InstituteofEnvironmentalSciences ( MiamiUniversity House and Woods De… · InstituteofEnvironmentalSciences (MiamiUniversity ((PublicServiceProject (2010

Institute of Environmental Sciences Miami University

Public Service Project

2010-‐2

Crawford House and Woods Demonstration Site

Client City of Hamilton Green Committee

August 2010

Project Managers

Scott Johnston Dr. William Renwick Dr. Sandra Woy-‐Hazelton

Team Members

Gwendolyn Bausmith Michael Chapman Lore Denisse Rivera-‐Hernandez Jereme Simmons

Sarah Van Frank

M.En. Candidates

Miami University

Institute of Environmental Sciences 102 Boyd Hall

Oxford, OH 45056 513-‐529-‐5811 (voice) 513-‐529-‐5814 (fax)

2 | C r a w f o r d H o u s e a n d W o o d s D e m o n s t r a t i o n S i t e

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section I ..................................................................................................................... 3

Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 4 Project Development ................................................................................................... 5 Urban Homesteading/DIY ............................................................................................ 7 Crawford House History ............................................................................................... 8

Section II .................................................................................................................. 11

Crawford House Proposal .............................................................................................. 12 The Age of Homesteading .......................................................................................... 14 The Age of Advancement & Consumerism ................................................................ 21 The Age of Awareness ................................................................................................ 27 Vendor Display Space ................................................................................................. 35 Outdoor Living ............................................................................................................ 39

Section III .................................................................................................................. 49

Renovation of the Crawford House ............................................................................... 50

Section IV ................................................................................................................. 58

Community Involvement Recommendations ................................................................ 59 Educational Outreach ................................................................................................. 59 Local Participation ...................................................................................................... 60 Resource Support ....................................................................................................... 62

Section V .................................................................................................................. 70

Monitoring and Evaluation ............................................................................................ 71

Section VI ................................................................................................................. 75

Conclusion ..................................................................................................................... 76

References................................................................................................................ 78

Appendices ............................................................................................................... 81

Appendix A: Master Floor Plan Appendix B: Hamilton City School Listing Appendix C: Local Participation List Appendix D: LEED Point Summary Appendix E: Utah House Monitoring Program Appendix F: Artifacts Index Appendix G: Water Color Renderings Appendix H: Historical Documents


SECTION I


Introduction

Vision 2020 Plan for Hamilton, Ohio is a comprehensive living plan to move the city into the 21st

all aspects needed to reestablish a thriving city: land use planning, public transportation, public

facilities, education, economic development and the environment. Initiatives under the plan are

to be implemented by collaborative efforts of city employees, city officials, and community

members. One such initiative was launched by the Green Committee in mid 2009. This

subcommittee was initially led by Kathleen Klink, a Vision 2020 Commissioner, and since early

2010 leadership has been shared by Joel Fink and Mike Dingeldein. The members of this

committee are volunteers from the community who have an interest in advancing sustainable

environmental practices for the city of Hamilton.

objectives and to promote their goal of promoting sustainable living, a central site should be

created in Hamilton for residents to visit and gain knowledge of the latest techniques and

practices in sustainable living. The site would serve as a demonstration place for organizations

within the community to display their services and provide instruction to residents on do-‐it-‐

yourself (DIY) projects in sustainable living.

The committee discussed whether to build a new facility, retrofit an older building, or use a

historical site within the city limits as the location. It was decided that an older building would

be used and the committee had the option of one of two homes. The final selection was the

Crawford House and Woods. The Crawford House, built in 1835, sits on a 58-‐acre parcel

located at 2200 Hancock Avenue in the city of Hamilton. The Hamilton Parks and Recreation

Division currently owns the property. Because of its history, the Green Committee felt this was

a great opportunity to renovate an old structure to be used again in the community. They also

believed that combining historical living with the demonstration of current and future

sustainability practices, would be a unique attraction in the region.


(IES) assist in the planning for the development of this demonstration site. In August, 2009 the

team of Gwen Bausmith, Michael Chapman, Denisse Rivera-‐Hernandez, Jereme Simmons and

Sarah Van Frank took on the task as a Public Service Project.

Project Development

The Green Committee provided the team with a list of purposes for the Crawford House and

Woods demonstration site:

Provide citizens with an opportunity to learn about becoming green

Utilize the Crawford Woods house as a demonstration site for both interior and exterior

solutions in a variety of areas.

Provide vendors with an opportunity to showcase their products

Provide the Utility Department with the opportunity to tell their story

Dispel myths about the environment while educating the community

Given this guidance, the team determined the project goal:

Utilize Crawford House and Woods as a local demonstration site for practicing good

In this context, continuous living is defined as building on the past for the benefit of the present

and the future. This definition and its benefits include, but are not limited to, energy, water and

soil conservation, monetary savings and incentives, quality of life issues, food production and

processing and community connectivity and involvement. In order to meet this goal, we

identified three primary objectives.

Provide a plan for program development of Crawford House and Woods.

Suggest building recommendations specific to the Crawford House.


Educate the local community about Environmental Stewardship and Continuous Living.

The scope of the project was determined in consultation with the committee and was defined

in terms of physical geography, historical considerations, governmental jurisdiction, utility

infrastructure, and interested parties or stakeholders.

.

.All recommendations will be confined to the 58 acres of property that compose the

Crawford House and Woods, although the residential and school context of the

surrounding area will be taken into account.

All modifications of the house will be guided by concern for the historical integrity and

character of house, but since it is not on the National Register of Historical Places,

retrofits to emphasize modern energy conservation and sustainable practices will be

possible.

All modifications and utility changes will fall within the legal permits of the local

jurisdictions (City of Hamilton and Butler County) and local utilities.

All educational and promotional recommendations will strive for broad accessibility and

take into account the diverse ethnic and socio-‐economic population of the City of

Hamilton.

In order to prepare a proposal for the Crawford House and Woods we researched sustainable

technologies and practices, methods of consumer environmental education, display techniques

and existing demonstration sites. Along with an extensive literature review we interviewed

technology vendors and experts in sustainable practices and behavior. We visited four local

Connection Home in Cincinnati; the McGuffey House Museum in Oxford; and the Preble County

-‐line reviews

Florida-‐


characteristics and applicable demonstration techniques that would be relevant and useful for

the Crawford House.

Sustainable Living Approaches: DIY to Urban Homesteading:

Although many people like the idea, they are often confused about how to take positive steps

to a lower impact, more sustainable way of living because there are a variety of approaches.

Everyone is familiar with the concept of DIY (do-‐it-‐yourself) projects whose main objective is to

save money using your own labor and materials for household projects. The underlying value

of self-‐reliance can be extended into the more advanced concept of urban homesteading. The

objective of this approach is to provide as many of the inputs needed to maintain a household

on its own as possible, even to the point of becoming completely independent of the energy

grid and supplying large portions of their food from home gardens. Our research has produced

many possible projects for households that range from very simple DIY efforts to more complex

technological alternatives. Projects can range from simple things like sewing your own window

quilts, building garden trellises or patios constructed with stones from the local creek. Each

household can incorporate projects that fit their goals.

The pioneering history of the Crawford House presents a particularly fitting scenario for

demonstrating the practices that embody the spirit of DIY and urban homesteading

independence. The Crawford House and Woods was once a farm that provided much of its

own food necessities and where many DIY practices we wish to demonstrate undoubtedly

occurred, such as home food processing, canning, gardening, water conservation practices,

composting, personal home maintenance and carpentry. Thus a perfect bridge can be built

between the way of life in 19th century Hamilton and a more sustainable Hamilton of

tomorrow.

We have created a living, evolving toolbox of ideas that can be customized to fit the

circumstances, desires and needs of individual households. Certainly families that live in

apartments will not be able to raise dairy goats or install gray water recycling units, but they


can learn to grow tomatoes or other vegetables on their balconies or terraces. People from all

walks of life will be able to take something of practical use for their situation away from the

experience. As families grow and circumstances evolve, it is our hope that the initial steps they

learn and take will continue to grow. Visitors who respond positively to the Crawford House

experience may continuously increase the sustainability of their lifestyles, the enjoyment of

accomplishing household tasks formerly left to professionals and continue to contemplate their

This report is our proposal for a unique facility, one that revives a historically important site in

an environmentally sustainable way, which can serve as an active community educational

center. The following sections provide: 1) a brief historical overview of the Crawford House, 2) a

detailed proposal for a floor )

recommendations for the house, 4) recommendations for community involvement, and 5)

means of monitoring and evaluating the proposed demonstration site.

Crawford House History

Prior to owning what we currently think

of as the Crawford House, David and his

wife, Jeanette Giffen Crawford, lived in a

log cabin near a canal on an adjoining

tract of land to the current Crawford

House Woods. This land sits slightly

north of Grand Boulevard and the cabin

was constructed of local timber found on

the property (Heiser, 1957). What we now know as the Crawford House was originally built in

1835, and at the time, was known as

house, the land was the wood lot for Hamilton resident William Daniels and included a 17-‐acre

Figure 1 County Atlas (1875).


materials such as stones from adjacent fields and bricks that were molded from clay deposits

found on the property. Walnut and poplar trees on the property were used in the flooring and

fireplace mantels (Blount, 2005). The house was occupied by Mr. Daniels until 1845, when he

sold it to David Crawford (Heiser, 1936). The house would go on to be occupied by three

generations of the Crawford family until 1948 (Blount, 2005). David passed it on to his son

David M, who occupied the house in the early 1900s before he passed it on to his son, William

C. Crawford.

William, known as Billy, lived in the house with his cousin, Mary Cavanaugh, who was known as

generous with their property, inviting townspeople over for picnics and hosting sled riding and

Easter festivities. They also hosted tours of the house and it became an extremely important

part of the city. When Billy passed away in 1948 at the age of 79, the 58-‐acre lot was

bequeathed to Aunt Dolly and another heir, Robert Crawford Falconer. Robert and Dolly then

donated the house and property to the city of Hamilton for park and recreation use. A 17-‐acre

portion of the land was available for immediate use by the city and the rest of the 48-‐acres,

including the house, was made available after Dolly passed away in 1958 (Blount, 2005).

After the passing of Aunt Dolly, the house fell into a state of disrepair and remained that way

for the next 8 years. Finally, in 1966 Hamilton citizens began voicing concerns about the house

and its shabby state. What had once been an important part of the community had become an

eyesore. The Historic Restoration Committee for the Butler County Park District proposed that

just

that. The house and five acres of the land were then leased to the Park District for the next 20

years. Once funds were raised (about $7,000), they began the restoration process, which was

delayed when a fire swept through the house. Rather than abandon the project, they set out

with more fervor than ever and were able to dedicate the house a mere five months behind

schedule. Once restored, the house again became an integral part of the community. Rather


than simply serving as a historical museum, it became a meeting hall and headquarters for the

park district (Brush, N.D.).

After the restoration of the 1960s, the Crawford House thrived for approximately the next 20

years. Sadly, the house once again fell into disrepair. The Park District has been using the

house for storage of various sports equipment and old documents over the years but little else

has been done with it in many years. We hope that the following proposal for its reuse as a

sustainable living showcase, merging the past with the future, will not only revitalize the house,

but the entire city.


Section II


Crawford House Proposal

This proposal is designed to create a unique educational experience by demonstrating

sustainable living technologies in a historical context. It features five visitor spaces using four

rooms on the first floor of the house and an outdoor area. Each room focuses on a particular

historical era and a specific environmental theme. The history of the house is illustrated with

appropriate artifacts in each room. Sustainable practices and technologies will be

communicated through signage, interactive displays, brochures and media, among other things.

These practices will be divided into two parts, 1) short-‐term responses to problems that are

relatively low cost and can be completed in a timely manner; and 2) long-‐term, initially more

expensive efforts to address major problems.

The route through the house is planned for visitors to walk through different time periods and

see a progression of energy technologies and sustainable practices. In the Parlor, visitors will

droom/study where window and

lighting technologies are highli

ustainable heating and the most

modern energy saving appliances are displayed. The fourth room in the house is to be used as a

vendor area where local enterprises can showcase their products and services. This will be an

area of interactive stations where informational pieces on the technologies of the site are

available. The outdoor space provides an opportunity to promote sustainable gardening, rain

barrel use, and composting, among other practices. The following page is the full floor plan of

the proposed site. This floor plan can also be seen in Appendix A.



