn’t get the best outcome.

3. Most surprisingly, high performance green design uses about the same energy 

everywhere in the world, from Northern Europe to the tropics. Typically, once there is a 

good building envelope and efficient HVAC systems, half the building energy use comes 

from plug/process loads and lighting, which tend to be geographically about the same in 

office buildings, leaving only about 15% to 20% for heating/cooling loads. In the 

northern latitudes, most loads are then for heating in winter, and in the tropics most loads 

are for cooling, which more or less balance out over the year.

4. Finally, great green buildings are just as beautiful, if not more so, than ordinary 

performing buildings. Perhaps it is beauty itself that should be our goal in sustainable 

design. One of our core tenets is that there is no inherent conflict between buildings with 

architectural merit and those with a full range of high-performance green characteristics 

(such as represented by LEED Platinum status) and low-energy outcomes.

5. The last finding of our research is that there are no standard definitions of building 

energy use, no good way to find out core energy use from special operations such as 

onsite data centers, retail, food service, etc. In fact, in Australia, we were surprised to find 

that building energy use is typically reported only for the base building, leaving out 
277

tenant loads in commercial offices, a practice that dramatically understates actual energy 

use. (This is the case also in many European countries.) We hope that researchers in this 

field will make sure that we can arrive at common definitions, so that comparisons across 

building types, regions and even countries will become much easier in the future.

2. Energy Use in Case Study Projects

Figures 1a, b and c shows the measured site energy use intensity for case-study buildings, 

organized by region. Operating data is from the individual case studies in The World’s Greenest 

Buildings. For this research project, there was simply neither data nor time to calculate the 

primary (source) energy use for each building, but this can be done by interested researchers. 

Figure 1 shows that certain building types such as research laboratories and healthcare facilities 

have much higher energy use intensities than office or academic buildings, a result to be 

expected.

What one can see in Table 1 and Figures 1a, b, and c, is that most projects’ site energy use 

exceeded 100 kWh/sq m/year (EUI of about 32), although about 20 percent were able to reduce 

that number to 50 or 60 kWh/sq m/year, or even lower23. To reach a truly “stretch” goal of 100 

kWh/sq m/year of primary (source) energy use would require most projects, with such 

technologies as ground-source heat pumps or free cooling from a nearby cold-water body, to 

reduce total energy use to nearly 50 kWh/sq m/year (EUI of 16 kBtu/sq ft/year), an achievable 

number in theory, but not typically achieved in practice. Of course, with on-site solar-power 

generation (or in the case of one building, a neighboring forest set aside for permanent 

conservation and carbon-fixing), it’s possible to have a zero-carbon building with an EUI of 30–

35 Btu/sq ft/year, results achieved at the NREL RSF I building in Golden, Colorado and the 

Singapore Building and Construction Authority’s Zero Energy Building.

Table 1 Median Energy Use Intensity, by Region

Region Energy Number of Examples

Americas 156 kWh/sq.m./year (15 examples)

Europe 135 kWh/sq.m./year (15 examples)

Asia Pacific 158 kWh/sq.m./year (15 examples)

So, for designers, there are now clear targets: achieve at least the median energy use of similar 

LEED Platinum, BREEAM Excellent/Outstanding, 6-Star Green Star buildings in a specific 

geographic region. Of course, many projects now aim at the low end of the energy-use range and 

have a clear goal to match the “best in class” results already obtained in that region. Some 

projects are achieving EUI results below 20 in fully realized commercial office buildings. 24

Beyond actual results, it’s useful to look at what projects should achieve to meet the 2030 

Challenge goals. Table 8.4 shows what these goals would be for 2010, representing a 60 percent 

reduction in energy use from US national averages in 2005. Recall that by 2015 new buildings 

 

23 European results need to be interpreted with some caution because they often include only “regulated” use: 

heating, cooling, hot water, and lighting, which can understand total energy use by one -third or more.

24 Personal communication, Paul Schwer, PAE Consulting Engineers, Portland, Oregon.
278

should be performing 16 percent lower than these levels, to meet the 2030 Challenge goal of a 70 

percent reduction (by 2015). One can see that the median energy use of the world’s greenest 

buildings barely misses the target in Europe and the Americas, but exceeds it by about 15 percent 

in Asia/Pacific, region, demonstrating that in some places the best buildings are on a path toward 

carbon-neutral energy use by 2030, but that in other places, designers, builders and operators still 

have a way to go, to meet even interim energy demand targets.

 

Figures 1a, b, and c. Median Energy Use by Region25

Table 2. 2030 Challenge Target for 2010: 60% Reduction from US National Average26

Building Type Energy Use Intensity 

(1000’s of Btu/sq.ft./year)

Energy Use Intensity 

(kWh/sq.m./a)

Education 30 95

Healthcare – Inpatient 91 287

Office, 10,000-100,000 sq.ft. 36 113

Office, > 100,000 sq.ft. 42 132

 

25 Source: World’s Greenest Buildings, page 200.

26 AIA 2030 Commitment Reporting Tool, www.aia.org/about/initiatives/AIAB079458, accessed February 4, 2012.
279

What does this mean for ASCE, ASME and NIST? Several conclusions emerged from our study 

of building energy use worldwide.

First, building operating-energy needs to be the core of design and operations discussions, if we 

are to meet ambitious goals for “zero net energy buildings” in the US by 2030. This means 

robust metrics and public disclosure of operating energy use.

Second, operating energy needs to be discussed and measured in absolute terms, not in terms of 

‘relative improvement’ or ‘top 25 percentile’ (as in the US EPA Energy Star program). If our 

goal is to reduce carbon emissions, we must go beyond even site energy use measurements and 

include a full carbon accounting in such measures.

Third, it is possible to set absolute performance goals for each building type: for example, we 

should aim at having every office and academic building use less than 35,000 Btu/sq.ft./year for 

“core” uses (i.e., excluding data centers and special process loads such as wet labs), before 

adding any contribution from renewables. In most low rise buildings, the predominant building 

type in the US, this will allow “zero net energy” use in most regions with today’s solar PV 

technology.

Fourth, an integrated design process in new construction is essential for achieving great results. 

High performance projects almost invariably employ some version of this process, which 

typically involves setting energy use goals at the beginning of a project and then evaluating the 

design at each stage to achieve those results.

Finally, we need to look beyond building operating energy use and begin to develop measures of 

total carbon emissions from buildings that also include the life cycle assessment of building 

materials, components and systems; moreover, these measurements need to be normalized for the 

varying carbon emissions from the electric supply grid in different parts of the country.
280

Co-Moderators: I. S. Jawahir and Subhas Sikdar

Outcomes of Breakout Session 1 on Measurement Science

(Definition, Standards, Metrics, Indicators and Ratings)

1. Problems Covered

The participants listed in Appendix A.3 discussed the objective and scope of the breakout session 

and produced the following list of problems and descriptions:

 Lack of clarity on sustainability science and engineering: Bring together physical, 

natural, and social sciences and engineering for defining sustainability

 Challenges in measuring: Identify metrics and requirements for assessing sustainability

 Unmeasurable sustainability values/factors/elements: Find ways of introducing weights 

for these factors/elements 

 Vetting of valuing issues: Develop a framework for incorporating different value 

judgments

 Uncertainty in measurement: Develop methodologies for assessing uncertainty

The remaining sections expands on these five problems discussed.

2. Lack of Clarity on Sustainability Science and Engineering 

Description:

It was felt that there is no clear scope or definition for sustainability that can be found for 

sustainability in the context of science or engineering. It is therefore necessary to bring together

the disciplines of physical, natural, and social sciences and engineering for defining 

sustainability. Sustainability is also not in essence a scientific word, but as sustainability has 

become a rallying cry in anthropogenic activities, which cause environmental, economic, and 

societal impacts, and therefore, we need quantitative methods to assess sustainability. Thus, we 

need to express sustainability in scientific terms. More clarity is needed in defining 

sustainability so that a common ground can be established in evaluating and making judgment on 

sustainability in terms of these impacts. 

Root Cause:

Not all aspects of sustainability is measurable, especially the societal impacts, which depend on 

value judgment.

Multi-facets of sustainability exist. Sustainability involves a system. Establishing a framework 

for agreeing on a definition of system boundary of particular cases is an important task. 

Sustainability also depends on the scale of the system to be assessed. The choice of quantitative 

metrics or indicators for measuring relative sustainability of systems will be different for 

different scales. Scales can be global, regional, business, or technology levels.

Subjectivity and selectivity are involved in sustainability evaluation.

For measuring sustainability of a chosen man-made system, metrics are used. These metrics may 

not all be on an equal footing. Some need to be weighted heavier than other metrics in this 
281

determination. Assigning these weights while assessing sustainability is a societal choice, hence 

it is subjective. These weights will therefore depend on situations. The value of the weights to 

be used for a specific metric in one country or business enterprise, for example, will be different 

to another because the value judgments will be different.

Recommendations:

 Integration of multi-disciplinary aspects

 Develop quantitative methodologies for evaluating sustainability

Action Plan:

 Identify experts in social, economic and behavioral sciences along with urban planners

(e.g., organizing and hosting dedicated workshops, meetings, etc.)

 Integrate deterministic and non-deterministic methodologies for sustainability evaluation

 Promote educational and training programs (need for new knowledge and data)

Roles (Industry, Government, Academia, NGO, Software/Hardware):

All stakeholders to collaborate. All segments of construction and manufacturing industries must 

be engaged.

3. Challenges in Measuring

Description:

Sustainability is not absolute in time and space. It is relative to a reference state to be defined. 

Measuring relative sustainability depends on our ability to identify a necessary and sufficient 

number of metrics to describe a state of the system. Once this is done, some algorithmic 

technique is needed to computationally determine the sustainability of the state of system relative 

to a reference state of the same system. For instance, when we follow the sustainability 

performance of a system over time, the reference state can be the state at a specified time instant.

Measuring is also challenging, and not all sustainability elements can be measured as some of 

these elements can only be evaluated qualitatively:

 Identify measurements and requirements for assessing sustainability in terms of all 

affecting elements

 Find ways of introducing weights for all involved sustainability values/elements

Root Cause:

Societal metrics often are not quantitative. Sustainability values are sometime relative, and are 

not easily quantifiable. 

Recommendation:

 Depending on the nature and scale of a system to be studied, determine a list of potential 

metrics to be chosen from.

