Livability and LEED-ND: the Challenges and Successes of Sustainable Neighborhood Rating Systems

Livability and LEED-ND: The Challenges and Successes of Sustainable Neighborhood Rating Systems by Nicola Alexandra Szibbo A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in City and Regional Planning in the Graduate Division of the University of California, Berkeley Committee in charge: Professor Elizabeth Macdonald, Chair Professor Elizabeth Deakin Professor Peter Bosselmann Professor Harrison Fraker Professor Carolina Reid Spring 2015 Copyright © 2015 Nicola Alexandra Szibbo All Rights Reserved Abstract Livability and LEED-ND: The Challenges and Successes of Sustainable Neighborhood Rating Systems By Nicola Alexandra Szibbo Doctor of Philosophy in City and Regional Planning University of California, Berkeley Professor Elizabeth Macdonald, Chair A rating system known as Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design for Neighborhood Development, LEED-ND, (USGBC 2011) was developed in 2007 to assess sustainability at the neighborhood scale. Although at this time LEED for buildings is a well-known and well-established program in the United States, LEED for Neighborhood Development is less widely recognized since it was developed in 2007 as compared to LEED for buildings. LEED-ND requires that certified developments meet credit areas in three main categories: a) smart location and linkage (SLL), b) neighborhood pattern and design (NPD), and c) green infrastructure and buildings (GIB). LEED-ND goes above and beyond singularly requiring sustainable mobility, traditional neighborhood design, or green building; rather, it incorporates the above three categories into a single rating system. To date, prior LEED rating systems (New Construction and Existing Buildings) have focused on the building scale, as have most critiques of such metrics (Del Percio 2004; Dermisi 2009; Humbert et al. 2007; Hodapp 2008). Few authors have ventured to analyze the neighborhood rating system with the exception of Garde (2009) and Ewing et al. (2013) and Sharifi and Murayama (2013b), who have only used only secondary scorecard data and other aggregated data to assess the success or predict outcomes of LEED-ND neighborhoods. No post-occupancy studies have been conducted to date that take into consideration the resident’s perception and stated preferences. Additionally, no studies have examined in detail the provision of affordable housing within LEED-ND developments. LEED-ND has been rapidly adopted as the de-facto green neighborhood standard and is now used to measure the sustainability of neighborhood design around the world. Like the previous LEED green building rating systems, LEED-ND is heavily reliant on physical & environmental design criteria (measures such as compact urban form and transit accessibility), and is based on an expert-generated point system. LEED-ND thus excels in measuring ‘environmental sustainability’ through its stringent environmental performance criteria. However, it fails to critically address important livability factors—namely social and economic factors—and there has not been a critical examination of how to properly weigh the various factors in response to user preferences. Scholars have emphasized that the major weakness of sustainable development agendas, emphasizing that although assessment of environmental sustainability is quite thorough, often sustainable development projects fail to adequately address or operationalize social and economic sustainability (White and Lee 2009; Lehtonen 2004). Ultimately, creating metrics for social and 1 economic sustainability is more complicated than developing metrics for environmental sustainability, which can be reduced to direct built environment performance measures. At the neighborhood scale, socio-cultural and socio-economic concerns—such as affordable housing— become magnified for residents. Accordingly, this dissertation argues that socio-cultural and socio- economic factors and user preferences require a more significant foothold in neighborhood scale rating systems, if such systems purport to fully support all three tiers of sustainability: social, economic and environmental (Wheeler 2004). Specifically, this study examines affordable housing as a proxy for social equity and social sustainability in LEED-ND neighborhoods, and determines the extent to which principles of social sustainability are being upheld. This dissertation advances the emerging field of sustainable neighborhood rating systems, by illustrating and evaluating a significant gap in current sustainable neighborhood evaluation systems. Cutting across planning, landscape architecture, architecture, psychology and sociology in both Canada and the US, the study critically questions the LEED-ND rating system as the epitome of sustainable development. This dissertation illustrates that in order to be truly sustainable, developments must consider social-cultural and socio-economic livability factors alongside environmental factors, including post-occupancy evaluation. This dissertation also asks the question if social equity and affordability issues can be singularly addressed by a voluntary, market-based rating system, or if a broader range of strategies is needed to ensure the provision of affordable housing in new sustainable developments. Ultimately, this study provides recommendations to improve the rating system, with a specific focus on affordable housing. This dissertation uses a mixed-methods approach to answer the above questions about sustainability, livability and affordable housing. The methodology behind the research approach is outlined at length in Chapter 3. This Chapter includes an overview of a post-occupancy survey of livability factors that was conducted in four neighborhoods in Metro Vancouver, British Columbia and in Portland, Oregon. The four neighborhoods—two urban LEED-ND platinum, and two suburban Traditional Neighborhood Design (TND) neighborhoods—are described in detail in Chapter 4. The two urban LEED-ND neighborhoods are Southeast False Creek in Vancouver, British Columbia and Hoyt Street Yards in Portland, Oregon. The two suburban Traditional Neighborhood Design (TND) neighborhoods are East Clayton in Surrey, British Columbia, and Fairview Village in Fairview, Oregon. This chapter also explains why they are comparable cases. In addition, in order to address the questions about affordable housing and equity in LEED-ND, this chapter recounts the methodology used, including credit-level statistical scorecard data aggregation, an online survey of LEED-ND Accredited Professionals, interviews with LEED-ND Accredited Professionals, and policy analysis of affordable housing provision. This dissertation, based on post-occupancy survey evidence, finds that there are several livability qualities that are important to residents living in both urban LEED-ND and Traditional Neighborhood Design (TND) suburban neighborhoods in the Pacific Northwest—namely safety and security and walkability. Additionally, there are several criteria that are important to suburban TND respondents, privacy within the interior of the unit, views to trees and natural landscapes, and a sense of community. Surprisingly, most respondents believe that vehicle ownership is important in all neighborhoods, and most respondents still own at least one car. Additionally, driving is still the number one mode choice in all four neighborhoods except one (Hoyt Street Yards, Portland, Oregon) challenging the assumption that LEED-ND development currently has the power to drastically reduce VMT in new sustainable developments. Hoyt Street Yards in the Pearl District in 2 Portland, Oregon provides a good example of where walking is the number one mode choice, which is most likely due to the small size of the blocks (200’ x 200’) and its frequent and well- maintained light rail MAX transit system. However, further research could be done on this particular assumption. This dissertation also finds through survey and statistical evidence presented in Chapter 6 that although LEED-ND espouses income-mixing and social equity as part of its mission, that affordable housing remains a largely neglected element within LEED-ND neighborhoods. Currently only 40% of LEED-ND neighborhoods (v2009) provide affordable housing. Because affordable housing is a critical component of social equity, and the optional credit allows developers to bypass the provision of affordable housing, the credit needs to be changed. It does not necessarily need to be a mandatory credit or pre-requisite, but the credit, which is currently worth less than 3% of the overall rating system, needs to be better incentivized. Until the credit is weighted more heavily in LEED-ND, city planners will have to rely upon a much broader portfolio of both ‘carrots’ (density bonuses, faster approval processes) and ‘sticks’ (inclusionary zoning) to ensure that there is affordable housing in new sustainable development. In addition, cities and states must take advantage of current federal and state funding specifically earmarked for affordable housing, including the National Housing Trust Fund (NHTF) and the Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities (AHSC) fund. There are also other elements of LEED-ND certification that could improve upon, according to interviews with LEED-ND Accredited Professionals. These further recommendations are examined in Chapter 8. First, there is a call for increased peer review in the LEED-ND certification process, given the high costs of certification and primary oversight from the USGBC. Second,

Load more