The Age of Homesteading: Parlor Room 1835-‐1900

Historical Theme The Age of Homesteading was chosen to represent a period that embodied self-‐reliance. It was

a time in which sustainability was a natural way of life and self-‐sufficiency left a much lighter

impact on the surrounding environment. The practices of that time can provide many lessons

that can benefit current lifestyles. The setting of a parlor room is appropriate for this time

period because it was the social gathering place inside the house. Highlighting interpersonal

communication as the original source of entertainment focuses individuals away from energy

draining technologies, such as the television and computer, back toward human contact and

conversation. Without the modern technol

were deeply intertwined with the local environment and required them to work with rather

than against the natural world.

Rather than air conditioning, houses were designed in order to maximize airflow patterns and

shipment. Food was produced on site and clothing hand sewn, again reducing the need for

shipment of goods from outside areas. These examples of sustainable behavior, among others,


will provide the educational content for this room, with the intent of encouraging visitors to

engage in similar behaviors and tread more lightly on the Earth.

This room (Figures 2 & 3) can be decorated with period furniture and artifacts that are owned

by the City of Hamilton. Some of the pieces were left in the house, others are era appropriate

and owned by the Butler County Historical Society.

Figure 2: Current state of parlor room. Photo courtesy of Sarah Van Frank.

Figure 3 Artist rendition of Parlor Room. Painting courtesy of Natalie Otrembiak.


Featured Technology: Insulation The parlor room will focus on insulation technologies within homes. Historically, insulation was

not typically added to homes, they simply consisted of frame construction without insulation,

or brick/stone with possibly a layer of plaster. This allowed air to escape and a large amount of

heat to be lost. The lack of insulation and gaps in existing structures, especially in older homes,

can lead to abundant heat and energy loss, greatly increasing the cost of utility bills for

homeowners and renters. Leaks can occur in many places within a typical home, but roughly

31% of all air loss occurs within the floors, ceilings and walls according to the US Department of

Energy (2009).

We propose that the primary display in this room be a

wall cutaway that demonstrates the various layers of

insulation. The cutaway would expose the brick and

plaster from the original house and also display the

layers of new insulation that have been added to the

house in order to make it more energy efficient This

type of display provides visitors with a rare glimpse of

how far insulation technologies have come.

The educational signage and displays in this room should

provide the visitors with a summary of the major problems, ways to identify the severity of the

problem in their own homes, and the short-‐term and long-‐term responses to address these

problems in a sustainable manner. For example, after highlighting the types of problems in

floors, ceilings and walls, the visitor could be shown how to discover air leaks by placing an

incense stick or smoke pen next to windows, doors, electrical outlets, ceiling fixtures or any

other places where air might possibly escape and observe the smoke trail. If it follows a path to

a specific area, rather than traveling vertically, then you may have discovered a possible air leak

area.

Figure 4 Cutaway of wall insulation. Source: www.askhandyman.com.


Short Term Responses Sealing off heated and cooled spaces from those that are not, is one of the easiest and most

cost effective ways that homeowners can improve the efficiency within their homes. Target

areas include but are not limited to cracks around windows, doorways leading into crawl

spaces, attics, garages or outside (Chiras, 2007) The following sealing techniques, defined by

the US Department of Energy (2009) could be provided to visitors as a checklist to minimize the

amount of air escaping from their houses.

Caulk and weather-‐strip all doors and windows in addition to areas where wiring or

piping travels through walls, floors or ceilings.

Install foam gaskets behind electrical switch plates.

Seal insulation holes with inexpensive spray foam.

Close the flue damper on your chimney when not in use. If you do not use your chimney

very frequently, inflatable chimney balloons can be used to seal the area. They are easy

to remove and are reusable.

Cover your kitchen exhaust fan; this will reduce the amount of air that can enter the

area or escape the area when it is not in use.

Install pliable sealing gaskets to the bottoms of doors to reduce drafts.


Sealing the House

High performance paintable silicone caulk performs well for

this purpose. These caulks have great adhering capability,

are extremely flexible and usually have a 40-‐50 year life

span. When filling larger cracks, foam backer rod can be

used in conjunction with caulk. Gaps can be filled with

spray on expandable foam (Figure 5). These sealing

-‐

room, and can be communicated through interpretive

signage or can be demonstrated within the vendor display

area. The air within walls is classified as unconditioned air, so sealing wall switch plates and

electrical receptacle plates can help to stop heat or conditioned air loss. Foam gaskets inserted

behind the plates help to seal off escaping air. These gaskets can be purchased at most

hardware stores. This is a solution that homeowners can easily and quickly implement (Chiras,

2007). These plate gaskets can be displayed in the room through the use of a clear switch or

receptacle plate so visitors can see the foam gasket beneath. Interpretive signage adjacent to

the plate gasket should also be provided.

Long Term Returns

Wall Insulation

Many older homes were built without any insulation within exterior walls. The rule of thumb

says that the older the house, the more insulation should be added (Chiras, 2007). There are

four types of insulation systems that we recommend for the educational displays; they include:

blown in, batt, rigid foam and spray-‐on insulation. In Ohio, a value of R-‐11 to R-‐26 is advisable

(Litchfield, 2005). The educational component for these insulation systems should compare

and contrast each technology for their advantages and disadvantages for investment returns,

ease of installation and environmental benefits.

Older houses have only brick and mortar construction and little or no exterior wall framing

present a challenge for retrofitting insulation. The most economical and straightforward

Figure 5: Expandable foam. Source: Litchfield, 2005.


manner for adding insulation is to use furring strips coupled with rigid foam insulation board

(Figure 4) (Litchfield, 2005). Although Figure 4 features concrete block instead of brick, the

image provides a cut-‐away example of how these materials and techniques can be displayed

within the parlor (Litchfield, 2005). A cutaway display of this furring technique also provides an

excellent opportunity to show how to conceal wiring and conduit for a more finished look.

For the benefit of visitors who have frame houses, it

may be appropriate to create a display showing 2x4 or

2x6 frame construction, with closed cell spray-‐on (Figure

6) or batt insulation (Figure 7). In either case, the

insulation rests between the wall studs. Spray-‐on

insulation is applied through a fine screen that is stapled

across the studs. This type of insulation typically has an

R-‐value of about 3.9 per inch. Once this foam cures it can easily be cut with a handsaw. Most

spray-‐on insulations are petrochemical free and virtually fireproof. Because of the level of skill

required, this type of insulation requires professional installation. (Litchfield, 2005).

Figure 7 provides an illustration of batt insulation. This is the most

common type of insulation and can be installed fairly easily. Batt can

be made of recycled cotton or denim, mineral wool, and fiberglass;

the latter accounts for the most widely used

have as many of the negative side effects

such as eye, skin and lung irritation that was

associated with older batt insulation.

Typical high-‐density fiberglass batt

insulation is rated at R-‐11, R-‐13 and R-‐15

and 5-‐1/2 inch thick batts (for use between 2x6 studs), are rated at R-‐

Figure 6: Closed cell spray-on. Source: Litchfield, 2005.

Figure 7: Batt insulation. Source: www.cardallsfiberglassins.net, 2010.

Figure 8: Blown-in insulation. Source: Litchfield, 2005.


21 (Litchfield, 2005).

Another means of insulating within the wall cavities of old houses that have little if any wall

insulation is to use a blown-‐in insulation (Figure 8). The main advantage of this type of

insulation is that it can be installed without having to open up walls. Small holes are drilled at

the top of inside or outside walls of the house and the insulation is pumped through a hose

until the wall cavity is full. Due to the level of skill and equipment required, this type of

insulation requires professional installation. Most blown-‐in insulation is environmentally safe.

This insulation is made from recycled paper and can be treated with borates to make it more

resistant to mold, insects and fire. The installation of blown-‐in insulation becomes more

complicated when framing is irregular or contains fire-‐stops (Litchfield, 2005).

Attic Insulation

Attic insulation provides the greatest cost to benefit ratio for

the homeowner. In Ohio, a value of at least R-‐49 is

advisable (Litchfield, 2005). R-‐49 or greater will provide a

noticeable difference

should also be well-‐ventilated, therefore, it is advisable to

install soffit vents and air channel along the underside of the

roof

Ventilation allows air to circulate beneath the roof, which helps keep shingles cooler. This

reduces breakdown and extends shingle life. In addition, air movement within attics helps to

reduce the likelihood of mold growth and exhausts hot air during warm season months

(Litchfield, 2005) (Figure 9). Although visitor access to the attic may not be possible, it would

be appropriate to display attic insulation technologies in the parlor room.

Figure 9: Soffit vent. Source: www.ajaxroofing.com, 2009.


The Age of Advancement & Consumerism: Bedroom/Study 1900-‐1970

Historical Theme:

The Age of Advancement & Consumerism will be represented by the bedroom/study. In the

1900s individuals started acquiring goods, consuming materials and services for personal use in

greater amounts. Consumerism, a socioeconomic activity based on the systematically

manufactured desire to increase the purchase goods or services describes a society in which a

majority of the population formulates life goals partly through attaining material effects.

Consumerism has certainly become a field for new historical discovery (Stearns, 2001).

This room should communicate the idea that consumerism has brought an end to the previous

sustainability. Because this room spans such a long timeframe, it might contain turn of

the century products as well as consumer products. The idea with this room is to show a major

transformation into consumerism that occurred from 1900-‐1970. This room will also focus on

the fact that houses di

unrelated tasks were performed together in relatively small rooms.


When the Crawford House was built in 1835, windows,

candles, and oil lamps were the typical lighting

technologies available. Through the availability of

electricity, incandescent lamps for indoor use became

available around 1870, although lamps did not see

widespread use until around 1926. Prior to this time,

electrical lighting was mostly enjoyed by the wealthy

(Carter, N.D.). The Crawford House has witnessed multiple lighting technologies throughout its

ll display examples of period

lighting from roughly 1835 to present day. The vintage fixtures can be non-‐functional display

pieces while contemporary, high efficiency lighting will actually be used in each room of the

house.

When using interpretive signage and a working display (Figure 10), clear comparisons should be

made among all available lighting technologies, such as CFL, and LED fixtures. Because changing

out light bulbs is a relatively easy upgrade that visitors can immediately implement, it will be

important to demonstrate the various levels of efficiency for each lighting type so visitors will

better understand how efficiency levels are determined. Replacing incandescent lamps with CFL

lamps can quadruple lighting efficiency. CFLs also last up to ten times longer and provide

significant financial benefits to consumers (Dawson et al., (2009).

Figure 10: Lighting display. Photo courtesy of Michael Dingeldein.

Figure 11: Current state of bedroom. Photo courtesy of Sarah Van Frank

Figure 12: Sample image of bedroom. Source: www.remodel.net, 2010.


Featured Technologies: Windows and Lighting

Windows

Windows are usually the greatest single cause of heat and cooling loss in homes. In fact, studies

have shown that over 40% of a typical home's annual energy budget is lost through windows

and doors (USEPA & DOE, 2010).

gains through windows in residential and commercial building cost the United States $20 billion

(one-‐

2000). If properly selected and installed, windows can help reduce costs associated with

heating, cooling, and lighting. Over the last 10 years there have been significant technological

developments on windows that prevent heat and cooling escaping from homes and buildings

reducing costs (National Fenestration Rating Council, 2005). For this reason, we would like to

use this room to demonstrate to visitors the benefits of having energy efficient windows and

day lighting in their homes to help significantly lower their utility bills.

One possible display for this room at the Crawford House will be a standalone window that

could demonstrate a window quilt in one side and the addition of a storm window in the other

side. Installation of energy-‐efficient windows will be an important area where homeowners can

decrease their energy usage and help the environment at the same time. Investing in energy

efficient windows provides a continued payback not only in dollars/cents but also in a more

comfortable living environment.

Short Term Returns

Educational information can provide visitors with checklists for quick and simple ways to see an

immediate benefit (USDOE, 2009).

Windows

Window Tips for Warm Climate

Window quilts are a traditional solution for reducing heat transfer between windows

and the outdoors.


Keep window coverings closed during warm days to prevent the sun from heating your

home.

During the day, keep curtains closed on south and west-‐facing windows.

Reduce solar gain by applying sun-‐control or other reflective films on south-‐facing

windows too (Energy Savers Tips on Saving Energy & Money at Home, 2009).

Window Tips for Cold Climate

Close curtains and shades at night and open them during the day.

Use clear plastic film to the inside of your window frames during cold weather. To help

decrease infiltration, seal the plastic tightly to the frame.

To reduce air leakage, fit the window sash tightly in the window frame.

Keep windows clean on the south side of the house in order to let in the sun.

Fix and weatherize existing storm windows, if necessary (Energy Savers Tips on Saving

Energy & Money at Home, 2009).