 Identify experts in social sciences, along with engineering experts, for workshops and 

training programs

 Consider the dynamics of the multidimensional nature of issues

Action Plan:

 Organize workshops
282

 Develop educational materials

 Create a framework for system identification

 Identify metrics and indicators, and make the choice on weights to the metrics transparent

 Identify or create methodology for assigning relative weights to all relevant sustainability 

values/elements

 Convert qualitative measures to a generally agreed and understood quantitative measures 

(e.g., non-deterministic) 

 Identify or create assessment methodology for decision making

Roles (Industry, Government, Academia, NGO, Software/Hardware):

All stakeholders to collaborate. All segments of construction and manufacturing industries must 

be engaged.

4. Unmeasurable Sustainability Values/Factors/Elements

Description:

Socio-economic impacts of anthropogenic actions are not internalized. When these externalities 

are internalized we have the true outcome of our actions. Assigning quantification to these 

impacts is essentially dealing with the unmeasurable sustainability values/factors/elements. 

While there is reasonable progress and incentives for establishing metrics for implementation in 

the manufacturing industry, there is only very little or no incentive and/or progress in identifying 

relevant metrics for sustainability evaluation of products and processes in the construction 

industry.

Root Cause:

Societal impacts are inherently difficult to measure

Recommendation:

 Discuss all sustainability issues with social scientists who have skills and experience on 

societal sustainability issues. These discussions should be done in the context of 

sustainability of systems endowed with scales.

 Create practical and consistent data and data collection methods

 Request construction companies to enter data through the portals

 Make data available to public

 Develop sustainability scorecards

Action Plan:

 Convene common workshops with natural and social scientists, and engineers

 Create industry consensus group to decide 

o What data to collect

o How to collect

o How to disseminate 

 Consider ANSI’s role in creating a user/consensus group

 Include publically available portal
283

Roles (Industry, Government, Academia, NGO, Software/Hardware):

All stakeholders of building/construction and manufacturing industries should be included.

Industry

Participate in consensus group

Government

Perhaps NIST to begin the process to create a user/consensus group and participate throughout 

the process. GSA, DOD, etc. to participate, and ANSI (standards and codes group) to agree to 

lead consensus group

Academia

Participate in the user/consensus group, serving as a technical resource for generating new 

knowledge for dissemination

NGO

Provide support for developing a user/consensus group 

Software/Hardware Developers

Create and manage database and server space; follow-on for sensors (personal end area) 

5. Vetting of Valuing Issues

Description:

The weighting factors for various metrics to be used and the assessment methodologies for 

sustainability, when done by industry, are opaque and highly subjective. Some mechanism must 

exist by which thoughts that go into valuing metrics can be understood and generally agreed 

upon by all stakeholders.

Root Cause:

Integrating scientific, engineering, and societal measures has not been the realm of science.

Sustainability decisions are a combination of science and value judgments. It is critical to assure 

that these are clearly distinguished.

Recommendation:

 Determine a framework for choosing metrics in the context of system and scale, and an 

agreeable thought process for assigning relative weights.

 Provide frameworks for prioritizing and valuing the relative importance of all 

components or elements of sustainability.

Action Plan:

 Organize and host a workshop to discuss and finalize sustainability value issues

 Assess the state of the science and application, as well as identify research gaps needed 

by industries

 Fund research on value framework that is translational, multidisciplinary and includes 

elements of sustainability that are challenging to measure and prioritize

 Demonstrate and apply the framework in construction and manufacturing

Roles (Industry, Government, Academia, NGO, Software/Hardware):

All stakeholders need to be included.

Industry

Collaborate with researchers, fund projects and define new challenges
284

Government

Fund research, prioritize and conduct assessment

Academia

Conduct research, assess, demonstrate, and disseminate sustainability evaluation methods

NGO

Fund projects, collaborate and demonstrate feasibility and usefulness

Software/Hardware Developers

Develop algorithms, measurement/data collection

6. Uncertainty in measurement

Description:

There is uncertainty in any measurement. This is especially true for sustainability. It is 

important that sustainability decisions are based on sound science, and the numerical values used 

in such determination are subject to quality check. It is necessary to develop relevant 

methodologies for assessing uncertainty.

Root Cause:

Most of the uncertainty in measurement of sustainability emanates from the need to quantify 

societal impacts of anthropogenic actions.

Recommendation:

There needs to be a vetting process for the quality of numerical values we use in measuring 

societal impacts.

 Identify sources of uncertainty with definition, time horizon and system interaction 

elements

 Identify types of uncertainty with variability, lack of information, approximations

 Develop frameworks/methods to assess uncertainty through quantitative means 

(probabilistic & non-probabilistic frameworks)

Action Plan:

Convene a workshop to discuss the following:

 Identify high-value problem areas as anchors for uncertainty-related tasks.

 For each problem area, follow recommendation above.

 Generalize Step 2 outcomes.

 Formalize best practices, guidelines and standards.

 Disseminate and educate.

 Obtain feedback and improve steps 1 to 5.

Roles (Industry, Government, Academia, NGO, Software/Hardware):

All stakeholders should be included.

Industry

Establish relevance, feasibility

Government

Provide leadership, policy, investment and incentives
285

Academia

Fundamental research, training

Human resource development

NGO

Provide liaison among society, researchers and practitioners

Software/Hardware

Software needed to implement methods
286

[This page is internationally left blank]
287

Co-Moderators: Joseph Fiksel and John Carberry

Outcomes of Breakout Session 2 on Systems

(aggregation, linkages, system of systems, sustainabilityresilience synergy and interdependencies)

1. Problems Covered

The participants listed in Appendix A.3 discussed the objectives and scope of the breakout 

session and produced the following list of problems and descriptions. Due to time constraints, 

only the first three problems were selected for detailed discussion.

 Coupled human-natural systems: What methods are useful for characterizing the linkages 

among mechanistic processes designed by humans and organic processes that have 

evolved in nature?

 Predictive system assessment: How can decision makers assess a priori the potential 

system impacts on sustainability and resilience, including ecological, economic, and 

social consequences of new policies or technologies, without empirical knowledge based 

on past experience?

 Cross-scale interactions: Are there tractable methods available for practitioners to 

understand the complex interactions within a system of systems across multiple spatial 

and temporal scales? In particular, how can one establish boundaries for analysis, and 

how can one avoid loss of fidelity in aggregation from fine scale to coarse scale?

 General vs. specified resilience: Can systems be designed for “inherent” resilience to 

disruptions in general, rather than to specified threats?

 Justification of need for systems approach: How can issues that require systems thinking 

be identified and communicated, with an appropriate business case?

 Establishment of accepted practice: How can we establish commonly accepted, credible 

methods, practices, and data, with compelling examples?

The remaining sections below expand on the three selected problems.

2. Coupled human-natural systems

Description:

What methods are useful for characterizing the linkages among mechanistic processes designed 

by humans and organic processes that have evolved in nature?

Root Cause:

Economic development has led to undesired ecological impacts, leading to greater awareness of 

interdependence between human and natural systems.

Recommendation:

Improve the scientific capabilities to measure and quantify resource flows, emissions, and other 

interactions between human and natural systems.
288

Action Plan:

 Identify the ecological constraints (such as scarce minerals, land availability, ecological 

carrying capacity) that may influence construction and manufacturing decisions.

 Develop a full understanding of resource depletion, ecosystem degradation, and other 

ecological impacts of human activities.

 Identify critical ecological conditions, such as biodiversity, soil quality, nutrient cycling, 

that are disrupted by human activities.

 Characterize beneficial ecosystem services that enhance the sustainability of construction 

and manufacturing activities, e.g., enhanced stormwater management through green 

infrastructure.

 Develop early warning indicators of systemic change, such as indicator species.

 Develop indicators of system resilience to unexpected shocks, e.g., diversity, buffering.

Roles (Industry, Government, Academia, NGO, Software/Hardware):

See Section 5. below.

3. Predictive system assessment

Description:

How can decision makers assess a priori the potential system impacts on sustainability and 

resilience, including ecological, economic, and social consequences of new policies or 

technologies, without empirical knowledge based on past experience?

Root Cause:

In an age of rapid innovation and globalization, systems are becoming more complex, and their 

emergent properties are poorly understood.

Recommendation:

Develop possible future scenarios, and utilize advanced measurement science tools and 

techniques to monitor and interpret observable outcomes.

Action Plan:

 Engage stakeholders in developing alternative future scenarios to understand the 

envelope of possible system evolution.

 Characterize the relevant baseline system conditions, including ecological, economic, and 

social aspects, as well as the historical changes that have occurred.

 Enable extensive data collection, validation, and interpretation, using “big data analytics”

to characterize the systems in question.

 Inventory the available system modeling tools and provide guidance on appropriate 

applications for the benefit of practitioners.

 Utilize multi-criteria decision-making tools to establish collective stakeholder priorities

for complex system decisions.

 Adopt an adaptive management approach to respond to changing conditions and 

unexpected outcomes.

 Encourage the development of a common ontology for indicators to characterize the 

sustainability and resilience of complex systems.
289

Roles (Industry, Government, Academia, NGO, Software/Hardware):

See Section 5. below.

4. Are there tractable methods for practitioners to understand the complex 

interactions within a system of systems across multiple spatial and temporal 

scales?

Description:

Are there tractable methods for practitioners to understand the complex interactions within a 

system of systems across multiple spatial and temporal scales?

Root Cause:

Complex, dynamic, non-linear systems are heavily influenced by cross-scale linkages, from 

micro to macro and vice versa (e.g., climate change drives local flooding, isolated incidents can 

cascade into large-scale supply disruptions).

Recommendation:

Develop protocols and scientific methods for system characterization, dynamic modeling, and 

measurement to capture cross-scale interactions, enabling system aggregation and decomposition 

across time and space. 

Action Plan:

 Develop guidance for establishing system boundaries, enabling analysis of the broader 

implications of manufacturing or construction design decisions. The analysis must go 

beyond conventional “life cycle assessment” to capture the dynamic behavior of 

industrial systems, ecological systems and human communities.

 Expand the concepts of energy, water, and material balance beyond individual structures 

and processes to a regional or even global scale.

 Encourage research on how to perform aggregated, high-level system-level analysis 

without losing important fine-grain details

 Utilize analytic methods to understand the sensitivity of system sustainability or 

resilience indicators to key variables at higher or lower scales of resolution.

 Develop meta-data standards to assure compatibility and interoperability of measurement 

technologies across different types of systems and across scales.

Roles (Industry, Government, Academia, NGO, Software/Hardware):

See Section 5. below.

5. Roles of Stakeholders

The participants agreed that each of the stakeholder groups identified (Industry, Government, 

Academia, NGO, Software/Hardware Vendors) would play similar roles in the context of the 

three problems discussed. The roles are as follows:
290

 Industry: The private sector should provide the needed level of transparency (e.g., carbon 

disclosure) to support investigation of system-level indicators of change. Businesses 

should identify important decision criteria and data needs, and can help to validate new 

measurement science techniques.

