My team is currently working on a handful of LEED-EB projects in New York City (mid-town Manhattan). In the past we have done surveys, however we have a really hard time getting responses from this demographic. Typically we’re seeing between a 20-40% response rate. It’s heartbreaking to see these projects only get 5-9 points for SSc4 when we all know that the vast majority of workers in Manhattan use alternative transportation. These projects really deserve the full 15 points! They are older buildings, struggling for points and alternative transportation is one of their “greenest” claims-to-fame. The intent of this credit is to reduce pollution from automobiles, and in the USA no one does it better than Manhattan when it comes to reducing automobile-dependency. Does anyone have any alternative compliance ideas for Manhattan buildings that sidestep the survey approach?
My preliminary research shows that the NY Metropolitan Transportation Council collects and presents transportation information using census data (in 2008 only 11.1% drove alone). You can view data at http://www.nymtc.org/webquery/census/main.cfm as “travel mode – by place of workplace”. But the data is from 2008 at the latest, and of course this isn’t a formal “program”. Are there programs in Manhattan that meet LEED requirements, will get us a more deserving number of points, and open for membership? Are there any other ideas out there? Any help is appreciated! Thank you
Energy Spectrum
EngineerEnergy Spectrum
8 thumbs up
March 12, 2012 - 1:58 pm
I'm in the same boat. The building manager estimates that almost 100% of building occupants take NYC public transit to work. I am also very interested if there is any study that suffices for LEED points
Jason Franken
Sustainability ProfessionalLEEDuser Expert
608 thumbs up
March 12, 2012 - 2:14 pm
I know of several projects that have attempted to use published studies on commuting patterns in major U.S. metropolitan areas as a proxy for conducting an actual survey and each project has had the credit denied and been instructed to use one of the compliance paths outlined in the rating system. So the short answer is: no, at this time, you cannot use a third-party study focusing on the general commuting patterns of the area that the project building is located within. From what I've seen of the draft language, this will not be an option in LEED 2012 either.
If survey response rates are low, consider the method by which the survey is conducted. For instance, try using Option 2, Approach 2 outlined on pp. 28-29 of the 2009 Reference Guide. You may have better luck working with tenant or building reps to target a statistically significant sample of the entire building population. It's a smaller pool of respondents and makes the process easier to plan and track.
Also, consider the mode used to distribute the survey. If online surveys are getting no response, tailor your survey to take no longer than 30 seconds to respond to, station volunteers or property management reps in the elevator lobbies and provide some incentive for people to take the survey in-person as they enter the building in the morning (ie. free coffee, donuts, etc.). Make sure that you are covering all entrances (including those from parking garages) and that you have a method to avoid counting building visitors.
You may need to think creatively to get a good survey response rate, but it will pay off in the end.
Alexis Thompson
Building ScientistChelsea Group, Ltd.
62 thumbs up
March 14, 2012 - 6:30 pm
Thank you for your comment, Jason. It does help to know that citing 3rd parties and/or begging won't work :)
Regarding Approach 2, with the random sample... All things equal, statistically speaking a true random sample would receive the exact same response rate as a survey involving the entire population. If the sample is truly a random, representative sample then comparing those who respond vs those who refuse in both populations should show the same ratio (comparing any data should be equal... that is the point of a sample). Under LEED, the scales are tipped towards Approach 1, because when you survey the entire population you are able to extrapolate results, which is not possible under Approach 2. This is with all things being equal. However, there seems to be some debate about how to select this repesentative sample, and without having a true statistical sample, this may tip the scales back in favor of Approach 2. Earlier posts suggest that using door teams to question those entering the building is just as good as any means to develop a sample. Statistically, this isn't entirely accurate. Has USGBC approved this? Survey all the people who walk through the door on, say, Monday morning? Further, are the people who refuse to take the survey counted as non-respondents or are they thrown out due to self-selection bias? For the purposes of LEED is it possible to determine your randomly selected sample on-the-spot without knowing anything about the population (occupation, employer, etc)?
There are other variables that come into play, too. As you said, management of a smaller survey group may make Approach 2 easier (assuming you have the right sample). And of course, the method of distribution plays a large factor for both approachs. Regarding distribution, do you think it's possible to supplement the surveys sent out electronically with door teams? Would it be acceptable to use a verbal question ("did you already take this online?") as our method to avoid double-counting?