Lighting Lighting is perhaps one of the easiest and cheapest ways

in which the typical person can reduce energy

consumption. On average, 11% of energy bills are

devoted to lighting (United States Department of Energy,

2009). The following recommendations will assist in

reducing this portion of an energy bill.

Install linear fluorescent tubes and compact

fluorescent (CFL) bulbs (Figure 13). Not only are they more energy efficient, but they

also last much longer than typical incandescent bulbs.

The use of timers and dimmers can dramatically reduce energy consumption.

Light colored, thin draperies can maximize the amount of daylight entering a room while

still providing a moderate level of privacy. If privacy is not a concern, open blinds during

the day to maximize the use of daylight.

Figure 13: Lighting display. Photo courtesy of Michael Dingeldein.


Long Term Returns

Windows

Many older houses have very old, if not original, windows. The least invasive, most cost

effective solution is to repair and keep the original windows. In order to increase the R-‐value

of the original single pane windows it would be necessary to modify the window through the

use of either storm windows or by installing Plexiglas inserts on the interior side of the window.

Plexiglas is a clear durable polycarbonate plastic, which conducts heat more slowly than glass.

Ideally, a space would be created between the window

which reduces heat transfer (Chiras, 2007).

Below are some long term returns that can be implemented within a household or building to

increase its thermal efficiency.

Replace old drafty windows.

o Install exterior or interior storm windows provides an extra barrier to the cold

outside air. Storm windows can reduce heat loss through the windows by 25% to

50%. Storm windows should have weather stripping at all movable joints, be

composed of heavy-‐duty materials, and feature interlocking or overlapping

joints.

Window Frame Replacements

o Aluminum-‐ Aluminum framed replacement windows are the least expensive but

unfortunately the most inefficient.

o Fiberglass-‐ Similar to wood in efficiency and cost, fiberglass window frames are

clean and fresh, moderately energy efficient, very light, and easy to handle.

o Wood-‐ Some historic upgrades necessitate Wood framed windows, which are

heavier and pricier than vinyl or aluminum. Vinyl clad wood is a fashionable,

though expensive, option for optimal energy efficiency and durability.

o Vinyl-‐ The most popular preference for replacement windows, vinyl is energy

efficient, relatively inexpensive, and looks nice with the vinyl siding featured on

most homes.


In order to occlude summer light, install shades, awnings or sunscreens on windows

facing south and/or west.

Install tight-‐fitting, insulating shades on drafty windows after weatherizing.

Install awnings on south and west-‐facing windows.

Daylighting and skylights

Before electric lighting, sunlight was essential to indoor work, leisure and habitation for almost

as long as human beings have been living in homes.

Sunlight was still the best source of interior lighting,

even after inventions such as oil lamps, candles,

torches and gas lighting (Phillips, 2004).

Historically, skylights, horizontal windows or domes

built into the roof of buildings, have been utilized for

daylighting and roof lanterns have been valued both as sources of natural light and as means

for providing better vision. Furthermore, when a skylight is opened, it provides ventilation and

even an emergency outlet. This would help reduce greenhouse gasses and would have an

important role in reducing global warming. The more people use daylight, the more electrical

energy will be reduced, which, in turn, helps solve the energy crisis (Phillips, 2004).

Figure 14: Sample skylight. Source: www.bartlettexteriors.com, 2010.


The Age of Awareness: Dining Room/Kitchen 1970-‐Present

This section of the tour and house will be introduced to visitors as the Age of Awareness. The

time period starts in 1970 and continues into the present. Senator Gaylord Nelson introduced

the idea of a national Earth Day and on April 22, 1970 the first Earth Day was established

national spotlight and national agenda. For many this was the start of the modern

environmental movement (www.nelsonearthday.net, 2010). Americans have became more

aware of the damage they are doing to the Earth because Earth Day celebrations. This period

of awareness continues today and therefore this part of the tour has been named as such.

The Age of Awareness rooms will showcase two different technologies. In the Dining Room

heating systems will be the educational focus, and the Kitchen will provide an area in which to

highlight water-‐saving appliances as a means to decrease energy consumption.


Dining Room Featured Technology: Heating

Visitors to the Crawford House will benefit from seeing displays of the different eras of heating

technology. Before 1885, the primary heating and cooking source for American houses were

wood burning fireplaces (Figure 18) and stoves. The Crawford House has three fireplaces that

would have been used for the distribution of this heat. The one in the dining room can

illustrate the dual function as a heating and cooking source. Interpretive signage can explain

how houses from this period were heated using wood burning fireplaces.

During the 19th century, the invention of coal fired boilers provided home owners with a low

cost central heating technology that would remain in existence until the late 1930s, when the

first oil and gas fired boilers came into existence (Pearson, 2007). Whether boilers were coal,

oil or gas fired, they all shared the same type of cast iron register or

radiator. The adaption of the Crawford home to radiators will provide

a basis to compare the various forms and sources of heating available

today.

Displays would include a vintage coal or gas fired boiler, as well as an

antique radiator (Figure 17). In fact, what better way to support the

Figure 15: Current state of dining room. Photo courtesy of Lore Denisse Rivera Hernandez.

Figure 16: Sample image of dining room. Source: www.awebresource.com, 2010.

Figure 17: Radiator. Source: www.castrads.com, 2010.


nt hot

water boiler connected to reclaimed steam or hot water radiators? This would speak volumes

about sustainable living.

This same radiator technology is very relevant today for

gas fired radiant hot water systems. New hot water boilers

can be up to 98% efficient due in part to the fact that even

after the thermostat shuts the system off, the radiators

continue to emit heat. This is different from forced air

systems, which simply heat the air.

Another benefit to installing a hot water boiler in a house

with original radiators is that these radiators are perfectly

compatible with most new boiler systems. This eliminates

waste by allowing the homeowner to continue using a portion of the homes original heating

system.

Short Term Returns

Atmospheric Heating & Cooling Technologies

The short-‐term improvements that residents can make in their own homes to reduce heating

and cooling costs are numerous. Our team has identified a list of easy to do changes and

maintenance tips for visitors of the Crawford House Demonstration Site to take home with

them.

Install Thermostats (settings and technology)

o Lower thermostat settings

Lower furnace setting by 2 F.

Lower water heater to 120 F.

o Programmable Thermostats

Figure 18: Current state of a Crawford House fireplace. Photo courtesy of Sarah Van Frank.


These thermostats allow residents to regulate the temperature of their

environment when they are home and not at home. This allows for a the

home to be a different temperature during the vacant hours of the day,

but when the residents are to return the thermostat will turn on and heat

or cool the house as programmed.

Clean and/or replacing of furnace filters on a regular schedule

Install a thermal blanket on the water heater.

Insulate the hot and cold water pipes.

Install heat traps on the hot and cold water pipes to prevent further heat loss.

Use passive ventilation

o Install double pane windows

Water Heating Technologies

Approximately 14%-‐ rgy consumption is used by the water

heater (United States Department of Energy, 2009). One of the largest issues with typical water

heaters is known as standby heat loss. As the water is constantly heated in the tank, it allows

for energy to be lost even when the hot water is not running. One of the easiest solutions to

this form of heat loss is proper insulation on your water heater, which can help reduce energy

costs over the lifetime of the appliance. If shopping for a newer, more energy efficient water

heater, look for R-‐values between 12-‐25. Below are several methods that the U.S. DOE

suggests in order to assist in lowering your water heating bills.

Reduce hot water use

o Repair water leaks in fixtures and pipes

Install low flow water fixtures

o Showerheads: flow rate should be less than 2.5gpm

simple calculation can be used:

1. Place a bucket underneath your showerhead and place a mark at

the one-‐gallon level.


2. Turn on the shower.

3. Record the amount of time that it takes for the shower to fill the

bucket to the one-‐gallon mark.

4. If it takes less than 20 seconds to reach the one-‐gallon mark, then

installing a low flow showerhead would be beneficial.

o Faucets: flow rate should 2.2gpm for the kitchen and 0.5-‐1.5gpm for the

bathroom

Lower the thermostat on your water heater to 120 F.

In addition to insulating your water heater, also consider insulating the hot and cold

water pipes.

Install heat traps on the hot and cold water pipes to prevent further heat loss.

Consider draining a quart of water from your tank every 3 months in order to remove

sediment and buildup and improve the efficiency of your water heater.

Long Term Returns

Two state-‐of-‐the-‐art improvements that could

illustrate long-‐term savings are: geo-‐thermal system

and hydronic radiant floor tubing. Both are expensive

improvements to a house, but provide high levels of

energy efficiency. We chose these technologies for

display because they are appropriate to the

Hamilton/Butler County region and there are many

local vendors and contractors capable of installing

these systems

Installation of a geo-‐thermal system (Figure 19)

o These systems take advantage of the nearly constant 55 degree temperature of

the earth to provide heat in the winter and cooling in the summer.

Installation of a hydronic radiant floor tubing

Figure 19: Illustration of geothermal system. Source: www.engineer.gvsu.edu, 2009.


o Effective way to distribute heated fluid. This would be made possible by

installing the tubing on the underside of the existing wood floors via access from

the basement. Tours could also be taken through the basement so that visitors

can view the working systems of the house.

Kitchen Featured Technology: Energy/Water Saving Appliances

The kitchen presents a unique opportunity to display a multitude of energy saving and

environmentally friendly concepts in a natural, uncluttered way. Kitchens typically contain

many energy-‐

water consumption and usage takes place. The original faucets and countertops and tables of

the Crawford Home are absent, so displays including signage will discuss the water delivery

methods of the original house and their relative inefficiency in comparison to modern fixtures.

Behavioral norms concerning the consumption of energy and water can also be compared and

contrasted between past ages, the present and future.

Figure 20: Current state of proposed kitchen area. Photo courtesy of Sarah Van Frank.

Figure 21: Sample image of kitchen. Source: www.treehugger.com, 2010.


As in the rest of the home, we will be demonstrating both long and short term ways to deal

ing attributes. Ways to educate

visitors on managing and reducing water usage, contamination and waste are crucial to

achieving the objectives of the site and are readily available on the commercial market. Many

options are easily installed by homeowners, while others require much more investment and

expertise. Some of the most effective methods for reducing energy and water consumption, as

well as waste, can be achieved by anyone through simple modifications in the way existing

appliances and water resources are utilized, which is important for rent/lease paying visitors

and young people who do not have control over home improvements.

Short-‐term Returns

Our Energy Saving Checklist for this room

Catch cold and lukewarm water in a basin or container while waiting for water to heat

up to use for watering plants, hygiene, etc.

o Run dishwashers or other water intensive appliances when there is a full load.

Whenever possible, use cold or mildly warmed water.

o Turning water taps off while soaping up hands or body while washing, brushing

teeth, etc.

o In restrooms, checking for leaky toilets is as simple as adding food coloring to the

look to see if any of the dye has leaked into the bowl.

Low flow faucet heads

o Easy to install, relatively inexpensive

o Simple methods for measuring the pressure of a given household to determine

the cost effectiveness of installing low pressure faucets, showerheads, etc., such

as the stopwatch and gallon bucket method, can easily be demonstrated by staff

or visually portrayed with creative signage or in literature.


The EPA has a water conservation program called WaterSense, which provides many

useful ideas for water savings that can be demonstrated at the Crawford House.

Long-‐term Returns

Greywater recycling systems are also referred to in the outdoor living section.

o Can be installed in any plumbing situation, kitchen, bathroom, utility room, etc.

o These systems can be as complex and involved as entire house systems

connected to underground cisterns which catch, and in some cases treat,

greywater for uses including washing cars, watering plants and lawns, etc.;

conversely, these systems can be as simple as wash basins in bathrooms that run

into the upper portion of toilets, using greywater for flushing, instead of fresh

clean water.


Vendor Display Room:

The Vendor Display Room will be the final room of the Crawford House Demonstration site

tour. As visitors are guided through the facility they will be introduced to numerous

technologies and concepts. The Vendor Display Room will be the area of the house where

additional information, take-‐home brochures, and interactive displays are provided.

Figure 22: Current state of proposed vendor display space. Photo courtesy of Sarah Van Frank.

Figure 23: Sample images of displays for vendor display space. Source:


The interactive displays that our team is proposing will allow visitors to virtually create a home

energy audit and calculate their carbon footprint. A dashboard system is the device that would

allow for software programs to be utilized by visitors.

There are technologies that do not fall into specific era rooms within the house; therefore, our

team is suggesting that these technologies be presented to visitors in this room. These

technologies may include solar power and voltage control. As new technologies are invented,

this will be the place for those technologies to be introduced to the public. Our team envisions

this room as a rotating space of educational materials and displays.