 Government: the Federal government should provide research priorities and funding for 

research on systems-level sustainability indicators. State & local governments can 

provide test-beds for application of new measurement methods and can help in selecting 

indicators by setting priorities for the desired outcomes of system interventions, such as 

new policies or technologies. 

 Academia: Researchers can contribute to sustainable systems measurement research in a 

variety of ways—through innovation, research, education, advocacy, and formation of 

partnerships with industry.

 NGOs also can contribute in a variety of ways—through consensus building among 

stakeholders, public education, advocacy, development of standards, and formation of 

partnerships with industry and government.

 Software/hardware vendors will play the key role of developing the required 

measurement tools, technologies, models, and methods, and to perform systems 

integration in response to the needs listed in the previous sections.

5. Additional Discussion

Note: This section is based on a write-up by Ryan Colker.

Underpinning the entire discussion of metrics and systems thinking is the ability to link existing 

data from numerous sectors/users/uses to support understanding of the whole. Naturally, this 

leads to huge challenges across disciplines. Even within the building industry, depending on the 

discipline creating the data and the stage in the process, the metrics and information can vary 

widely—often without opportunities to link them. For example, in Building Information 

Modeling (BIM) the value of information relies on the ability to use it across the life-cycle for 

various different purposes, facilitated by open standards for interoperability and information 

exchange. The data within the BIM also need to be capable of linking with other adjacent 

systems including civil infrastructure and GIS. The ability to integrate metrics from the 

manufacturing up through assemblies and ultimately to buildings would be ideal. This would add 

to the ability to understand economy-wide impacts and measure progress towards societal goals. 

This leads to questions of scale and system boundaries. A systems approach needs to focus on at 

least two scales—first, the manageable scale (say of a building or community) and second (albeit 

with less precision) at the more macro level. Ultimately, one could create the mechanisms to 

allow “rolling up” of indicators to the macro scale. Such a roll-up can certainly lose fidelity for 

the overall system, but one should ensure that the more granular data remains accessible within 

the individual data or assessment activities. This approach is complicated by the fact that in 

coupled, dynamic systems the effects can cascade from macro to micro or vice versa.
291

Creating the business case for systems thinking is also complicated. Typically it falls under noone's responsibility to examine integrative effects—and those that could potentially bear that 

responsibility (e.g., CEOs) are either too preoccupied or do not have the depth of knowledge or 

interdisciplinary comfort to address such “wicked” problems. Systems thinking is largely the 

domain of a small group of enlightened people (typically in academia or think tanks) who 

recognize the elegance of such an approach and the need to move in that direction. For the most 

part we have solved the "easy" issues facing our society—the ones with single-discipline 

solutions. To make the next leap will require a more difficult effort focused on multi-disciplinary 

and interdisciplinary engagement. 

Resilience is a perfect example—if a building owner were to approach resilience in isolation for 

his/her building and not consider the utilities and workforce associated with that building, then 

the investment may be for naught. If the building still stands but the employees (or customers) 

are unable to get access, or if electricity or communication services are down, the net result may 

be the same as if there were no investment in resilience. 

This leads to several recommendations on measurement science for sustainability are:

1. All metrics should be usable across sectors and products (or at least translatable to a 

common metric). This supports utility across supply chains and across systems, and also 

relates to the need for interoperability of data sets. 

2. To the extent practical, one should focus on metrics that can be used to assess 

performance across a product/building life-cycle. Today, many metrics focus on expected 

results from the design process, but realization of sustainability goals relies on actual 

achievement. This type of design-focused thinking results in discounting (or simply 

ignoring) the potential for synergistic effects. 

3. Metrics should be focused on the performance of products and materials and not based on 

the products or materials themselves. This requires a function-based approach rather than 

a component specification approach. This will lead to overall efficiency in the products 

rather than supporting manufacturer inertia and protectionist activities for traditional 

products that no longer meet societal needs.
292

[This page is internationally left blank]
293

Co-Moderators: Nabil Nasr and Fazleena Badurdeen

Outcomes of Breakout Session 3 on Planning, Design and Supply Chain 

(lifecycle analyses and treatments, and material and energy efficiency)

1. Problems Covered

The participants listed in Appendix A.3 discussed the objective and scope of the breakout session 

and produced the following list of problems and descriptions:

a) Systems and supply chains not designed for end-of-life management (EOL) reduces 

capability for increased reuse, remanufacturing and recycling.

b) Limited data sharing and lack of interoperability: increase capability to share information 

between relevant stakeholders across the supply chain.

c) Lack of predictive models that can realistically estimate future cross-company and crosssupply chain economic, environmental or societal impacts.

d) Lack of a systems-based approach to planning, design and management of supply chains 

for sustainability. 

e) Lack of resilience in designed systems make them more vulnerable to unpredictable and 

disruptive events. 

f) Lack of a common sustainability nomenclature that can be used across companies in the 

supply chain.

The remaining sections expand on selected problems.

2. Systems not Designed for EOL

Description:

To enable closed-loop material flow across multiple life-cycles of products, they must be 

designed and manufactured to enable better remanufacturing, recycling and end-of-life 

management. How to design products, processes and systems to increase remanufacturing, 

recycling and end-of-life management?

Root Cause:

Lack of design methodologies, incentives, tools

Recommendation:

Metrics, methods, measurements

Action Plan:

 Lead/support development of design tools and methodologies for design for EOL with 

metrics and targets

 Support development of sector based metrics for design for EOL

 Benchmark data (design and implementations) sharing

 Lessons learned from EOL products
294

Roles (Industry, Government, Academia, NGO, Software/Hardware):

Industry: Participate in development, provide data, validation

Government: Lead development, provide incentives, fund research

Academia: Development, research

NGO

Support

Software/Hardware: Integrative software, validation equipment

3. Limited data sharing and lack of interoperability

Description:

In this electronic age, companies amass considerable data related to their products, processes and 

systems. However, this data is not used effectively to produce actionable information; in 

situations where such information is available, it is not shared across the supply chain to increase 

benefits to all stakeholders; there is insufficient integration across the supply chain to enable 

improvements in energy efficiency and material efficiency. Thus, how can companies increase 

data sharing and interoperability between relevant stakeholders across the supply chain? 

Root Cause:

 Lack of knowledge related to data sharing and interoperability related to sustainability in 

supply chain

 Lack of knowledge related to supply organization and tiers. For example some supply 

chains have multiple tiers and sharing information across tiers requires a more robust 

framework. There is a lack of integrated approaches for addressing sustainability through 

data sharing particularly when the supply chain is multi-tiered. 

 Companies are often reluctant to share information across the supply chain for fear of 

losing competitive edge (trade secrets, losing price)

 The lack of protocols to maintain information integrity when shared the supply chain is 

another factor that contributes to limited data sharing. For example, at what point in the 

procurement process do you ask questions and what questions do you ask?

 There is no clarity on what the appropriate metrics are, what a suitable corresponding 

threshold is or what measures of goodness for supply chain must be used. 

 There is a lack of governance and resources to implement a supplier code of 

conduct/ethics

 There is no clearly defined process of managing inoperability in the supply chain during 

disruptions (war, natural disaster that disrupt your supply chain)

 Benefits through a supply chain are unknown and/or diffuse (principal agent type 

problem).

 Supply chains are highly variable, and estimating as well as allocating benefits is 

complicated.

Recommendation:

 Define interoperability from a manufacturing, construction and sustainability perspective

 Establish data sharing and interoperability roadmap for a supply chain

 Identify incentives that do not compromise business integrity and trade secrets. 
295

 Establish guidelines to share information across supply chains so companies will not have 

a fear of sharing information and losing their competitive edge.

 Build off of existing, appropriate tools/models, and ultimately standardize underlying 

data and tool architectures.

Action Plan:

 Standardize basic common terminology and language related to interoperability and data 

sharing as it pertains to the supply chain (NIST + software).

 Multi-industry data sharing and interoperability for supply chain case study that 

demonstrates solid examples of the benefits of these practices (NIST + industry partners)

 Establish data sharing and interoperability roadmap for a supply chain (NIST+NGO)

 Create framework that defines type of supply chains and associated layers (Academia)

 Define materials efficiency and energy efficiency in this context.

 Identify existing, appropriate tools/models – possibly include embodied energy; materials 

flows through the economy; cross-sector energy impacts; energy use of (specific) 

products through their lifecycle; 

 Build upon those tools/models (one example framework could be embodied energy and 

cross-sectoral energy impacts tools being develop by DOE; another could be BEES tool 

at NIST).

 Materials certification: currently, certifications are required for products marketed to EU; 

underlying data analysis should be standardized/verified and then utilized for improved 

material efficiency and certification.

 Include in the existing tools/models, or develop additional model frameworks to include 

other materials-associated “externalities” that directly or indirectly impact costs such as 

environmental, labor, regulatory, risks.

Roles (Industry, Government, Academia, NGO, Software/Hardware):

Industry: engage in standards development, and implementation 

Government: NIST work with standards groups (ISO, ANSI, etc.); DOE work with industry on 

voluntary programs; USG to collaborate on tools/models/databases

Academia: engage in standards development, and work with local regulatory agencies. Take 

leadership role in defining sustainability, materials efficiency, etc., and develop 

training/tools/etc. useful to industry and society.

NGO: None

Software/Hardware: None

4. Lack of Predictive Models

Description:

Sustainability impacts occur at different points during the life of the product or structure and may 

take a long-term to materialize as benefits are likely to accrue across the supply chain. However, 

existing frameworks do not lend themselves to accurately determine time dependent crosscompany benefits (environmental, economic or societal). Can predictive models be developed to 

realistically predict the influence of such improvement efforts? Can models be developed to 

predict impacts of emergent and future conditions; to evaluate and design adaptive alternatives?
296

Root Cause:

Analysis approaches tend to take a unit process view and overall impacts are treated on an 

additive basis rather than a time series, integrated system view.

Recommendation:

 Not only collect LCI/LCA data for materials and products in a national database but also 

typical use statistics such as recovery and reuse rates, typical product lifespans, and 

incremental impacts to assembly or building operational cycles.

 Research should be conducted on developing a system of prioritization matrices that 

quantify the tradeoffs of various impacts over time and “present-values” those impacts 

into a comparable form. Note: this may seem to be impossible but only if it is looked at 

in absolute terms rather than a tool that could be used to assess a variety of scenarios.

 Develop a tool to utilize these matrices in relation to product and building design 

decisions across the cradle-to-cradle lifecycle of the product or building as a contribution 

to the initial decision making process.