Solar Power

Photovoltaic panels (Figure 24) and solar collectors (Figure 25)

work in different ways but are both excellent energy

technologies that could be incorporated into the Crawford

House. Photovoltaic (PV) is a technology that transforms

sunlight into electricity (Orange Coat,

N.D.). Solar collectors are solar

thermal units that contain a circulating

n

indoor water tank that can then be used as the primary source of hot

water for the house (Orange Coat, N.D.). A back up electrical or

natural gas energy source would be required in the event that

demand for hot water increases beyond the capabilities of the solar

collectors. Both PV panels and solar collectors can be installed on the

roof or elsewhere on site. Of course maximum sun exposure will dictate the ideal location for

these solar power devices.

Voltage Control Guard

Figure 24: Photovoltaic panels. Source: www.heliotropics.com, 2010.

Figure 25: Solar collectors. Source: www.superlist.com, 2010.

http://www.heliotropics.com/


The voltage control guard (VCG) (Figure 26) is a simple low cost

energy management device that helps reduce electrical

consumption. The VCG reuses normally wasted electricity by

current to return to household appliances or equipment, this in

turn decreases demand for unneeded power. The average

kilowatt-‐hour consumption is reduced 8-‐15% by installing the

Voltage Control Guard (SEO, 2009).

Furthermore, the Vendor Display Room will be an area in which to showcase local vendors and

their services to the community. We would recommend that the Green Committee enlist

several of its members to form a subcommittee that would focus on contacting the vendors

from our list, in addition to others, to garner support and interest as the project continues to

unfold.

Local Contractor List

An important objective of this project is to emphasize the talent and labor of local craftsman

and professionals wherever possible. This is in keeping with our desire to help encourage the

local economic circle, one of many benefits we hope that the Crawford House can have for

Hamilton and the Greater Butler County region. Local entrepreneurs were interviewed

concerning their capabilities and specialties, as well as their experience and/or willingness to

use alternative, green and/or sustainable materials. Although the majority of those

interviewed had no major experience with such materials/methods and none specifically

expressed willingness to work with them. Many went further and expressed deep interest in

the topic as well as the project, and said that given current market trends, specializing in this

niche was something they had or would consider.

Figure 26: Image of voltage control guard. Source: www.saveenergyohio.com, 2009.


We realize that contracts are awarded in a competitive bidding process and some services

cannot be provided locally, but we feel that a list of locally supportive vendors is an important

resource for the Crawford House project. (Appendix C).


Outdoor Living

Figure 27: Current state of Crawford House. Photo courtesy of Sarah Van Frank.

Figure 28: Artist rendition of Crawford House. Painting courtesy of Eleanor O'Leary.


In keeping with the objectives of the Crawford House and Woods Demonstration Site proposal,

the outdoor areas of the property, especially those in close proximity to the home, should be

utilized to their maximum potential in ways that are practical, money saving and consistent

with quality outdoor living. Activities such as, but not limited to gardening, environmental

stewardship, composting, and rainwater harvesting, can be demonstrated to visitors and

patrons in this area near the basement entrance and running along the side of the house.

Visitors and patrons will be directed through this outdoor showcase as part of the proposed

pattern of site visitor traffic (Appendix A).

Gardening Activities

Urban Gardens The outdoor space at the Crawford House and Woods is a large forested area with great

potential. Urban gardens and community gardens are two of the possible activities for the

property that the team has identified. Urban gardening

and distribution of food and other products through intensive plan cultivation and animal

s on the Crawford House

and Woods property are to be demonstration gardens. The area that we have designated as

the outdoor living space will partially be utilized for the urban garden demonstration.

Urban gardens and agriculture have been a part of the American community since World War II

and the Victory Gardens. Victory Gardens were promoted during the war as a way for

American citizens on the home front to help the war effort. Families were encouraged to use

the space on their land to produce enough vegetables for their family, creating a sustainable

and affordable food production system (Thone, 1943). American families were provided

instructions and advice for producing a successful garden. After the war the Victory Gardens

became less common. As the Crawford House and Woods site is reintroduced back into the

community the concept of Victory Gardens or urban gardens can be introduced as well.

The city of Denver, Colorado has established a program for urban gardens, Denver Urban

Gardens, DUG. The mission of the organization is to connect urban gardens throughout the


Denver metro area (www.dug.org, 2010). The organization also has five areas of technical

expertise that they continue to provide to the community. These concepts and support are

what the Crawford House and Woods site can be to the Hamilton community. The areas of

expertise provided are; (1) Securing sustainable land for gardens, (2) Designing and building

gardens, (3) Supporting garden organization, leadership, outreach and maintenance, (4)

Utilizing gardens as extraordinary places for learning and healthy living, and (5) Linking gardens

with related local food system projects and policy (www.dug.org, 2010). The Crawford

demonstration site can be the start garden for promoting and teaching community members.

Community Gardens As this facility is designed to have visitors guided through the demonstration, residents of

Hamilton will be able to learn techniques and methods of gardening from these

demonstrations. Community gardens are to be available to community members to cultivate

and maintain themselves. These gardens are also going to be available to the school systems

for potential use as instructional areas for their students.

Three successful community/urban garden examples are provided below to illustrate the

potential for the demonstration site.

Involving Local Youth in Sustainable Gardening

In recent years there has been a movement in Cleveland, Ohio to rezone the use of vacant lots

within the city corporation limits. Community members have formed an organization that has a

plan for Re-‐Imaging a More Sustainable Cleveland. The goal is to create urban gardens that are

maintained by the residents of that neighborhood. The produce grown in the gardens will


The vacant land in the city limits is owned

by the Cleveland Land Bank. Currently 7%

of the land owned by this organization is

vacant land and is about 3,300 acres. The

Cleveland Land Bank leases out the land to

members of the community who are going

to use it for an urban garden. One

particular example to discuss that

demonstrates great community involved,

which is an objective of the Crawford House

demonstration site, is Sharon Glaspie and

the Garden Boyz. She leased land from the Cleveland Land Bank and recruited six

neighborhood teenage boys to work in the garden. Her focus was on inter-‐city boys as most

are likely to be involved with gang related activities. Thus far, the garden has been a success.

The Garden Boyz have learned not only gardening techniques, but live skills as well. They are

paid for their work, $50 a week, and are allowed to take some of the produce from the garden

to their families. These young men are taking an active role in their community and family.

The funding for these gardens is subsidized in different ways. The Garden Boyz garden has

received a grant from the Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP) from the federal

government. The amount received was $15,600. From the total funding received from the NSP

by the City of Cleveland Community Development Department, $500,000 is being utilized for

these projects. Funding for other gardens has come from in-‐kind technical services from the

U.S. EPA.

Currently the Greater Cleveland area has 225 community gardens with two dozen farmers

markets that the produce from these gardens is being sold at (American City, 2010). The model

that the City of Cleveland has and is implementing is an effective model to follow and the

beginnings of community gardens can start at the demonstration site in Hamilton, Ohio.

Figure 29: Garden Boyz of Cleveland. Source: www.americancity.org, 2010.


Opportunities For the Entire Community

The City of Seattle is home to over 70 individual community gardens, totaling over 20 acres of

land and serving 3800 gardeners, as of 2008. The city-‐wide phenomenon, called P-‐Patches, can

be traced back to the early 1970s. The name is often mistakenly taken to mean pea patch, in

reference to the popular vegetable, when it is in fact a shortening of the name of one of the

-‐roots

movement, it has since been incorporated into

has brought in a more stable, organized and uniform character to the network of food

production plots.

average of 40% of their crops, at least once a month, which in 2009 totaled 12.4 tons of food

for programs for the needy (Seattle Dept. of Neighborhoods, 2010). All production is strictly

organic and sustained by community volunteers and volunteer coordinators who are required

to donate a minimum of 8 hours of labor a year. Most report exceeding that minimum and in

official website, 77% of participants report having no gardening space where they live and 55%

live in multi-‐family dwellings. A 2007 survey by the P-‐Patch Program states that 55% of

participants fall into the low-‐income category.

Fees for reserving plots, which have been limited in size due to demand, are kept low, with a 10

by 40 foot plot costing $67 a year. Low income gardeners can take advantage of plot fee

assistance programs. The various plots are owned by multiple holders including private

landowners, the Seattle Housing Authority, the P-‐Patch Trust and King County. The P-‐Patch

Trust, originally called Friends of the P-‐Patch, is a 501 (c) 3 organization began in the 1990s to

manage the funds of the program, develop fund raisers and found the low-‐income assistance

programs associated with the community plots.


Altho

produce to local food banks, and could serve as a seed and model for other gardens in the city

implications for application in the City of Hamilton due to the large number of multi-‐family

dwellings and general limited space for gardening

A Sustainable Showcase Home

As previously mentioned, the Cliffs Cottage on the campus of Furman University is a sustainable

showcase home. On the site is an acre organic garden where over 80 varieties of vegetables,

fruits, herbs and flowers are grown. This being an organic garden, chemicals (pesticides,

herbicides, insecticides or fungicides) are used for the enhancement of the plants (Cliffs

Cottage, 2010). The ability to no use chemical is made possible by a rotation of plants that are

grown in the garden. The rotation plan is four or five years and by implementing the health of

the soil is greatly improved. Another ingredient to an organic garden is the incorporation of

compost.

Although this is not a community garden with volunteers maintaining it, it is used as a

demonstration area for visitors of the facility. The sustainability coordinator for Cliffs Cottage is

responsible for the management and care of the organic garden.

The urban demonstration garden for the Crawford House site will not measure an acre in size,

but similar techniques should be utilized. The site will contain a composting system. The

options for composting systems will be discussed later, but the compost can be use for the

demonstration garden. A rotation of crops and the discussion of why the rotation is important

is recommended as a point of interest for the tour.


Master Gardeners partnership:

The Ohio State Extension Master Gardener Program is a statewide program for community

members to be trained in different aspects of horticultural. The program has been in existence

3,000 active members of the program in over 60 of the 88 counties in Ohio. Members come

from urban, suburban and rural regions of the state.

The mission of the Master Gardeners as stated on their website is

and develops the leadership abilities of, volunteers who in turn enable others to improve the

quality of their lives by enhancing their home and community environments through

A partnership with the

Master Gardeners has been established. Dan Remley is our contact with the Master Gardeners.

Composting

Compost is an organic material that can be used as soil and/or plant nutrition. The act of

composting provides individuals with an opportunity to reduce the amount of waste that is

produce at their homes, and to reuse that compost for the improvement of a garden.

Just as checklists were provided to visitors for energy technology, they will be receive similar

information about the benefits of composting (USEPA, 2010).

Decrease the amount of waster that goes into our landfills. 26% of the waster that

enters this system is yard waste and food residuals.

Capture and destroy 99.6 percent of industrial volatile organic chemicals (VOCs) in

contaminated air.

Reduce or eliminate the need for chemical fertilizers. This would be in accordance with

the Cliffs Cottage organic gardening practices.

Remove solids, oil, grease, and heavy metals from stormwater runoff.

Methane is a greenhouse gas that is generated in landfills when organic material decays.

This gas is 21 times more potent in its heat trapping capabilities than carbon dioxide. If


organic material is put into compost this will decrease the amount of methane gas that

is produced in landfills.

Types of composting systems:

There are several different types of composting systems. All of these types can be displayed

either hands-‐on or pictorially at the demonstration site.

Onsite composting (backyard)

o This type of composting will likely be the most effective and plausible for the

visitors of the demonstration site. Visitors can compost their own waste from

their homes, reducing the amount of waste that is disposed of in the landfill.

Vermicomposting

o This method of composting requires red worms or field worms that are placed in

the composting bins with the organic matter. The worms are able to break down

the material into effective compost called castings. These castings can then be

used on gardens. The worm bins are relatively easy to construct and work well

for residents with not a lot of property space.

In-‐vessel composting

o The final method of composting requires a drum, concrete-‐lined trench or silo

that can be closed and contained. Organic material is placed inside the container

and then the environmental conditions of the container are monitored. The

right temperature, moisture level, and aeration levels are needed to create the

compost. This type of composting is often more on the city or neighborhood

level, not at the single residence level.

(USEPA, 2010)

Not all of these systems should be utilized at the demonstration site, but should be displayed

for the visitors to see the options.


Rainwater Harvesting Systems

One of the most important aspects of low impact design is the concept of rainwater harvesting.

Rain harvesting devices range from manufactured devices such as cisterns and rain barrels to

natural rain gardens designed to manage both the volume and quality of water moving through

specific sites. All three of the aforementioned methods for managing rainwater are applicable

to the Crawford House and are recommended for both practical and demonstrational use.