Action Plan:

 Develop guidance for establishing system boundaries for analyzing broader implications 

of manufacturing or construction design decisions (beyond conventional “life cycle”)

 Expand concepts of energy, water, and material balance beyond individual structures and 

processes to a regional or even global scale

 Encourage research on how to perform aggregated, high-level system-level analysis 

without losing important fine-grain details

 Utilize analytic methods to understand the sensitivity of system sustainability or 

resilience indicators to key variables at higher or lower scales of resolution.

 Develop meta-data standards to assure compatibility and interoperability

Roles (Industry, Government, Academia, NGO, Software/Hardware):

Industry: Industry should be prepared to collect and share necessary data (reuse and recovery 

rates, operational impacts and typical lifespans) just as EPD data is shared.

Government: Serve as a catalyst to this process through further definition of the issues involved, 

sponsoring research projects and promoting the concept. Government should maintain and 

manage the database. Perhaps the tool development should be driven through an organization 

such as NIST so that the base level of the tool is cross-disciplinary, cross-industry and 

extensible.

Academia: Engage in meaningful, creative research

NGO: Industry trade organizations need to take the lead in collection of industry wide data and 

support the effort.

Software/Hardware: Tool has to be credible but not overly complex in order to encourage its 

utilization.

5. Lack of Systems-based Approach

Description:

Sustainability-oriented interventions often involve trade-offs between various activities along the 

value chain. Without a systems-oriented approach, the impacts of these interdependencies are 

difficult to evaluate. How can systems thinking-based approach be applied during planning and 
297

design of systems to consider interdependencies & trade-offs between economic, environmental 

and societal impacts?

Root Cause:

 Lack of information about the total life cycle issues of, materials, processes, and 

products, data ownership, lack of understanding of process capabilities in terms of 

energy, material, and water

 Perception that sustainability cost more

Recommendation:

 Develop design for sustainable supply chain for risk-based, better multi-criteria decision 

making. 

 Develop data standards, analytical tools that can readily use available data 

Action Plan:

 Develop industry challenge problems for benchmarking and understanding of process 

capabilities in terms of energy, material, and water.

 Develop a framework and mechanisms for seamless information flow across supply 

network for all lifecycle phases through data standards

 Promote code for America makes (crowd sourcing) for developing analytical tools for 

risk-based better multi-criteria decision making

 Promote better lifecycle thinking of cradle to cradle process and explain it in terms of 

value system than first cost.

 Develop robust and adaptable models of life cycle analysis and synthesis for spatial and 

temporal uncertainties

Roles (Industry, Government, Academia, NGO, Software/Hardware):

Industry: Challenge problems, change perspective on sustainability as competitiveness

Government: Promote and enable standards, better informed policy instruments, consumer 

awareness, promote high risk research for long term benefits

Academia: Education and training, work with industry to develop science for sustainable 

construction and manufacturing, develop curriculum that reflects industry and society needs and 

requirements

NGO: Industry and technology roadmap, help develop better policy instruments, better balance 

of public and private good. And partnership

Software/Hardware: Open architecture platforms for software and hardware to enable life cycle 

information flow, information models, implementation of data standards and development tools

6. Lack of Resilience in Designed Systems

Description:

Global supply chains are increasingly exposed to uncertain events and disruptions. The 

sustainability performance of supply chains is catastrophically affected when such unpredictable 

events occur. Quantitatively models for evaluating interdependent risks between supply chain 

partners and methods to analyze their propagation through the supply chains are lacking. How 

can systems and supply chains be design to have the resilience to withstand disruptive events and 

operational turbulence?
298

Root Cause:

 Lack of performance criteria at a component level: For building system components, 

performance data is lacking. Say for a screw, what additional performance spec data do 

we need to address climate change? Maybe we need to know how resistant that screw is 

to rusting if we expect more rain.

 Lack of performance data of components against the climate change spectrum: So, the 

additional strain caused by climate change, such as higher risk of fire, more intense 

rainfall events, flooding, mold, roof load due to snow can be expanded for 

products. Typically, examples of codes are by region (California expanded seismic code, 

Florida hurricane code), but we need to have that knowledge down to more climate 

situations so we can build resilience into our construction and maintenance programs.

 Sensitivity of matrices in life cycle cost analysis and risk assessment modeling: So what 

are the low cost measures? Is there a cheap brace we can install in our roof systems to 

help our facilities withstand tornadoes? Maybe our basic design in our region is for an 

F2, but are there upgrades we can perform to make it more likely for the building to 

survive an F4?

Recommendation:

NIST should define performance criteria against the climate change spectrum at the component 

and building levels. This will allow decision makers to use the appropriate indicators for better 

decisions. Identify the different risks climate change present to new and existing buildings, and 

a methodology for determining how to mitigate—from cheap to expensive, from proven to 

experimental.

Action Plan:

 Develop and publish component-level performance criteria: Need to know how common 

and important building components need to add other performance data and guidance to 

their specifications, installation instructions, operating instructions to best help the 

systems survive against climate change.

 Evaluate and compare US regional codes to develop climate change spectrum: We need 

to identify how buildings can be constructed and modified at better than existing code 

and see some proposals for expanded code that helps fight climate risks.

 See “Roles” section for further actions.

Roles (Industry, Government, Academia, NGO, Software/Hardware):

Industry: Provide all the basis of design at a molecular level to NIST so they can test and define 

criteria. Provide system integration modeling so NIST can complete testing.

Government: Use and enforce criteria through acquisition regulation.

Academia: Provide criteria to students, the future implementers and building owners.

NGO: Use criteria to propose changes to policy and regulation.

Software/Hardware: Tools utilizing NIST performance criteria to allow for users to predict for

better decision making.
299

7. Lack of a Common Sustainability Nomenclature

Description:

Sustainability is a relatively new concept and common language for talking about it does not yet 

exist. The definition of sustainability itself varies from person to person, making it difficult to 

address the aspects of the issue and develop effective ways to measure it. Establishing consistent, 

standard terminology for talking about sustainability will help to align researchers and 

manufacturers communicating about common issues and designing products that address those 

needs. Thus, a common nomenclature and terminology related to sustainability that can be used 

across the supply chain must be developed.

Root Cause:

Many times, organizations define sustainability to fit their own agenda to receive invalid 

recognition. To be able to measure sustainability consistently throughout the construction 

industry, a consistent definition and measurement methodology is necessary.

Recommendation:

 Define common grounds for sustainability in both construction and manufacturing 

industries based on their needs to sustain business and operations while reducing impact 

on critical environmental areas.

 Quantify uncertainties in statements and criteria. Account for subjectivity such as social 

aspects.

 Define needs and impacts (tangible, intangible)

Action Plan:

Needs such as profitability, productivity, operational efficiency should be determined. Then, 

solutions for sustainability will make sense for business and can help reduce environmental 

impact. In addition, there is also a need to determine and quantify intangible impacts such as 

health and well-being, social injustice, etc., that are difficult to measure.

Roles (Industry, Government, Academia, NGO, Software/Hardware):

Industry: Provide sets of criteria relevant to their operations and ensure practicability.

Government: Defining priorities and fund accordingly.

Academia: Develop scientific framework to minimize subjectivity and deal with uncertainty.

NGO: Supporting role

Software/Hardware: None
300

[This page is internationally left blank]
301

Co-Moderators: Cliff Davidson and William Flanagan

Outcomes of Breakout Session 4 on Economic, Environmental and Social 

Aspects 

(Valuation, Impacts and Behavior)

1. Problems Covered

The participants listed in Appendix A.3 discussed the objective and scope of the breakout session 

and produced the following list of problems and descriptions:

 Measuring the value to society of incorporating sustainability

 Big data collection 

 Reducing social inequity

 Multi-criteria decision support

 Human health, feelings of well-being, and work performance in green buildings

The remaining sections expand on these problems.

2. Measuring the value to society of incorporating sustainability 

Description:

It is widely acknowledged that current practices for construction, O&M, and decommissioning of 

the built environment are not sustainable. How can we measure the value to society of making 

the investment to change these practices so that they are sustainable?

Root Cause:

There is little incentive to make such measurements, since there is little demand for the data. 

Recommendation:

Create demand for this type of data by educating consumers, so they will have an appreciation 

for the importance of sustainability constraints in construction practices.

Action Plan:

 Take steps that could result in a decision by GSA to mandate collection of sustainable 

practices data.

 Expand LEED data collection, especially during the construction phase.

 Set up management systems so that collection of sustainability data would fit naturally.

Roles (Industry, Government, Academia, NGO, Software/Hardware):

 Industry: Play a leadership role in showing that sustainability data has value to 

consumers.

 Government: Require companies to collect and show sustainability data.

 Academia: Research the types of data that are most valuable and yet easy to collect. 
302

3. Big data collection 

Description:

We now have the capability of collecting data on energy, water, and material use during 

construction, O&M, and decommissioning of the built environment. We can also collect data on 

the movement of occupants throughout the built environment, and even on characteristics of 

individual occupants. This can be done throughout a neighborhood or even throughout a city. 

How can this type of dataset be used for maximum benefit of society?

Root Cause:

There is now an unprecedented opportunity for collection of large amounts of data of all types 

using automated sensors. But there are privacy issues that must be overcome as well as need for 

protection against misuse of the data.

Recommendation:

Bring together experts in sensors, data analysis, and ethicists to identify what data to collect, how 

to collect the data, how to use it for the society’s benefit. 

Action Plan:

 Identify what data could have the greatest value to society.

 Explore costs and benefits as well as risks of collecting these types of data for use by 

public and private organizations.

 Explore how data could be collected, analyzed and used with low risk to individuals but 

maximum benefit to society as a whole.

 Explore data accuracy depending on use, and explore calibration and establishing 

“ground truth” for new sensors.

Roles (Industry, Government, Academia, NGO, Software/Hardware):

Industry: Develop the sensors, data analysis tools, and distribution methods.

Government: Protect individuals from potential misuse of data that could cause harm, while 

encouraging business to invest in data collection and distribution; also ensuring privacy rights 

are not violated.

Academia: Research and education on sensors, use of data, ethical frameworks for decisions.

NGO: Work with government, industry, academia to ensure communities have input to decisions 

on which data to collect and how to collect it as well as use of the data.

Software /hardware: Collection and use of big data depend on advanced software as well as 

sensors and interfaces to computing.

4. Reducing social inequity 

Description:

We know that infrastructure can worsen social inequity between neighborhoods of a city, for 

example, by dividing neighborhoods so that interaction among diverse groups of people is 

inhibited. Is there a way social inequity can be reduced through changes in infrastructure design? 
303

Root Cause:

Geographical, economic, political, and cultural isolation leads to a feedback loop that reduces 

upward social mobility.

Recommendation:

1. Community engagement in development projects

2. Democratization of technology facilitates social mobility

Action Plan:

 Develop a framework for two-way communication between the community and project 

leaders through an engagement scheme

 Create opportunities and motivations for the community members to receive better 

education by:

o Introducing role models from similar background

o Awarding scholarships based on socio-economic factors

 Provide micro-financing for local small businesses including manufacturing

 Include organic, community-based economies and multi-purpose centers (e.g., green 

gardens)

Roles (Industry, Government, Academia, NGO, Software/Hardware):

Industry: Participate in community programs

Government: Support community programs

Academia: Research and education

NGO: Support and participate in community programs

Software/Hardware: n/a

5. Multi-criteria decision support 

Description:

Many commercial, technology, and policy decisions are based on non-holistic perspectives due 

to the lack of integrated or systems-level decision support. How can we better incorporate

broader perspectives (people, planet, profit) into the decision-making process?

Root Cause:

Conflicting drivers, goals, values, and belief systems are not allowing rationale evaluation of 

increasingly important criteria.

Recommendation:

Multi-criteria decision support must be further developed and applied to address incommensurate 

goals and drivers to achieve holistic decisions.
304

Action Plan:

 A variety of multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) tools exist, but need to be adapted 

such that they can be incorporated early in ideation and product/project development 

activities.

 NIST should prepare a report containing industry roadmap and roadmap for MCDA tools 

implementation to address sustainability issues. The roadmap should address

interoperability of tools (such as LEED, BEES, BIMs) and delivery systems.

 NIST should fund a study focused on understanding how trends in society, markets, or 

regulations could disrupt existing programs (e.g., LEED/BEES/BIRDS/BIMs/other).

How robust are method/tool criteria to changing fact patterns? Robust MCDA approaches 

should be resilient or adaptable to changing trends and fact patterns.

 Sensitivity analyses: understand where uncertainties matter. What parameters and 

changes in valuation have a directional impact on decision outcome as opposed to those 

that have little influence? Leverage risk assessment methodologies.

 Address scenarios that mix climate change with factors of economics, demographics, 

regulations, technology innovations, maintenance and repair, infrastructure 

maintenance/build/re-build. Are there any “perfect storm” scenarios? Consider transport, 

hospitals, grid, food and water supply.

 Leverage big data and data transparency to enable insights and remove barriers to criteria 

incorporation/consideration in decision-making processes.

 Engage all key stakeholders early in process. 

Roles (Industry, Government, Academia, NGO, Software/Hardware):

Industry: Participate and provide guidance regarding applicability and implementability. Pilot 

tools. Contribute to development of industry consensus standards.

Government: Regulators need to be involved early in process to ensure alignment. Acknowledge 

that regulations can change playing field, costs. Seek consensus alignment around holistic goals.

Academia: Participate in research and education.

NGO: Active participation.

Software/Hardware: Tools development.

6. Human health, feelings of well-being, and work performance in green buildings 

Description:

Green buildings are often claimed to increase human productivity and health and well-being, but 

most evidence is anecdotal. What claims are true and which are not borne out by data?

Root Cause:

Little data have been collected on the effects of green buildings on the occupants of those 

buildings.
305

Recommendation:

Research is needed to better understand the benefits of green buildings over conventional 

buildings.

Action Plan:

 Identify green and conventional buildings with high occupancy and for which it is 

possible to measure human performance as well as human health and satisfaction with the 

building environment. For example, there are large databases on building characteristics 

of public schools across the country. 

 Survey those buildings and their occupants to collect the desired information. In schools, 

the performance of students can be assessed. Opinions of occupants on the use of 

sustainable technologies (e.g., gray water, clock thermostats, non-toxic indoor materials, 

etc.) could be surveyed.

 Identify statistically what properties of buildings have significant effects on the 

performance, health, and well-being of occupants.

Roles (Industry, Government, Academia, NGO, Software/Hardware):

Industry: Develop sensors for the building environment (ventilation, air quality, water quality, 

noise, vibrations, etc.) as well as the health of individuals (heart rate, breathing rate, etc.).

Government: Provide funding for research.

Academia: Conduct the research.

NGO: Enable researchers to get access to members of the community who spend time in the 

target buildings.

Software/hardware: needed for collecting and treating the data.
306

[This page is internationally left blank]
307

Appendices

Appendix A. Participants

A.1. Registrants 

First name Last name Title Email address Affiliation (i.e., organization)

Ilker Adiguzel Lab Director ilker.adiguzel@us.army.mil Corps of Engineers

Lauren

AlexanderAugustine Director laugustine@nas.eduUS National Academy of 

Sciences

William Anderson Director wanderson@tisp.org TISP

Bill Anderson Director wanderson@tisp.org TISP

Bilal Ayyub Professor ba@umd.edu University of Maryland

Shapour Azarm Professor azarm@umd.edu University of Maryland

Fazleena Badurdeen Associate Professor badurdeen@uky.edu University of Kentucky

Bala Balachandran Professor balab@umd.edu University of Maryland

Alex Barraza engineer aljobaca@gmail.com Thermotar

Loida Begley

Lead for 

Sustainable 

Buidlings, 

DOE/NNSA loida.begley@nnsa.doe.gov

Department of Energy, NNSA 

and Federal Facilities Council

Bill Bertera Executive Director bertera@sustainableinfrastructure.org

Institute for Sustainable 

Infrastructure

William Bertera President & CEO bertera@sustainableinfrastructure.org

Institute for Sustainable 

Infrastructure

Haralamb Braileanu Management Intern hgbra10@yahoo.com USPS

Anne Caldas

Sr Director, 

Procedures & 

Standards 

Administration, 

ANSI acaldas@ansi.org ANSI

John Carberry Adjunct Professor johncarberry01@comcast.net University of Delaware

Daniel Castro

Associate Professor 

and Chair dcastro@gatech.edu Georgia Institute of Technology

Daniel Castro

Associate Professor 

and Chair dcastro@gatech.edu Georgia Institute of Technology
308

Robert Chapman Chief robert.chapman@nist.gov

Applied Economics Office, 

Engineering Laboratory, 

National Institute of Standards 

and Technology

Joannie Chin

Acting De;puty 

Director joannie.chin@nist.gov NIST

Eric Coffman

Chief - Energy and 

Sustainability eric.coffman@montgomerycountymd.gov Montgomery County, MD

Ryan Colker Presidential Advisor rcolker@nibs.org

National Institute of Building 

Sciences

Amy Costello

Sustainability 

Manager aacostello@armstrong.com Armstrong World Industries

Joe Cresko

Strategic Analysis 

Technology 

Manager joe.cresko@ee.doe.gov DOE/EERE

John Cross Vice President cross@aisc.org

American Institute of Steel 

Construction

Matthew Dahlhausen

Graduate Research 

Assistant matthew.dahlhausen@gmail.com University of Maryland

James Dalton

Chief, Engineering 

and Construction Sharon.Edmonds@usace.army.mil U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Cliff Davidson Professor davidson@syr.edu Syracuse University

Rassa Davoodpour Manager rassa.davoodpour@montgomerycountymd.gov

Montgomery County, 

Department of General 

Services, Office of Special 

Projects

David Dise Director eric.coffman@montgomerycountymd.gov

Department of General 

Services, Montgomery County

Matthew Eckelman Assistant Professor m.eckelman@neu.edu Northeastern University

Joseph Fiksel

Director, Center for 

Resilience fiksel.2@osu.edu The Ohio State University

Bill Flanagan

Director, 

Ecoassessment 

Center of 

Excellence flanagan@ge.com General Electric

Damon Fordham Principal damon.fordham@cadmusgroup.com The Cadmus Group, Inc.

Kathi Futornick Instructor kmfutornick@gmail.com Mt. Hood Community College

Howard Harary

Acting Director, 

Engineering howard. harary@nist.gov Government
309

Laboratory

John Harrald Professor jharrald@vt.edu Virginia Tech

Mohammad Heidarinejad Research Associate muh182@umd.edu University of Maryland

I. S. Jawahir Director / Professor heathermichele@uky.edu

University of Kentucky Institute 

for Sustainable Manufacturing

Michael Kearney Professor kearneym@umd.edu University of Maryland

Melissa Kenney

Research Assistant 

Professor Melissa.kenney@noaa.gov University of Maryland

Leidy Klotz

Assoc. Prof of Civil 

Eng leidyk@g.clemson.edu Clemson University

Joshua Kneifel

Research 

Economist joshua.kneifel@nist.gov NIST

Fulya Kocak

Director of 

Sustainability fulya.kocak@clarkconstruction.com Clark Construction Group, Inc.

Constantine Kontokosta

Deputy Director and 

Assoc. Professor ckontokosta@nyu.edu

NYU Center for Urban Science 

and Progress

Nancy Kralik

Sr. Director, HSE & 

Sustainability nancy.kralik@fluor.com Fluor

Gül Kremer Professor gkremer@psu.edu Penn State/NSF

James Lambert Research Professor lambert@virginia.edu University of Virginia

Gerald Lemmon

Mechanical 

Inspector Gerald.Lemmon@parsons.com none

Paula Loomis

Sustainability 

Program Manager paula.j.loomis@usace.army.mil USACE

Sankaran Mahadevan

Professor of Civil & 

Environmental 

Engineering sankaran.mahadevan@vanderbilt.edu Vanderbilt University

Stephen Mawn Manager, TCO smawn@astm.org ASTM International

Bruce McDowell President mcdowell@intergov.com

Intergovernmental Management 

Associates

Nancy McNabb

Manager, Building & 

Fire Codes & 

Standards nancy.mcnabb@nist.gov

National Institute of Standards 

and Technology

Vilas Mujumdar Consultant v_mujumdar41@yahoo.com None

Nabil Nasr

Associate Provost 

and Director, 

Golisano Institute 

for Sustainability nasr@rit.edu

Rochester Institute of 

Technology
310

Mark Nauman Senior Specialist mark.nauman@montgomerycountymd.gov Montgomery County Govt.