Cisterns represent the largest investment in capital, labor and

space, but also boast the largest benefit in terms of volume of

water. Cisterns are generally, though not exclusively, placed

underground and hold water from rooftops and associated

structures. Cisterns can be

manufactured from

concrete, stone,

plastic, metal and

other non-‐porous materials. Water from these and other

sources are directed into the cistern through varying systems

of pipes, gutters and catchments. Once collected, the water

is most often used for irrigation, although when coupled with

treatment equipment can be used for household uses as

well. The latter use was very common in the not-‐so-‐distant

past and many rural homes still use this type of system to

supply their non-‐drinking water. It is possible that many older homes in Hamilton and the

surrounding area still employ cisterns, or have unused cisterns remaining on their properties.

We recommend using cisterns as both an educational model and a practical, working system

within the Crawford House.

Rain barrels are more or less a smaller, less resource intensive version of a cistern. The most

common use of rain barrel collected water is gardening. Multiple rain barrels are often used at

Figure 30: Cistern illustration. Source: www.oak-barrel.com

Figure 31: Rain barrel. Source: www.cityofws.org, 2010.


single sites for maximum effectiveness. They are most often linked directly to a home or

alleviate excess pressure and/or backup. It is the recommendation of our team that at least

one, preferably more, rain barrels are put to use for demonstrational and practical use in the

outdoor living area of the Crawford House.

Rain gardens are a popular LID tool for managing stormwater run-‐off and are most effective

when placed in areas near non-‐porous surface areas or in low-‐lying portions of properties.

When effectively designed and placed they can mitigate problems associated with excess run-‐

off, such as excess volumes of water in sewers and in low-‐lying areas, and are often by nature,

low maintenance. Another attractive feature of rain gardens is that they are conducive to the

use of native species, which has value in and of itself in regard to achieving the objectives of the

Crawford House and Woods Demonstration Site. We recommend strategic placement of rain

gardens throughout the property, both in close and distant proximity to the home itself. They

will not only have practical benefits, but will enhance our environmental stewardship objective.


Section III


Renovation of the Crawford House In the previous sections our concern was the use of the Crawford House as a demonstration

and educational center. This section will focus on the reconstruction of the Crawford House

itself and our attention is organized into two general categories: building envelope technologies

and building systems. The first category of envelope technologies is concerned with structural

integrity, moisture control, heat transfer and the safe and sustainable use of materials. In order

to make the house safe, comfortable and dry, these objectives must be addressed. The second

category encompasses the building systems, which are mainly concerned with the distribution

of heat and air-‐conditioning, electricity and water. The information below has been provided as

a guide for the Green Committee as it explores options for restoration and renovation.

Building Envelope Technologies

Corrective Measures and Necessary Upgrades

Because the house is in disrepair and has not had any upgrades in decades, many corrective

measures will have to be taken in order to bring the house into compliance with local and state

codes. Visitors may not necessarily see these upgrades but they are critical for the success of

the Crawford House project. Building envelope components that will be discussed include:

roofing, flooring, walls, foundation, brick/ chimney repairs, and the presence of mold and

asbestos.

Roofing

A new roof is a top priority because the roof must be weather-‐tight in order to protect

everything within, and a structural engineer must be consulted in order to identify all structural

issues relating to the roof. Aside from moisture control and structural issues, we identify

options within this section that address heat absorption issues, otherwise known as heat island

effect. We suggest the use of a surface material that has high solar reflective qualities which

help to reduce heat island effects. Heat island effects can be detrimental to plant and wildlife

habitats that are sensitive to higher temperatures and may not thrive in unnaturally hot areas


(U.S. Green Building Council, 2003). Light colored asphalt shingles are probably the most cost

effective alternative and this type of system has life spans in the 18-‐30 year range depending on

the environment and the level of ventilation provided within the attic space. A disadvantage to

asphalt shingles is their relatively low reflectance capabilities. Even white asphalt shingles only

are about 30% reflective (U.S. Green Building Council, 2003).

Metal roofs coated with high albedo (reflective)

products (Figure 32) offer much better reflectance,

typically in the 60-‐80% range. Metal roof coatings

contain transparent polymeric materials and white

pigments which make them opaque and reflective

(U.S. Green Building Council, 2003). Although metal

roofing will cost more, 2-‐3 times that of asphalt

shingles, it has a much longer life span. A well cared

for metal roof will last 40-‐60 years and beyond (Metal

Roof Alliance, 2007). The ENERGY STAR® website (www.energystar.gov) is a great resource for

compliant roofing materials and products. The Cool Roof Rating Council Web Site

(www.coolroofs.org) is also a good source (U.S. Green Building Council, 2003).

Adding attic insulation is an effective way to reduce heat transfer and increase the energy

efficiency of the Crawford House. We recommend installing soffit vents and air channel along

the underside of the roof (between rafters) and then installing denim batt insulation below the

air channel. Denim batt insulation is a sustainable alternative to other types of batt insulation

due to the use of post consumer recycled content. An R-‐value of at least R-‐49 is advisable for

Southwestern Ohio (Litchfield, 2005).

Flooring

Practicing good sustainability often means working with what you have. Flooring provides a

good example of this. The wood floors within the Crawford House are old but appear to have a

Figure 32: Metal roof coating. Source: www.88connection.com, 2010.

http://www.coolroofs.org/


lot of life left in them. By refinishing and reusing these floors, additional energy and materials

are not needed to manufacture ship and install new floors. Another benefit to this approach is

that the old floors will not have to be discarded into a landfill. A visual inspection reveals that

often

expected of a house this age. But in some rare instances such as when the structural integrity

of the floor is in question or when damage has occurred due to termite or rot, it may be

necessary to pull the floors up so that corrections can be made to the structural components

beneath. An inspection of structural members such as joists, beams and posts should be

conducted for each room in order to determine if any repairs will be necessary. In the event

that floor boards need to be removed in order to complete repairs; a program of salvage and

reuse should be considered. If it is not possible to reuse the existing wood floor, flooring made

from rapidly renewable materials such as cork or bamboo will provide sustainable options that

will be in keeping with the theme of the house.

The flooring in the kitchen will have to be

substantially modified in order to accommodate new

plumbing. Therefore we recommend that the 150

feet of renewable cork flooring, which has been

donated to the Crawford House project by the IES

students, be used in that space. Cork floors work well

in kitchens because they are more comfortable to

stand on for long periods and they are unaffected by liquid spills (Figure 33).

Walls

Reducing heat transfer through exterior walls will be critical for increasing the energy efficiency

of the Crawford House. Because this house was constructed with solid masonry walls, it will

not be possible to retrofit the wall interiors with insulation. Instead, an effective retrofit can be

achieved by adding insulation on the interior side of the walls. This can be accomplished by

s on top

Figure 33: Sample cork flooring. Source: www.homerepair.about.com, 2010.


of the insulation board. Another layer of rigid foam insulation board should be added between

the furring strips. This will achieve a combined R-‐value of 13.8. (See insulation technologies

section for parlor room).

If it is determined that new non load-‐bearing, non-‐

insulated interior walls are to be constructed in the

house, a sustainable form of wall construction can be

accomplished through the use of mortar and pop cans

(Figure 34). The cans offer structural support and the

mortar holds it all together. This type of construction

helps the environment by using discarded cans that

would otherwise end up in a land fill or be sent to a

recycling center. If sent to a landfill the aluminum is not available for many years if ever and

thus the energy and non-‐renewable materials used to make the cans are wasted. Recycling the

cans is preferable to sending them to a landfill, but even recycling has its drawbacks because

this process requires the use of fossil fuels to reconstitute the post consumer aluminum and

make it ready for new production. By using the cans in their post consumer form, they serve a

useful purpose and help reduce the environmental burden. This type of wall construction

offers great visual appeal because it easily allows walls to be curved and the surface can be

finished in a variety of textures. In fact, the wall itself can serve as a piece of art through the

use of painting and imprinting.

Foundation

Old foundations can actually shift over time. Large cracks or wall displacement is evidence of

this. If foundation damage has occurred, it will be necessary to have a structural engineer and

possibly a soils engineer assess the situation in order to determine the best course for

corrective action (Litchfield, 2005). Old foundations, especially those constructed of stone,

tend to leak; in fact this was encouraged in old basements in order to reduce water pressure

behind the walls. If an inspection reveals that the basement does leak, it will be important to

Figure 34: Pop can wall construction. Source: www.blogmagazine.com, 2010.


fix or manage the infiltration of water into the basement. It will also be important to control

the growth of mold. If visitors are taken into the basement in order to see the mechanical

systems for the house, it will be important to keep this environment as dry and healthy as

possible. There are many methods for correcting wet basement issues; the most effective is

probably the use of a sump pump coupled with perimeter drains. This method effectively

manages water by draining everything to a central low point where it is then pumped outside.

An effective means of managing the water, once outside, is to direct the water into a rain

garden or bio-‐retention feature.

Tuck Pointing of Brick and Chimney Repairs

It will be important to first assess the condition of the brick and stone exterior of the house in

order to determine the extent of the repairs needed. Over time mortar joints become loose or

fall out, thus creating a void for water to enter. It will be necessary to clear out loose and

crumbling mortar, so that repointing of new mortar can take place (Litchfield, 2005). Once all

brickwork is complete, The Green Committee will have to decide if they want to strip off the

remaining paint and

Many homeowners struggle with what to do about chimneys in old houses. Each of the

chimneys within the house should first be inspected in order to determine the extent of

damage. When chimneys fall into disrepair they often allow water to leak into the house,

whereas heated and cooled air leak out. Pests and rodents also like to find refuge in chimneys.

Once the extent of disrepair has been assessed, it must be determined which, if any, chimneys

demonstration house, chances are that none of the chimneys will be used for burning wood.

going to be used for wood burning, it is important to make them water and air tight.


It may be beneficial for visitors to see how to effectively manage their old chimneys through

the use of interpretive signage and displays. The vendor display area might benefit by

efficient option for homeowners who want to enjoy the benefits of a fireplace without the

higher maintenance associated with wood burning.

Building System Technologies

Corrective Measures and Necessary Upgrades

The following building system components have been listed for consideration: electrical,

plumbing, heating and air conditioning

Electrical Upgrades

Due to the age of the Crawford House, the electrical service and wiring will likely have to be

upgraded. In addition to meeting electrical code, it is recommended that a voltage guard be

installed. These units are affordable ($300-‐$400) and the average kilowatt-‐hour consumption is

reduced 8-‐15% by installing one of these devices (SEO, 2009).

Plumbing Upgrades

Because of the age of the house and the multiple retrofits

that the house has undergone, a somewhat mismatched

plumbing system may be in place. In 1835 the house had

no indoor plumbing, but in the late 19th century or early

20th, it likely was fitted with cast iron plumbing. During

out for office space, it may have received copper and polyvinyl chloride (PVC) piping upgrades.

We recommend that a licensed plumber or building inspector do a complete plumbing

inspection.

is to say when the walls have been stripped down to the studs. This will allow inspectors to

complete a more thorough inspection. Inspectors will be able to determine whether or not cast

Figure 35: PEX tubing. Source: www.360winnett.com, 2010.


iron lines need to be replaced and also whether there are any lead pipes or pipes containing

lead solder. If lead is found within plumbing, it advisable to have the water tested to ensure

The addition of new plumbing will be required for the kitchen area (Age of Awareness). This is

a space that will now require a water supply, drainage and venting. If solar collectors are

installed as a

also be required. Modern water supply plumbing typically consists of copper with lead free

solder. A relatively new product that is gaining in popularity is the use of cross-‐linked

polyethylene (PEX) (Figure 35) (Litchfield, 2005). This is a flexible tubing system that costs

roughly the same amount as copper. Some experts predict that this newer system will take

over copper eventually (Litchfield, 2005). Advantages of this system include: quick installation,

safe to install (no open flame required), can withstand high water temperatures, quiet

operation and is easy to repair. Disadvantages include: the use of proprietary tools and

connectors for each different brand of tubing, and that it cannot withstand open flame and

therefore cannot be directly connected to gas or oil fired water heaters and must be kept away

from flue pipes, recessed lights, and other sources of excessive heat (Litchfield, 2005).

Heating and Air-‐conditioning

A new high efficiency furnace is recommended for the Crawford house. A geothermal heating

system is among the most efficient and sustainable heating systems on the market today.

Geothermal systems are twice as efficient as conventional air-‐conditioning units and are

approximately 50 percent more efficient than the most efficient natural gas furnaces

(Alexander, 2010). These systems do not require noisy fans, thereby allowing the units to be

placed indoors. Because geothermal units are kept out of the elements, they have much

longer life spans. Some of the earliest systems were installed nearly 30 years ago and are still in

operation (Alexander, 2010).


Although initially more costly to install; a typical system for a 2,000 square foot house will cost

between $15,000-‐$20,000, the break even period is somewhat brief;. A study by the Air Force

Institute of Technology produced results showing a seven to eight year payback period

(Alexander, 2010). An effective distribution method for delivering heat throughout the house

would be through the use of radiant floor heat. The flexible hydronic tubing can be installed

along the underside of the floors via basement access.

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)/ Universal Accessibility

A category not classified under building system or envelope technologies, but no less important

includes accessibility. In order to make the Crawford House accessible for all visitors, it will

have to be modified to include features that will allow all visitors to experience the house.

Some of these features include but are not limited to: ramps, staircase handrails, grab bars

(bathrooms), signage, accessible parking spaces, accessible routes to the house, etc.

Conclusions

The preceding section highlighted those envelope and system components that will have to be

corrected or upgraded in order to comply with local and state building codes. These corrective

measures may or may not be presented as part of visitor tours, but are nonetheless critical for

the success of the project. Because of the age and state of disrepair that the house is in, a wide

range of components will have to be considered for upgrades. These upgrades will be critical in

order to make the house warm, safe and dry. Because many of the building recommendations

mentioned require specialized skills and knowledge, it is critical that industry professionals be

consulted. In addition, each of these recommendations should if possible, be directly tied to

the LEED points found in Appendix D.


Section IV


Community Involvement Recommendations This portion of our document is dedicated to recommendations that our team has developed in

the areas of educational outreach, local participation and resource

involvement. These areas provide mechanisms for garnering support within the local

community in order to make this project possible. It becomes apparent from the various topics

that involvement is multi-‐faceted and it is our hope that the Green Committee will continue to

further develop other applicable areas as the project unfolds.

Educational Outreach The City of Hamilton, Ohio located between the Cincinnati and Dayton metropolitan areas is

an important regional center of business, culture, industry, and government (City of Hamilton,

OH: Introduction). Since the Vision 2020 plan for Hamilton is to move the city into the 21st

century and to provide a better image, especially by improving education, the Crawford House

plans to build a demonstration center in order to supply the local community with more tools

to learn about environmental stewardship and continuous living. In the previous sections we

described the types of general education that would be provided to adult visitors. It is also

important that attention be paid to the school age children in the area. The Hamilton City

School District is comprised of three high schools, two middle schools, thirteen elementary

schools and one alternative high school. The total student population is approximately 9,000

(Hamilton City School District, 2007). (See Appendix B for a complete list of the Hamilton City

Schools).

5338 in Kindergarten Grade 6

1283 in the 3 middle schools

2463 in grades 9-‐12


We believe the Crawford house project will be a way to diversify school curricula since the

closest environmental program they have is a one-‐semester Ecology course at Hamilton High

School. Students will be invited to visit and do a tour at the Crawford house.

We recommend that curricula plans be prepared to incorporate the Crawford house project

into schools for appropriate grade levels to fit with the Ohio State teaching standards.

It is also important to recognize that Hamilton has a diverse population with many people of

many different ethnic backgrounds. One of the ethnicities we are focusing on is the Hispanic

population. The reason why our team is focusing on Hispanics is because it is now considered

the fastest growing minority in the United States (US Census Bureau, 2006). According to the

22.4 percent since 2000 and more than doubled since 1980. In 2008, Ohio

estimated 11,485,910, in which 250,000 were Latinos, which constitutes 2.3 percent of the

er County Ohio is about 357,888, of which

more than 4,312 are Hispanics (Furmon et al, 2006).

Given a significance presence of Hispanics in Butler County Ohio, we recommend bilingual signs

in the Crawford house. Signs could be one of the most important elements of understanding.

This will increase the number of visitors in the facility and make it more accessible to Spanish

speakers.

Local Participation

Demonstrating the economic benefits of working with local suppliers and professionals is an

important aspect of our proposal. It is the expressed aim of the Hamilton Green Committee,

and our design team, to include local and regional inputs whenever doing so would be viable.

By creating a node of interaction between local property owners and professionals we hope to

directly stimulate the local economic circle th


secondarily by providing a venue that connects local property owners and professionals for

future projects elsewhere in the community.

Many of the displays, literature, programs and infrastructural elements of the site will highlight

the input of local professionals. These devices will provide information for local and regional

businesses equipped to handle the types of building innovations demonstrated at the site, as

well as the use of vendor donations including volunteer labor and materials.

In developing our proposal we conducted sixteen telephone interviews with a cross-‐section of

contractors with Hamilton addresses. The list is included in Appendix C. In these interviews we

innovative materials and technologies, their willingness to do so in the future and their interest

in learning more about these innovations. Although the interview process did not meet the

requirements of a statistically viable survey, it did provide us with an informal but useful sense

of the current state of environmentally responsible construction practices in the Hamilton area.

Sustainable development may not currently be at the forefront of regional construction

While none of the general

contractors listed in local directories specifically advertised themselves as LEED experienced

environmental awareness, all of those interviewed acknowledged this growing niche and

the sphere of this growing

trend.

work that entailed using alternative, environmentally progressive materials or methods. While

a gap between direct experience with these practices and the seeming willingness of local

professionals to employ them is apparent, it is heartening to note the interest that the

contractors in question expressed in using them.

Other types of local participation has included and should continue to include donations of

labor from The Hamilton High School carpentry class, under Green Committee member Tim


Carpenter (who has expressed interest in further work at the site, as have some of the students

themselves) and other volunteer sources throughout the community. Visitor and patron

feedback is also an important aspect of the local participation component of our proposal.

More about that will be addressed in other parts of this document.

Resource Support

The team had the task of identifying resources to tap for this project. Prior to seeking funding,

the project needed to be connected with a non-‐profit organization that would foster the

donations. The Hamilton Parks and Recreation Division has a volunteer group, Friends of the

Parks, that is designated a 501 (c) (3) organization. The Green Committee selected this

organization, because the Crawford House is situated on property owned by the Parks and

Recreation Division.

Resources for this project have been divided into three areas:

1. Financial support

2. In-‐kind contributions (volunteer time)

3. Donation support

Financial Support

We indentified various funding sources for this project in the form of grants, loans, and

donations. The grants that have been identified are from all levels of government, federal,

state and local. Available loans have been identified through the federal and state

governments. The community is an important source of donations, in fact, we are able to start

with the list of donors from the 1967 reintroduction of the Crawford House.

There have been numerous partners on this project, one especially important group was Dr.

that had the assignment to write grant

proposals specific to the Crawford House and Woods Demonstration site. One example of

these proposals was:


Ohio EPA's Ohio Environmental Education Fund (OEEF) -‐ Grant for:

o An energy modeling software, and training of at least two employees on the

software system.

o Wages for those employees to help visitors work the software, and to create a

large pre-‐set portfolio of common home designs and common building

technologies and materials

o At least two computer stations dedicated to this purpose

o Instructional signage/literature

Our team has been able to identify a number of grants, in which proposals can be submitted for

selection. Due to the uniqueness of this project, grants can come from all levels of government,

as well as from private organizations. At the federal level the United States Department of

Health and Human Services manages the website for all federal grants and loans, Grants.gov.

State Grant Opportunities:

The State of Ohio has grant and loan programs appropriate for this project. Different

departments within the state government have been identified. Ohio Energy Office,

Department of Development, and Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) are ones that the

team has focused. Under ODNR, three grants opportunities have been presented:

NatureWorks, Clean Ohio Trails Fund and Recreational Trails Program. These grants are

focused on the exterior of the property.

Name of Grant/Organization: Ohio Environmental Education Fund

Description of grant and requirements: The Fund has two types of grants, the General Grant

Program and the Mini Grant Program. The General Grant program provides grants for

programs and organizations that enhance the awareness and understanding of environmental

issues affecting Ohio. The focus of this grant proposal can be on the environmental workshops

that will be held at the demonstration site. Workshops such as gardening, window quilts, tours

through the site for school children, etc. are all programs that will increase the environmental


knowledge base of the community. The Mini Grant Program provides funding for programs

requesting up to $5,000 and projects that have a 12-‐month period timeline.

Potential funding amount: General Grant Program amounts awarded up to $50,000. Mini Grant

Program amounts awarded from $500 to $5,000.

Deadline: Two cycles of applications and deadlines, January 15 and July 15.

Website for additional information: http://www.epa.ohio.gov/oeef/oeefoverview.aspx

Name of Grant/Organization: NatureWorks Grants

Description of grant and requirements: The grants are funded by the Ohio Parks and Natural

Resources Bond Issue. The goal is to provide funding for the acquisition, development and

rehabilitation of recreational areas. Provided on the grants websites is a procedural guide that

details the process of the grant, the application process and the steps for using the funding

once received by the organization. Although the local government already owns the Crawford

House and Woods property, the redevelopment of the woods would be ideal for a grant of this

type.

Potential funding amount: Butler County was awarded $55,600 in total grant monies for Round

17 of this grant.

Deadline: Application deadline is February 1.

Website for additional information:

http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/default/tabid/11089/Default.aspx

Name of Grant/Organization: Advanced Energy Fund

Description of grant and requirements: This fund provides incentives for non-‐residential and

residential sites to insult new energy efficient technologies. Depending on the status of the

Crawford House, whether the committee decides on a permanent residence or just a touring

facility will depend on the type of incentives available to the project. Solar Electric Systems,

Wind Electric Systems, and Solar Thermal Systems are the areas eligible for incentives. All

projects receiving funding have to complete in 12 months.


Potential funding amount: Depending on the incentive, the max amount could be $150,000 to

$200,000.

Deadline: Applications are accepted starting May 1.

Website for additional information: http://www.odod.state.oh.us/cdd/oee/elfgrant.htm

Name of Grant/Organization: Clean Ohio Fund Recreational Trails

Description of grant and requirements: Similar to the NatureWorks grant, this grant is intended

for the improvement of outdoor recreation space. Political divisions of the state and non-‐profit

organizations are eligible. All projects must be complete in 18 months.

Potential funding amount: 6.25 million dollars is available annually; 75% matching from State of

Ohio and 25% from the organization receiving the grant. The 25% matching can be land, labor,

and materials.

Deadline: Application deadline is February 1 of each year.

Website for additional information: http://clean.ohio.gov/RecreationalTrails/Default.htm

Local Grant Opportunities:

Name of Grant/Organization: Hamilton Community Foundation Capital Grants

Description of grant and requirements: The grants provided by the HCF are typically for building

construction, renovation and specialized equipment. Grant decisions are based on community

need, as well. Evaluating factors for these proposals are quality and effectiveness of the project

and level of coordination with other organizations are among some of these factors.

Potential funding amount: A recent grant awarded was for $40,000.

Deadline: The application deadline is May 1.

Website for additional information: http://www.hamiltonfoundation.org/grantsCapital.asp

Private Grant Opportunities:

Name of Grant/Organization: The Walmart Foundation State Giving Program

Description of grant and requirements: This foundation is providing grant opportunities to

projects and programs that have a focus of one of these four areas, education, job skills


training, health, and/or environmental sustainability. Organizations receiving the funding have

to be a 501(c)(3) with the Internal Revenue Service. The Environmental Sustainability focus

area will be the concentration for this project. This area of the grant is for programs or

initiatives designed to assist and promote individuals to become environmental stewards of the

land. Past examples have been the creation of parks, recycling programs, outdoor classrooms,

and environmental education projects.

Potential funding amount: A recent grant awarded was for $40,000.

Deadline: The application process if from February 1 August 20, 2010.

Website for additional information: http://walmartstores.com/CommunityGiving/8168.aspx

Name of Grant/Organization: Build-‐A-‐Bear Workshop Foundation

Description of grant and requirements: This foundation is providing grant opportunities

programs that have a focus in four different areas. The Crawford House and Woods

Demonstration Site project can focus in two different areas of this project: programs or

organizations providing direct support for the environment or environmental education; and

programs or organizations providing direct support for children and the environment.

Additionally, the grants are divided into two groups, Individual Project grants and Organization

Program grants. The Individual Project grants would best suite this project, as these grants are

funding for a one-‐time purchase of materials or equipment. Organizations receiving the

funding have to be a 501(c)(3) with the Internal Revenue Service.

Potential funding amount: $1,000 to $10,000. The average amount awarded is

Deadline: Applications are accepted on an ongoing basis

Website for additional information:

http://www.buildabear.com/aboutus/community/Grants/2010BABWFoundationGrantGuidelin

es.pdf

Sponsorship:

The team has identified a number of facilities similar to the plan for the Crawford House. One

in particular, and mentioned previously in this report, is Cliffs Cottage at Furman University.