Lindene Patton

Chief Climate 

Product Officer lindene.patton@zurichna.com Zurich Insurance Group

Andrew Persily Group Leader andyp@nist.gov NIST

Margaret Phillips

Associate Director 

for Competititons mphillips@nist.gov NIST

Chris Pyke

Vice President 

Research cpyke@usgbc.org US Green Building Council

Sudarsan Rachuri Program Manager sudarsan@nist.gov NIST

David Ratterman Attorney dratterman@stites.com

Stites & Harbison, PLLC

Construction Industry

Chris Renschler PhD rensch@buffalo.edu

University at Buffalo / NCGIA / 

MCEER

Michele Russo

Director, Green 

Content & Research 

Communications michele.russo@mhfi.com McGraw Hill Construction

Charles Schwartz Professor and Chair schwartz@umd.edu University of Maryland

Subhas Sikdar Dr. sikdar.subhas@epa.gov

Environmental Protection 

Agency

Mirosław Skibniewski Professor mirek@umd.edu University of Maryland

Jelena Srebric Professor jsrebric@umd.edu University of Maryland

Michael Tinkleman Director, Research TinklemanM@asme.org ASME

Kostas Triantis

Professor/Program 

Director ktrianti@nsf.gov NSF

Nasim Uddin Professor nuddin@uab.edu

University of Alabama at 

Birmingham

Emily Wallace

Office for Coastal 

Resource 

Management emily.wallace@noaa.gov NOAA

Bill Wallace President bill.wallace@wallacefutures.com Wallace Futures Group, LLC

Richard Wright Research Professor richard.n.wright@verizonnet

University of Maryland College 

Park

Jerry Yudelson President jerry@thegbi.org Green Building Initiative

Bohumil Kasal Director

Fraunhofer Wilhelm-KlauditzInstitut WKI in Braunschweig, 

Germany
311

A.2. Pictures of Attendees 
312

 
313

A.3. Breakout Session Attendees

Breakout Session 1. Measurement science (definition, standards, metrics, indicators and ratings)

Number First Name Last Name Affiliation email

1 CoModerators

I. S. Jawahir University of Kentucky jawahir@engr.uky.edu

2 Subhas Sikdar Environmental Protection Agency sikdar.subhas@epa.gov

3

Session 

Members

Anne Caldas ANSI acaldas@ansi.org

4 Bilal Ayyub University of Maryland ba@umd.edu

5 Melissa Kenney University of Maryland Melissa.kenney@noaa.gov

6 Joannie Chin NIST joannie.chin@nist.gov

7 Nasim Uddin University of Alabama at Birmingham nuddin@uab.edu

8 Stephen Mawn ASTM International smawn@astm.org

9 Sankaran Mahadevan Vanderbilt University

sankaran.mahadevan@vanderbilt

.edu

10 Daniel Castro Georgia Institute of Technology dcastro@gatech.edu

11 Mohammad Heidarinejad University of Maryland muh182@umd.edu
314

Breakout Session 2. Systems (aggregation, linkages, system of systems, sustainability-resilience synergy and 

interdependencies)

Number First Name Last Name Affiliation email

1 CoModerators

Joseph Fiksel The Ohio State University fiksel.2@osu.edu

2 John Carberry University of Delaware johncarberry01@comcast.net

3

Session 

Members

Anne Mujumdar None v_mujumdar41@yahoo.com

4 Ryan Colker NISB (by email) rcolker@nibs.org 

5 Chris Renschler University at Buffalo / NCGIA / MCEER rensch@buffalo.edu

6 Bill Anderson TISP wanderson@tisp.org

7 Matthew Dahlhausen University of Maryland matthew.dahlhausen@gmail.com

8 Eric Coffman Montgomery County, MD

Eric.coffman@montgomerycounty

md.gov

9 Jerry Yudelson Green Building Initiative jerry@thegbi.org

10 Safa Motesharrei University of Maryland ssm@umd.edu

11 Hsi-Hsien Wei University of Maryland
315

Breakout Session 3. Planning, design and supply chain (lifecycle analyses and treatments, and material and 

energy efficiency)

Number First Name Last Name Affiliation email

1 CoModerators

Fazleena Badurdeen University of Kentucky badurdeen@uky.edu

2 Nabil Nasr Rochester Institute of Technology nasr@rit.edu

3

Session 

Members

Ilker Adiguzel Corps of Engineers ilker.adiguzel@us.army.mil

4 Loida Begley

DOE, NNSA and Federal Facilities 

Council loida.begley@nnsa.doe.gov

5 Rassa Davoodpour Montgomery County, Maryland

rassa.davoodpour@montgomeryc

ountymd.gov

6 Amy Costello Armstrong World Industries aacostello@armstrong.com

7 Fulya Kocak Clark Construction Group, Inc.

fulya.kocak@clarkconstruction.co

m

8 Joe Cresko DOE/EERE joe.cresko@ee.doe.gov

9 Sudarsan Rachuri NIST sudarsan@nist.gov

10 John Cross American Institute of Steel Construction cross@aisc.org

11 Michael Tinkleman ASME TinklemanM@asme.org

12 Kathi Futornick Mt. Hood Community College kmfutornick@gmail.com

13 Bohumil Kasak

Fraunhofer Wilhelm-Klauditz-Institut WKI 

in Braunschweig, Germany

14 Gul Kremer

Industrial & Manufacturing Eng., Penn 

State gkremer@psu.edu

16 Shapour Azarm University of Maryland azarm@umd.edu

17 Neda Yaghoobian University of Maryland neyaghoo@umd.edu
316

Breakout Session 4. Economic, environmental and social aspects (valuation, impacts and behavior)

Number First Name Last Name Affiliation email

1 CoModerators

Cliff Davidson Syracuse University davidson@syr.edu

2 Bill Flanagan General Electric flanagan@ge.com

3

Session 

Members

Joshua Kneifel NIST joshua.kneifel@nist.gov

4 Richard Wright University of Maryland College Park richard.n.wright@verizonnet

5 Gerry Galloway University of Maryland gegallo@umd.edu

6 James Lambert University of Virginia lambert@virginia.edu

7 Bruce McDowell

Intergovernmental Management 

Associates mcdowell@intergov.com

8 Nancy Kralik Fluor nancy.kralik@fluor.com

9 Michele Russo McGraw Hill Construction michele.russo@mhfi.com

10 Haralamb Braileanu USPS hgbra10@yahoo.com

11 Robert Chapman Applied Economics Office, EL NIST robert.chapman@nist.gov

12 Chris Pyke US Green Building Council cpyke@usgbc.org

13 Matthew Eckelman Northeastern University m.eckelman@neu.edu

14 Michael Kearney University of Maryland kearneym@umd.edu

15 Safa Motesharrei University of Maryland ssm@umd.edu

16 David Ratterman Stites & Harbison, PLLC dratterman@stites.com

17 David Webb University of Maryland web29110@gmail.com
317

Appendix B. Biographical Information on Speakers, Panelists and 

Moderators

Bilal M. Ayyub

Dr. Ayyub is the Director of the Center for Technology and Systems 

Management at the University of Maryland. He is also a Professor of Civil and 

Environmental Engineering since 1983, Professor of Reliability Engineering 

since 1985, Professor of Applied Mathematics and Scientific Computation 

since 2009. Dr. Ayyub’s main research interests are risk, uncertainty and 

decision analysis, and systems engineering applied to civil, infrastructure, 

energy, defense and maritime fields. Dr. Ayyub is a fellow of ASCE, ASME, 

SRA and the Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers (SNAME). He 

is also IEEE senior member. Dr. Ayyub completed research and development 

projects for governmental and private entities. Dr. Ayyub is the recipient of 

awards from ASCE, ASNE, ASME, NAFIPS, the Department of the Army, and the Governor of 

the State of Maryland. Dr. Ayyub is the author and co-author of more than 600 publications 

(including 8 textbooks and 14 edited books) in journals, conference proceedings, and reports.

Bill Bertera

Mr. Bertera is the President and CEO of the Institute for Sustainable 

Infrastructure in Washington, D.C. He has served as the Executive Directors of 

the Water Environment Federation, the American Public Works Association and 

the Rebuild America Coalition. He has also served in senior management 

positions with the International City Management Association, the National 

Association of Counties and the National Solid Wastes Management Association, 

and worked for the U.S. House of Representatives as a Congressional chief of 

staff. He has degrees in business and public administration.

John B. Carberry

Mr. Carberry retired from DuPont as Director of Environmental Technology. 

There, he was responsible for recommending technology programs and 

product development based on environmental issues. Since 1989, he led that 

function to provide excellence in treatment and remediation while in transition 

to waste prevention and product sustainability. Mr. Carberry presently 

consults on environmental issues, emphasizing energy, renewable energy, 

persistent materials and nanomaterials. He chaired the AIChE Project on 

Metrics for Liquid Bio-fuels, has given over 135 presentations at universities 

and public conferences, is an adjunct professor of Chemical Engineering at the 

University of Delaware and served on the National Academy of Engineering’s Roundtable for 

Sustainability. Mr. Carberry is a founding member of the Green Power Market Development 

Group. He recently was Chair of the National Academy Committee on the Destruction of the 

Non-Stockpile Chemical Weapons, and served on nine previous National Academy Committees. 

He holds a B.ChE. and an M.E. in Chemical Engineering from Cornell University, an MBA from 

the University of Delaware, is a Fellow of the AIChE and is a Registered Professional Engineer.
318

Robert Chapman

Dr. Chapman is the Chief of the Applied Economics Office within the 

Engineering Laboratory at the National Institute of Standards and Technology 

(NIST). In his current position, he leads a group of economists that evaluate 

new technologies, processes, government programs, and codes and standards to 

determine efficient alternatives and to measure economic impacts. Dr. 

Chapman’s main research interests are energy efficiency, sustainability, 

performance-based standards, and disaster resilience. Dr. Chapman is the 

recipient of awards from the U.S. Department of Commerce and ASTM 

International. Dr. Chapman is the author and co-author of numerous 

publications, including: journal articles, conference proceedings, and technical 

reports.

Joannie Chin

Dr. Chin is the Acting Deputy Director of the Engineering Laboratory. Dr. 

Chin joined NIST in 1995 as a Materials Research Engineer. She has led 

research and published extensively on service life prediction for polymeric 

materials. Dr. Chin was a co-recipient of the Department of Commerce 

Bronze Medal in 2002 for the development of the NIST integrating spherebased weathering device. She is also a co-recipient of the Department of 

Commerce Gold Medal in 2010 for being part of a NIST team that revealed 

root causes of field failure in soft body armor and developed standards to 

address them. Dr. Chin received Best Paper and Best Presentation Awards 

from ASTM Committee D30 on Composite Materials in 1996, and the 

American Society of Composites in 2001, respectively. Dr. Chin was the 

recipient of the Federation of the Societies for Coatings Technology’s 2005 Technical Focus 

Award, for her work in service life prediction and accelerated aging of polymeric materials.

James C. Dalton

Mr. Dalton, SES, PE, is Chief, Engineering and Construction, Headquarters 

US Army Corps of Engineers and is responsible for policy, program, and 

technical expertise in the execution of the world wide engineering and 

construction missions of the Civil Works program; the Military Construction 

programs for the Army and other DOD agencies and technical services in 

support of Interagency and International services for other Federal agencies 

and foreign governments. He provides leadership to a field organization of 8 

Divisions and approximately 15,000 engineering personnel. His career 

includes service in the Corps’ Wilmington District, Egypt and Saudi Arabia; 

Korea, and Alaska. His senior leadership positions have been with the South 

Atlantic Division in Atlanta and the Gulf Region in Baghdad, Iraq. He 

earned his BSc in Architectural Engineering, from North Carolina A&T and his MSc in Civil 

Engineering from North Carolina State. He is a member of the ABET Industry Advisory 

Council and the National Academy of Construction.
319

Cliff Davidson

Dr. Davidson is the Director of the Center for Sustainable Engineering at 

Syracuse University. He is also the Thomas and Colleen Wilmot 

Professor of Engineering in the Syracuse Center of Excellence for 

Environmental and Energy Systems and the Civil and Environmental 

Engineering Department. He has held this position since 2010. Prior to 

this appointment, he was Professor in the Department of Civil & 

Environmental Engineering and the Department of Engineering & Public 

Policy at Carnegie Mellon University for 33 years. Dr. Davidson’s main 

research interests for many years were in the area of aerosol fate and 

transport in the environment, and have evolved over time to his current 

research in human perceptions of the environmental impacts of day-today activities, sustainable urban development including the use of green infrastructure for 

stormwater management, and sustainability in engineering education. Dr. Davidson is a Fellow 

of the American Association for Aerosol Research, and is also active in several other 

associations. He has received numerous awards for his teaching and research. Dr. Davidson is 

the author and co-author of more than 200 publications including journal articles, conference 

papers, book chapters, and books.

David E. Dise

David Dise, CPPO is Director, Department of General Services in 

Montgomery County, MD, and has worked in the public sector for over 

30 years. He directs procurement, facilities management, fleet 

maintenance and operations, real estate acquisition and disposition, 

planning and development, and capital project design and construction 

services for all county departments. Prior to this he served as Director of 

Montgomery County’s Office of Procurement, deputy director of 

Purchasing and Supply Management for Fairfax County, Virginia and 

chief procurement officer and chief of engineering technical resources for 

Fairfax Water, one of the nation’s largest public water utilities. He has 

been active in the American Public Works Association (APWA), the 

National Institute of Governmental Purchasing (NIGP), the Virginia 

Association of Governmental Purchasing (VAGP), the Institute for Supply-chain Management 

(ISM), and the National Electronic Commerce Coordinating Council (NECCC), serving on the 

board of directors and committees for these organizations. He has also chaired or participated in

various intergovernmental, business and private sector committees throughout the National 

Capital Region. 
320

William Flanagan

Dr. Flanagan leads the Ecoassessment Center of Excellence for the 

General Electric Company and is based at GE Global Research in upstate 

New York. The team works with the GE businesses, GE Corporate 

Environmental, and GE Ecomagination leadership to develop and 

implement life cycle management and life cycle assessment strategies 

focused on GE’s product and service portfolio. Dr. Flanagan graduated 

from Virginia Tech in 1985 and received a PhD in Chemical Engineering 

from the University of Connecticut in 1991. He serves on GE’s extended 

corporate ecomagination team, is a member of the Advisory Council for 

the American Center for Life Cycle Assessment (ACLCA), and also serves 

on the External Advisory Board for the University of Michigan’s Center for Sustainable 

Systems. He is an ACLCA-certified LCA Professional.

Damon Fordham

Mr. Fordham is Sustainable Transportation Practice Lead for The Cadmus 

Group, Inc., where he supports environmental, energy, and sustainability 

projects for clients across the transportation sector. Mr. Fordham is Vice 

Chair of the TRB Committee on Transportation and Sustainability, a 

member of the TRB Committee on Transportation Energy, and a board 

member for the Center for Environmentally Sustainable Transportation in 

Cold Climates – a federally-funded University Transportation Center. Mr. 

Fordham was previously Program Manager for Environment at the 

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials 

(AASHTO), where he led the delivery of environmental technical assistance 

to state DOTs and local transportation agencies. Prior to his role at 

AASHTO, Mr. Fordham was the first Sustainability Program Manager at the 

Oregon DOT, where he conceptualized, designed, and implemented a structured sustainability 

program for the management of Oregon’s transportation system and ODOT’s internal operations. 

Mr. Fordham has been a national expert panel member for ten sustainability-related TRB 

research projects.
321

Gerald E. Galloway

Dr. Galloway, PE is a Glenn L. Martin Institute Professor of 

Engineering, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering and an 

Affiliate Professor, School of Public Policy, University of Maryland, 

College Park, Maryland, where his focus is on water resources policy, 

resilience, and disaster risk management. He also serves as a consultant 

to several international, federal, state and non-governmental agencies 

and has been involved in water projects in the US, Europe, Asia and 

South America. He recently chaired a National Research Council (NRC) 

Study on Levees and the National Flood Insurance Program and is 

currently a member of the US National Academies’ Risk, Resilience and 

Extreme Events Roundtable and the Louisiana Governor’s Advisory Commission on Coastal 

Protection and Restoration. He is a member of the National Academy of Engineering and the 

National Academy of Public Administration. He served for 38 years in the US Army, retiring as 

a Brigadier General.

Howard Harary

Dr. Harary has been with the National Institute of Standards and Technology 

since 1985. Dr. Harary began his NIST career in the Precision Engineering 

Division of the Manufacturing Engineering Laboratory (MEL), working in 

the area of dimensional metrology. He was appointed Deputy Director of 

MEL in October 2004, and Acting MEL Director in August 2007. After the 

NIST re-alignment, he served as the Deputy Director for Manufacturing of 

the new NIST Engineering Laboratory. Dr. Harary is currently the Acting 

Director of the Engineering Laboratory. Dr. Harary was awarded the 

Commerce Department Bronze Medal for his work in three-dimensional 

measurement, and the NIST Edward Bennett Rosa Award for his 

collaboration with industry in re-establishing traceability for gear 

measurements. Dr. Harary currently serves on the visiting panel of the 

University of Maryland Mechanical Engineering Department, is the government liaison to the 

board of PDES, Inc., and is a member of the ASME Council on Standards and Certification.
322

I.S. Jawahir

Dr. Jawahir is a Professor of Mechanical Engineering, James 

F. Hardymon Endowed Chair in Manufacturing Systems, and 

the Director of the Institute for Sustainable Manufacturing 

(ISM) at the University of Kentucky. He received Ph.D. from 

the University of New South Wales (Sydney, Australia) in 

1986. His current research interests are in sustainable 

manufacturing at product, process and system levels, focusing 

on developing predictive performance models and optimization 

methods for sustainable machining. He has produced over 280 

technical research papers, including 120 refereed journal 

papers, and has been awarded with 4 U.S. patents. He has 

received significant research funding from U.S. Federal 

Agencies and major U.S. manufacturing companies. He is a Fellow of CIRP, ASME and SME. 

Eugenia Kalnay

Prior to her coming to UMD, Eugenia Kalnay was Branch Head 

at NASA Goddard, and later the Director of the Environmental 

Modeling Center (EMC, ex Development Division) of the 

National Centers for Environmental Prediction (NCEP, ex 

NMC), National Weather Service (NWS) from 1987 to 1997. 

During those ten years there were major improvements in the 

NWS models' forecast skill. Many successful projects such as 

the 60+years NCEP/NCAR Reanalysis (the paper on this 

Reanalysis has been cited over 10,000 times), seasonal and 

interannual dynamical predictions, the first operational 

ensemble forecasting, 3-D and 4-D variational data 

assimilation, advanced quality control, and coastal ocean forecasting. EMC became a pioneer in 

both the fundamental science and the practical applications of numerical weather prediction. 

Kalnay has received numerous awards, including the 2009 IMO Prize of the World 

Meteorological Organization. She is a member of the National Academy of Engineering and the 

UN Scientific Advisory Board on Sustainability created by the UN Secretary General.
323

Bohumil Kasal

Dr. Kasal is the Director of Fraunhofer Wilhelm-Klauditz-Institut 

WKI in Braunschweig, Germany, which is the world ́s largest 

research Institute focusing on lignocellusic biomaterials. The 

Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft is, with over 22,000 employees and over 60 

institutes, the largest applied research organization in Europe. Kasal 

concurrently holds a Chair in Organic and Wood-based Construction 

Materials at the Carolo-Wilhelmina University in Braunschweig, 

Germany. He holds an Ing. degree (engineer) from University of 

Zvolen, Slovakia, an MS in Wood Science from Virginia Tech, MS in 

Civil Engineering and PhD in Wood Structures from Oregon State 

University. Kasal has received number of awards and in 2001-2002 he 

was a Senior Fulbright Fellow in Germany. During 2005-2010, Dr. Kasal was a Hankin Chair 

and Professor of Civil Engineering and Professor of Architectural Engineering at the 

Pennsylvania State University, and Director of the Pennsylvania Housing Research Center. Prior 

to joining the faculty at Penn State, Dr. Kasal was a Professor at the North Carolina State 

University in Raleigh, NC.

Joshua Kneifel

Dr. Kneifel is a research economist in the Applied Economics Office 

of the Engineering Laboratory at the National Institute of Standards 

and Technology. Dr. Kneifel’s research at NIST implements whole 

building energy simulation, life-cycle costing, and life-cycle 

environmental assessment to determine the economic and 

environmental consequences of increasing the energy efficiency of 

building construction. Dr. Kneifel is the lead for the Metrics and 

Tools for Sustainable Buildings Project in the Net-Zero Energy, 

High Performance Buildings Program. Two outcomes of this project 

are the Building for Environmental and Economic Sustainability 

(BEES) software, which allows a user to compare the sustainability 

performance of individual building products, and Building Industry Reporting and Design for 

Sustainability (BIRDS), which expands the BEES framework to whole building design 

comparisons. The first version of BIRDS will be publically available this year. Dr. Kneifel is 

also involved with energy and economic research related to the performance of the NIST Net 

Zero Energy Residential Test Facility (NZERTF).
324

Fulya Kocak 

As Clark Construction Group's Director of Sustainability, Fulya 

Kocak develops the company's sustainability strategy, coordinates 

environmental responsibility efforts, and represents the company on 

numerous sustainable and green committees. In addition, Fulya 

manages Clark's nationwide Sustainability Committee which 

develops continuing education curriculum for employees and works 

with operations staff to ensure all projects meet their sustainability 

and LEED certification goals. Fulya's integrated approach 

emphasizes the key importance of knowledge sharing and crossdiscipline collaboration. Under her direction, ongoing commitment 

to education and sustainable construction practices is evident in 

every aspect of Clark’s projects. Fulya inspires innovative ideas, 

assists with decision-making by developing project-specific preconstruction tools, and works 

with subcontractors and suppliers to create and implement innovative sustainable solutions.