The demonstration site in Greenville, South Carolina has a partner system, similar to what had

been proposed for the Crawford house, as a source of funding. There are also five principle

partners on the project, Southern Living magazine, Duke Energy, Furman University, The Cliffs

Communities, and Band of America.

The partnership with companies such as those listed above would provide the Crawford House

project with additional funding and increased publicity. Proposed partners could be:

Ohio Magazine

The Utilities Department and AEP Ohio

Miami University Oxford and Hamilton

A similar structure of who the partners are to the Cliffs Cottage site would be a model to follow.

In kind contributions

This funding source will be of great importance to the project. As an initial purpose of the site,

requested by the Green Committee, they wanted local vendors to have a place to display their

services and products to the community. The material contributions made by vendors to the

project would warrant appropriate signage to recognize aid. The contacts with local vendors

have been discussed within the local vendor portion of this document.

Volunteer time

No project is possible without the assistance from volunteers. This project is no different. All

parties involved have been on a volunteer basis and will continue to be. One example of the

volunteer time that has been donated was from the Hamilton High School Carpentry class. Tim

Carpenter, the Hamilton High Carpentry class teacher, was invited to a Green Committee

meeting and agreed to volunteer his time and his students time to the project, where needed.

The volunteer time would be a great opportunity for his students to apply the skills they have

learned to a real world project.


December 4th, 2009 was designated as the Crawford House Clean Up Day. The roof of the

house was in visible disrepair. Tim Carpenter was able to acquire a tarp, large enough to cover

the majority of the roof structure, to help weather proof for the winter. He and his students

spent two hours at the clean up attaching the tarp to the roof and assisting with demolition of

an interior wall.

Tim Carpenter, Hamilton High Teacher

The project has already created great interest. The Green Committee will continue to create

these partnerships with community groups, ensuring the continued volunteer time the project

will need.

Donation Support

Donor list from 1967:

The Crawford House and Woods were reintroduced to the community in 1967. The restoration

efforts were made possible by the community donations that were given to the project. A

framed poster was found at the site that listing all of the donors from 1967.

The Green Committee and our team decided to investigate if any individuals on the list are still

living and if so, if they are still in the Hamilton area. This project was taken on by the Green

Committee during the spring of 2010. As a team, and after discussion with the Committee, we

felt it would be a task that they could begin work on without our report being complete. Ms.

Kathy Klink volunteered to author a letter to persons on that list. This effort was part of the

marketing efforts that the Committee has begun establishing.


Although this list may not generate monetary funds, it can generate other sources of funding

that have been identified above, in-‐kind contributions. We would recommend that the Green

Committee continue to pursue contact with the individuals from the original 1967 donor list.

Sponsorship:

The team has identified a number of facilities similar to the plan for the Crawford House. One

in particular, and mentioned previously in this report, is Cliffs Cottage at Furman University.

The demonstration site in Greenville, South Carolina has a partner system, similar to what had

been proposed for the Crawford house, as a source of funding. There are also five principle

partners on the project, Southern Living magazine, Duke Energy, Furman University, The Cliffs

Communities, and Band of America.

The partnership with companies such as those listed above would provide the Crawford House

project with additional funding and increased publicity. Partners could include:

Ohio Magazine

The Utilities Department and AEP Ohio

Miami University Oxford and Hamilton

A similar structure of who the partners are to the Cliffs Cottage site would be a model to follow.


Section V


Monitoring and Evaluation To gauge the overall educational benefits of this demonstration site it will be helpful to develop

a method of evaluating both the amount of knowledge that visitors leave the site with and the

impact that it has made on them in terms of lifestyle changes. Educational interactions that

focus on small group sizes or one on one instruction are generally known to facilitate greater

learning and behavioral changes and demonstration sites provide such interactions. Rather

than simply provide written information to the public, they showcase the knowledge in a more

direct and tangible format. Little research has been done in this area dealing specifically with

demonstration sites. One recent exception is the development of a monitoring and evaluation

survey by the Utah House in Kaysville, Utah. This site is similar to the Crawford House in that it

is a showcase for displaying alternative and sustainable building techniques and focuses on the

following primary areas: sustainable use of resources, energy and water conservation, healthy

indoor air and universal design (Dietz et al., 2009). The facility is open to the public and hosts a

myriad of educational programs, workshops and tours in addition to renting out the facility for

events. The survey work that they have done provides an excellent example of a way in which

the effectiveness of a demonstration facility can be measured. We have outlined the key

methodology steps below and have included the full text of the article in Appendix E for further

review.

The Utah House collected their survey participants through a guest list for visitors to the house.

This could easily be incorporated into the Crawford House and allow not only for survey data

collection, but also for networking and as a social tool to distribute news and events about the

house. From this list, they mailed paper surveys to the guests with reply envelopes and the

incentive of gift certificate drawings for those who replied. This method of survey

disbursement does have its advantages, namely that you are not excluding any of your target

population by using a medium that everyone has access to. Online surveys provide another

method of disbursement that should not be overlooked, however. While it does have the

possibility to skew your data to those visitors who have Internet access, it can also provide a

much simpler and more cost effective method for obtaining your data. Websites such as Survey


Monkey can provide online forums for conducting the surveys and would eliminate the paper

waste and monetary resources needed to distribute hard copies of the surveys via the US Postal

Service. Both methods have their separate benefits and should be examined carefully before

the survey development. Timing of the surveys will be an important area to focus on, as well.

Developing a timetable of visitors and then administering their surveys at pre-‐scheduled

intervals would be beneficial. Surveys should be conducted when enough time has passed that

the visitors have been able to implement, or not implement, any environmental actions. If

administered directly after their tour, then the data would possibly be skewed heavily towards

in the future

behavioral changes, it would be prudent to allow a specified amount of time to pass.

There were three key areas that the Utah House focused on in their research. The surveys were

divided into how the participants felt regarding the topics that were presented at the house,

the extent to which the visit changed their level of knowledge regarding the material, and any

behavioral changes that developed as a result of their visit. Aside from these primary areas of

information, basic demographic questions were also asked, including specifics regarding their

visit. Surveys could also provide an excellent tool for requesting feedback from the visitors

about their experience. In addition to acquiring knowledge regarding the take away benefits of

the demonstration site, the Crawford House would also be able to assess the general flow of

operations and abilities of the tour guides. It could provide a wealth of customer service

information in order to keep the site running smoothly and effectively.

In organizing the survey responses, Lichert-‐type scales provide nominal data that allow for

statistical computations to determine significant relationships between variables. Examples of

such scales include:


1 = Not important at all 1 = Poor

2 = Somewhat important 2 = Fair

3 = Important 3 = Good

4 = Very important 4 = Very good

5 = Extremely important 5 = Excellent

These formats would be beneficial for assessing perceptions and learning within the site. In

order to assess behavioral changes, the Utah House facility formatted the actions into a matrix,

before

because of what I learned in the future

2009). Figure 36 displays results from the Utah House listing the target actions that they

included in their surveys and the percentage of individuals who engaged in them.

Figure 36: Percent of respondents performing target actions, and future intention (Dietz et al., 2009)


Within the study, Dietz et al. discovered that the high cost items were more likely to be

implemented in the future as opposed to lower cost and easier changes that took place more

immediately, as would be expected. One of the more interesting results of the surveys was

that individuals who participated in larger group tours were less likely to engage in pro-‐

environmental behaviors after their visit. It is difficult to determine the cause of this

relationship, but it is an important characteristic to note. Smaller tours are possibly more

advantageous to affecting behavioral changes in the guests that come through the house.

Limiting group sizes and having multiple tour guides might be especially beneficial to school

groups, which tend to have much larger numbers.

The development of a monitoring and evaluation survey could be an extremely important tool

to determining the behavioral changes brought about by the Crawford House Demonstration

Site. It will assist in the development of programs and tours that are discovered to be the most

effective, which will ultimately make the house a better catalyst for the environmental

movement. Surveys certainly have their drawbacks in terms of the reliability of self-‐reported

behaviors, but they provide a much need


Section VI


Conclusion

This document is the culmination of effort and collaboration between the

Hamilton Green Committee and a team of authors who drafted this proposal as part of their

coursework in program. It creates a plan

of action and working list of ideas for the committee in their creation of a demonstration site

designed to foster environmental stewardship, bolster civic pride and connect the city and

plans for a more sustainable future.

The Crawford House team used the following three objectives to guide us in our endeavor:

provide a plan for program development of Crawford House, suggest building

recommendations specific to the Crawford House and educate the community about

environmental stewardship and continuous living. These objectives often overlap, as in the

case of structural improvement recommendations that simultaneously create educational

displays, i.e. improved wall insulation and roofing. However, each objective required different

approaches and methodologies.

The use of site visits, research into existing programs and new home technologies, as well as

local contractor interviews helped us develop a plan for a site that incorporates many elements

similar to existing sites and programs, but unique in its overall composition. One of the unique

aspects of the plan is its ability to demonstrate both investment in technological improvements

that fit the needs of home and property owners as well as low-‐cost techniques and behavioral

methods pertinent to renters and lower income communities.

The historic Crawford House on Hancock Avenue has been a working family homestead and

community meeting place, surrounded by green space, for generations. Due to years of use and

deterioration, the home had come to the point of imminent demolition. The home received a

respite when it was chosen among several historic venues to become the envisioned

demonstration site. Factors including historic relevance, imbedded energy and the chance to


deemed important in a community with a large proportion of aging homes and buildings.

As a team we look forward to seeing the plan implemented and have high hopes that our work

incorporate the Crawford House and Woods Demonstration site into local curricula are one of

the most important potential legacies of this endeavor. It is our belief that the individual nature

of this project and its potential for adaptability will allow it to stand out amongst similar

ventures and remain relevant well into the future.


References

Baker, Janeth. (2008). 2008-‐2009 School Year Report Card., 1-‐8.

Blount, Jim. Butler county place names. The Lane Libraries. http://www.lanepl.org/Blount/jbplaces/index.html (accessed 04/02, 2010).

Bouldin, John Thomas Martinez. The book of knowledge for homeowners, ed. Frances E. Kuecker.

Carter, Margaret. The history of home lighting. [cited 3/4 2010]. Available from http://www.ehow.com/about_5397793_history-‐home-‐lighting.html (accessed March 4, 2010).

Chiras, Dan. 2007. Simple energy saving strategies. The Mother Earth News. Summer.

City of hamilton, OH: Introduction. (4/21/2009). , July/22/2010, from http://www.hamilton-‐city.org/index.aspx?page=381

Dawson, Brian, and Matt Spannagle. (2009). The Complete Guide to Climate Change. Routledge, New York, NY press, 150.

Denver Urban Gardens. About denver urban gardens. www.dug.org (accessed April 20, 2010).

Dietz, Michael E., Jayne Mulford, and Kerry Case. The utah house: An effective educational tool and catalyst for behavior change? Building and Environment 44, 2009). : 1707.

Fuerbacher, Barbara., Avery Joan. (2007). Hamilton City School District Plan for English language learners., 1-‐8.

Furmon, C., Jolivette, G., & and Donald Dixon. (2006). The ohio medicaid report SFY 2006 statewide and county dataButler County, Department of Job and Family Services.

Gaylord Nelson and Earth Day. Introduction: the earth day story and gaylord nelson. www.nelsonearthday.net. (accessed March 24, 2010).

Green Living Tips. Energy saving windows. http://www.greenlivingtips.com/articles/377/1/Energy-‐saving-‐windows.html (accessed April 2, 2010).

Great Schools. Retrieved March, 2010, from http://www.greatschools.org/ohio/hamilton/Hamilton-‐City-‐School-‐District/

http://www.lanepl.org/Blount/jbplaces/index.html

http://www.ehow.com/about_5397793_history-home-lighting.html

http://www.hamilton-city.org/index.aspx?page=381

http://www.dug.org/

http://www.nelsonearthday.net/

http://www.greenlivingtips.com/articles/377/1/Energy-saving-windows.html

http://www.greatschools.org/ohio/hamilton/Hamilton-City-School-District/


Heiser, Alta Harvey. 1957. Butler county history: Contract between john woods and john M. McKinsie concerning the hill farm on mason rd. Hamilton Journal, May 30, 1957.

Heiser, Alta Harvey. 1955. Butler county history: Issue handbills in august, 1833, informing public of plans for dividing section owned by capt. john cleves symmes into valuable farms. Hamilton Journal, March 24, 1955.

Heiser, Alta Harvey. 1938. Crop rotation followed by early farmers. Hamilton Journal, May 21, 1938.