Relying on her experience in the field and in preconstruction, Fulya understands key client 

priorities and jobsite challenges. This background enables her to develop sustainable solutions 

that help teams reach their certification goals and benefit the environment throughout a project's 

lifecycle. Fulya serves as the Chairwoman of the board at the USGBC National Capital Region 

Chapter. As a voting member of the DCRA Green Technical Advisory Group, she has been 

influential in developing the District of Columbia's first green building codes. Fulya also is a 

member of the USGBC's Materials & Resources Technical Advisory Group's LEED Committee 

and the Associated General Contractors of America's Environmental Forum.

Constantine E. Kontokosta

Dr. Kontokosta, PE, AICP, LEED AP is Deputy Director of the NYU 

Center for Urban Science and Progress (CUSP), Founding Director of 

the Center for the Sustainable Built Environment at the NYU Schack 

Institute of Real Estate, and Associate Research Professor of Civil and 

Urban Engineering at the NYU Polytechnic School of Engineering. 

Bridging urban planning, data science, and systems engineering, Dr. 

Kontokosta leads CUSP’s Building Informatics research group, and has 

worked with numerous city agencies on issues of urban sustainability 

and resilience, most recently providing the data analysis for the Local 

Law 84 Building Energy Benchmarking Reports for the NYC Mayor’s 

Office of Long-Term Planning and Sustainability. He is also the Principal Investigator and Head 

of the CUSP Quantified Community research facility, which will create a fully instrumented 

urban neighborhood in New York City. Dr. Kontokosta holds a Ph.D., M.Phil, and M.S. in Urban 

Planning, specializing in econometrics, from Columbia University, a M.S. in Real Estate Finance 

from New York University, and a B.S.E. in Civil Engineering Systems from the University of 

Pennsylvania.
325

Nancy Kralik 

Ms. Kralik is the Senior Director of Health, Safety, and 

Environmental (HSE) and Sustainability at Fluor Corporation. She is 

a licensed civil and environmental engineer with over 30 years of 

experience in the development and application of HSE policies and 

procedures in a global arena. Nancy has served as HSE project 

manager on diverse enterprises, including onshore and offshore 

facilities, refineries, and chemical plants for major oil and gas 

companies, conducted field investigations in the U.S. and 

international locations, and managed global HSE regulatory issues for 

oil and gas interests. At Fluor, Nancy led the corporate initiative to 

integrate HSE activities and is engaged in sustainability and HSE 

engineering and field issues in a corporate role. She serves as the chair of Fluor's executive-level 

Sustainability Committee. Nancy holds P.E. licenses in Texas and Ohio, with M.S. degrees in 

civil/environmental engineering and fisheries biology and a B.S. in biology. She is a LEED 

(Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) Accredited Professional and Envision 

Sustainability Professional. She chairs the Construction Industry Institute's research team on 

sustainability during construction and recently led an Engineers Without Borders team on a El 

Salvadoran water project. Nancy is a member of ASCE's Committee on Sustainability and its 

subcommittee that develops sustainability education.

Gül Kremer 

Dr. Kremer is a Professor of Engineering Design and Industrial 

Engineering at Penn State University. Dr. Kremer's research mission 

is to investigate the design and implementation of decision analysis 

methods for improvement of products and systems. This is 

accomplished through research that is focused on modeling the 

complex decision contexts to develop more efficient decision making 

tools for alternative evaluation with the ultimate goal of improving 

designed artifacts and systems for increased productivity, and benefit 

to stakeholders. Dr. Kremer is a fellow of ASME and a senior 

member of IIE. Dr. Kremer completed research and development 

projects for governmental and private entities. She is the recipient of 

awards (best paper awards, outstanding teaching, and service) from 

ASME, IIE and Penn State University. Dr. Kremer is the author and co-author of more than 270 

publications (including 3 books) in journals, and peer reviewed conference proceedings. She is a 

former AFRL Faculty Fellow, and a Fulbright Scholar. She is currently serving as a program 

officer within NSF’s EHR Directorate.
326

Safa Motesharrei 

Dr. Motesharrei is a Systems Scientist at SESYNC, and a PhD 

candidate in Physics (Econophysics) at the University of Maryland 

(UMD), College Park. He has Bachelor degrees in Electrical 

Engineering and Physics, Master degrees in Physics and Mathematics, 

and a PhD in Applied Mathematics/Public Policy from UMD. The 

focus of his work is on integration of the Human System and 

Population into the Earth System Models. He works with a crossdisciplinary team of renowned scientists including Eugenia Kalnay 

(Atmospheric Science), James Yorke (Mathematics), Matthias Ruth 

(Public Policy), Victor Yakovenko (Econophysics), Klaus Hubacek 

(Geography/Economics), Jelena Srebric (Engineering/Energy Sustainability), Robert Cahalan 

(Climate Physics), and Fernando Miralles-Wilhelm (Hydrology). Safa’s studies were supported 

by doctoral fellowships from the School of Public Policy and the Department of Mathematics at 

UMD. In summer 2013, he was named the first recipient of the Lev Gandin Fellowship, awarded 

by Dr. Genia Brin.

Nabil Z. Nasr 

Dr. Nasr is currently the Associate Provost for Academic Affairs as well 

as Director, Golisano Institute for Sustainability at Rochester Institute of 

Technology (RIT). He also founded the Center for Remanufacturing and 

Resource Recovery (C3R) at RIT. Dr. Nasr’s main research interests are 

remanufacturing, life cycle engineering, cleaner production, sustainable 

product development, and manufacturing strategies. Dr. Nasr served as 

the chair of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and 

Development’s (OECD) Advisory Expert Group on Sustainable 

Production. He currently serves on the advisory board of ResCoM 

consortium. He also served as an expert delegate with the U.S. 

Government in several international forums such as the Asia Pacific 

Economic Cooperation (APEC), United Nations, World Trade Organization, and the OECD. He 

recently served as an invited expert to the 13th and 14th International Resource Panel of the 

United Nations Environment Programme.
327

Andrew Persily

Dr. Persily leads the Indoor Air Quality and Ventilation Group in the 

National Institute of Standards and Technology, where he works on 

indoor air quality and ventilation in commercial and residential buildings. 

His work includes the development and application of measurement 

techniques to evaluate airflow and air quality characteristics in a variety of 

building types, including large, mechanically ventilated buildings and 

single-family dwellings. He is also involved with the development and 

application of multi-zone airflow and contaminant dispersal models. Dr. 

Persily was a vice-president of the American Society of Heating, 

Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) from 2007 to 

2009, and is past chair of ASHRAE SSPC 62.1, responsible for the 

revision of the ASHRAE Ventilation Standard 62. He is currently chair of Standard 189.1, 

Design of High-Performance Green Buildings.

Subhas K. Sikdar 

Dr. Sikdar is the Associate Director for Science for the National Risk 

Management Research Laboratory. Before joining EPA in 1990, Dr. 

Sikdar held managerial positions at the National Institute of Standards 

and Technology, and General Electric Corporate Research & 

Development Center in Schenectady, New York. Dr. Sikdar is a Fellow 

of AAAS, ACS, AIChE, and IIChE, winner of five EPA bronze medals, 

two R&D 100 awards. He is recipient of AIChE’s Larry Cecil Award, 

Research Award for Sustainability, and Distinguished Alumnus Award 

from The University of Arizona and the University of Calcutta. He is 

the Editor-in-Chief of Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy, 

and a section editor of Current Opinions in Chemical Engineering. He is

the current Chair of Engineers’ Forum on Sustainability, and past Chair 

of AICHE’s Institute for Sustainability and Sustainable Engineering Forum. Dr. Sikdar has 

published more than 90 technical papers in reputed journals, has 26 U.S. patents and edited 15 

books.
328

Michele A. Russo

Ms. Russo is the Director of the Green Content & Research 

Communications, McGraw Hill Construction (MHC). Since its inception in 

2005, Michele has directed MHC’s SmartMarket Report and market 

insights program, tracking key industry trends affecting the construction 

industry. At MHC, Michele also acts as a subject matter expert in trends 

related to energy efficiency, high performance buildings, green building 

and corporate sustainability drawing from her more than eighteen years of 

experience in tracking these industry trends, notably through her prior work 

in the nonprofit and state government sectors. She is also responsible for helping direct the green 

content across MHC’s portfolio of products and service, including drawing key high 

performance building trends from MHC’s Dodge Construction Project Starts data. Michele is a 

frequent speaker and writer on key industry trends and has been quoted in major media outlets. 

Michele has a B.S. in Chemical Engineering from Cornell University and a Masters in Public 

Policy from Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government where she served as a course assistant in 

statistics and econometrics.

Sudarsan Rachuri 

Dr. Rachuri is a computer scientist at National Institute of Standards and 

Technology (NIST). He is the program manager for the Smart 

Manufacturing Systems Design and Analysis program at NIST. His 

primary research objectives are to develop and transfer knowledge to 

industry about information models for smart and sustainable 

manufacturing, green products, assembly representation, system level 

analysis, and tolerance representation. Specific focus is on identifying 

integration and technology issues that promote industry acceptance of 

information models, and standards that will enable designers to develop 

products that are sustainable and manufactured in a distributed and 

collaborative environment. Dr. Rachuri’s primary areas of interest are 

sustainable manufacturing, scientific computing, CAD/CAM/CAE, design for sustainability, data 

analytics, object-oriented modeling, and ontology. Dr. Rachuri is an ASME Fellow, having been 

elected in 2012 for his significant contributions in the areas of information and semantic 

modeling of product life cycle management, and the application of measurement science for 

sustainable manufacturing.
329

Richard N. Wright 

Dr. Wright is a Research Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering at 

the University of Maryland College Park, vice chair of ASCE’s Committee on 

Adaptation to a Changing Climate, member of the ASCE Committee on 

Sustainability, and chair of its Sustainable Infrastructure Education 

Subcommittee. He is a Distinguished Member of ASCE and member of the 

National Academy of Engineering. He is retired as director of the Building 

and Fire Research Laboratory of the National Institute of Standards and 

Technology and as Professor of Civil Engineering at the University of Illinois 

at Urbana-Champaign. He has been president of the International Council for 

Research and Innovation in Building and Construction (CIB); and president of 

the Liaison Committee of International Civil Engineering Organizations. He 

received bachelor’s and master’s degrees from Syracuse University, and the 

Ph.D. from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, all in Civil Engineering. He has 

registered as a professional engineer in New York and a structural engineer in Illinois.
330