Heiser, Alta Harvey. 1936. Much of john cleves symmes estate lies within the city limits of hamilton. Hamilton Journal, July 18, 1936.

Hucka, Judy. 2006. The History of the P-‐Patch Program-‐Part 1: 1973-‐1983-‐Picardo, Passion and People: 30 Years of P-‐Patching. Seattle, WA: Seattle Department of Neighborhoods. On-‐line. Available from internet, http://www.cityofseattle.net/neighborhoods/ppatch/history.htm, accessed March 2010.

Larry, Jeff. 2009. Passive cooling methods make a comeback at the cottage. President lincoln's cottage blog. (accessed 3/28/10).

Litchfield, Michael W. 2005. Renovation, ed. Neil Soderstrom. 3rd ed. Newtown, CT: The Taunton Press.

Metal Roof Alliance. Investment grade roofing. 2007 [cited April/3 2010]. Available from http://www.metalroofing.com/v2/content/about/faq.cfm (accessed April 3, 2010).

National Fenestration Rating Council. (2005). The Facts About Windows and Heat Loss.

Ohio County Profiles. Retrieved November, 2009, from http://www.development.ohio.gov/research/files/s0/Butler.pdf

Ohio Hispanic Americans. (2006). Retrieved November, 2009, from http://ochla.ohio.gov/ASSETS/2C5891541DC84268AA07781EE81EB1FD/Ohio%20Hispanic%20Americans%20-‐ODOD.pdf

Orange Coat. The cliffs cottage at furman: Southern living's sustainable showcase home. [cited April/3 2010]. Available from http://www.furmancliffscottage.com/ (accessed April 3, 2010).

Pearson, Chris. 2007. A brief history of heating and cooling america's homes. Sustainable dwelling.

Phillips, Derek. (2004) Daylighting: natural light in architecture. Architectural Press.

http://www.cityofseattle.net/neighborhoods/ppatch/history.htm

http://www.metalroofing.com/v2/content/about/faq.cfm

http://www.development.ohio.gov/research/files/s0/Butler.pdf

http://ochla.ohio.gov/ASSETS/2C5891541DC84268AA07781EE81EB1FD/Ohio%20Hispanic%20Americans%20-ODOD.pdf

http://ochla.ohio.gov/ASSETS/2C5891541DC84268AA07781EE81EB1FD/Ohio%20Hispanic%20Americans%20-ODOD.pdf

http://www.furmancliffscottage.com/


Reysa, Gary. 2009. 8 easy projects for instant energy savings. The Mother Earth News. Summer.

Seattle Department of Neighborhoods. P-‐patch community gardens growing communities. http://www.seattle.gov/neighborhoods/ppatch/ (accessed April 19, 2010).

SEO. Save energy ohio. 2009 [cited April 3, 2010 2010]. Available from http://www.saveenergyohio.com (accessed April 3, 2010).

Stearns, Peter. 2001. Consumerism in world history: the global transformation of desire. . Routledge, New York, NY press, 13.

Thone, Frank. 1943. Victory Gardens. Science News Letter, March 20, 1943.

United States Department of Energy. Energy efficiency and renewable energy. United States Department of Energy. http://www.eere.energy.gov/topics/homes.html (accessed February 23, 2010).

U.S. Green Building Council. 2003. LEED reference package for new construction and major renovations. Reference Manual ed. Vol. 2.1. Washington D.C.: .

USEPA, DOE. Energy star. 2010 [cited April 3, 2010 2010]. Available from http://www.energystar.gov (accessed April 3, 2010).

Whole building environmental design. 2007 [cited 12/3/09 2010]. Available from http://www.ecobalance.org (accessed 3/31/10).

http://www.seattle.gov/neighborhoods/ppatch/

http://www.saveenergyohio.com/

http://www.eere.energy.gov/topics/homes.html

http://www.energystar.gov/

http://www.ecobalance.org/

Appendix A Crawford House Master Floor Plan

Appendix B Hamilton City School Listings

Hamilton City School District Elementary Schools Directory

School Name Address No. of Students

Adams Elementary School 450 S F St

Hamilton, OH 45013

(513) 887-5065

District: Hamilton City School District

512 students

Buchanan Elementary School 263 Hancock Ave

Hamilton, OH 45011

(513) 887-5070


310 students

Cleveland Elementary School 900 Brookwood Ave

Hamilton, OH 45013

(513) 887-5075


407 students

Fillmore Elementary School 1125 Main St

Hamilton, OH 45013

(513) 887-5085

District: Hamilton City School Distric

659 students

Grant Elementary School 415 Campbell Dr

Hamilton, OH 45011

153 students

(513) 887-5100


Harrison Elementary School 250 Knightsbridge Dr

Hamilton, OH 45011

(513) 887-5105


378 students

Hayes Elementary School 901 Hoadley Ave

Hamilton, OH 45015

(513) 887-5110


321 students

Jefferson Elementary School 526 S 8th St

Hamilton, OH 45011

(513) 887-5120


519 students

Lincoln Elementary School 701 N E St

Hamilton, OH 45013

(513) 887-5130


499 students

Madison Elementary School 250 N 9th St

Hamilton, OH 45011

(513) 887-5140

District: Hamilton City School

257 students

District

Monroe Elementary School 951 Carriage Hill Ln

Hamilton, OH 45013

(513) 887-5150


272 students

Pierce Elementary School 2890 Freeman Ave

Hamilton, OH 45015

(513) 887-5160


414 students

Source: www.greatschools.org

Hamilton City School District Middle Schools Directory

School Name

Address No. of Students

Garfield Middle School 250 N Fair Ave

Hamilton, OH 45011

(513) 887-5035


694 students

Wilson Middle School 714 Eaton Ave

Hamilton, OH 45013

(513) 887-5170

District: Hamilton City School

552 students

District


Hamilton City School District High Schools Directory

School Name Address No. of Students

Hamilton Education Center High

931 Westview Ave

Hamilton, OH 45013

(513) 887-5197


270 students

Hamilton Freshman School High

2260 NW Washington Blvd.

Hamilton, OH 45013


713 students

Hamilton High School 1165 Eaton Ave

Hamilton, OH 45013

(513) 868-7700


1598 students


Appendix C Local Participation List

Local Contractor Contacts Calihan Custom Cabinets and Countertops 2350 Pleasant Avenue, Hamilton, Ohio/(513) 868-‐3500 Designers and manufacturers of custom cabinetry and millwork. Willing and able to use alternative materials, including low VOC adhesives. Complete Remodeling Company 7876 Bridgewater Lane, Hamilton, Ohio/(513) 868-‐3550 Bathroom, kitchen and new addition specialists. Degeorge Ceilings and Flooring Company 3675 Symmes Rd., Hamilton, Ohio/(513) 860-‐2600 Tile, metallic materials, suspended and dome ceilings, and vinyl windows. Siegel Remodeling and Design 9016 Sutton Place, Hamilton, Ohio/(513) 874-‐7636 Custom contractors specializing in bathrooms, kitchens and new additions. Also do exterior work such as decking, siding, etc. Will work with alternative materials. Design specialists. LE Scofield Window and Door Company 315 S. B Street, Hamilton, Ohio/(513) 523-‐8932 Specialists in exterior work, e.g. enclosures, aluminum roofing and columns, awnings, windows, doors and entrances. Offer alternative roofing materials, including high albedo roofing colors and material. Millcraft Drywall 3000 Nichols Rd., Hamilton, Ohio/(513) 523-‐8886 General interior remodeling. Raliegh Drywall 4012 Schroeder Dr., Hamilton, Ohio/(513) 860-‐1819 General interior remodeling. Tilford RJ 530 Millville-‐Oxford Rd., Hamilton, Ohio/(513) 863-‐6674 General home remodeling and repair; interiors and exteriors. Reeves Restoration 199 Augspurger Ave., Hamilton, Ohio/(513) 863-‐7225

Residential repair and remodeling specialists. Expert water damage repair, including mold mitigation.

A-‐1 All Phase Complete Remodeling 49 Irene Ave., Hamilton, Ohio/(513) 895-‐3325 General purpose remodeling and home repair.

Guild Properties LLC -‐

General contractors. Brockhaus Schalk Drywall LTD 5009 Cincinnati-‐Brookville Rd., Hamilton, Ohio/(513) 738-‐4252 Interior remodeling specialists. Also do windows, doors and painting. Will work with low VOC paints and water based finishes, etc. Radin Electric 1329 Pater Ave., Hamilton, Ohio/(513) 844-‐6833 General purpose electrical contracting for both residential and commercial needs. All Seasons Dry Wall 63 Whitaker Ave., Hamilton, Ohio/(513) 887-‐0282 General interior remodeling and repair.

Appendix D LEED Point Summary

LEED

Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED), is an internationally recognized

green building certification system created by the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC).

Under LEED, buildings accumulate points for things such as saving energy, having

accessible mass transit, and mitigating storm water runoff. Once the points are tallied,

the building earns a LEED rating (usgbc.org). There are four possible categories that a

green building could achieve: Certified 40 to 49 points, Silver 50 to 59 points, Gold 60 to

79 points, platinum 80 to 110 points. The higher the tally, the more sustainable a

building is.

On February 25th 2010, The Green Committee and IES graduate students from Miami

University attended to the Eco-‐Charrette for the Crawford House project led by the

Architect and Director of Sustainability, Allison E. Beer. The summary identified the LEED

criteria, which we will seek to meet in the project. The total number of points sought is

60, which, if earned, would result in a Gold LEED rating.

LEED points possible/available for implementing new techniques in major renovation

Possible lead categories and points that are associated with the Outliving living area of

the demonstration site are:

Outdoor Living

Sustainable Sites o Credit 4.2 Alternative Transportation Bicycle Storage and Changing

Rooms-‐ Possible points 1 o Credit 4.3 Alternative Transportation Low-‐Emitting and Fuel-‐Efficient

Vehicles-‐ Possible points 3

o Credit 4.4 Alternative Transportation Parking Capacity-‐ Possible points 2 o Credit 5.1 Site Development Protect or Restore Habit-‐ Possible points 1 o Credit 5.2 Site Development Maximize Open Space-‐ Possible points 1 o Credit 6.1 Stormwater Design Quantity Control Possible points 1 o Credit 6.2 Stormwater Design Quality Control Possible points 1

Water Efficiency o Credit 1 Water Efficient Landscaping Possible points 2 to 4

o Credit 3 Water Use Reduction Possible points 2 to 4 The Green Committee set a goal of 40% reduction, which would

have an associated point value of 4.

Innovation and Design Process o Credit 1.1 Community Gardens Possible points 1

These credits are designed for the specific projects and techniques that are being used at the demonstration site. To receive points that projects/techniques would have to be approved before points would be assigned.

Regional Priority Credits o Credit 1.1 Possible points 1

Innovation and Design Process o Credit 1.1 Innovation in Design: Specific Title-‐ Possible points 1

Building Recommendations

Sustainable Sites o Credit 7.2 Heat Island Effect Roof-‐ Possible points 1

Energy and Atmosphere Prereq 1 Fundamental Commissioning of Building Energy Systems

Prereq 2 Minimum Energy Performance Prereq 3 Fundamental Refrigerant Management o Credit 1 Optimize Energy Performance-‐ Possible points 1 to 19 o Credit 2 On-‐Site Renewable Energy-‐ Possible points 1 to 7 o Credit 3 Enhanced Commissioning-‐ Possible Points 2

The credit was iden o Credit 4 Enhanced Refrigerant Management-‐ Possible points 2 o Credit 5 Measurement and Verification-‐ Possible points 3 o Credit 6 Green Power-‐ Possible points 2

Materials and Resources Prereq 1 Storage and Collection of Recycles o Credit 1.1Building Reuse Maintain Existing Walls, Floors, and Roof-‐

Possible points 1 to 3 o Credit 1.1 Building Reuse Maintain 50% of Interior Non-‐Structural

Elements-‐ Possible Points 1 o Credit 2 Construction Waste Management-‐ Possible Points 1 to 2 o Credit 3 Materials Reuse

o Credit 4 Recycled Content-‐ Possible Points 1 to 2 o Credit 5 Regional Materials-‐ Possible Points 1 to 2 o Credit 7 Certified Wood-‐ Possible Points 1

Indoor Environmental Quality Prereq 1 Minimum Indoor Air Quality Performance Prereq 2 Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) Control o Credit 1 Outdoor Air Delivery Monitoring-‐ Possible Points 1

o Credit 3.1 Construction IAQ Management Plan-‐ During Construction

Possible Points 1 o Credit 3.2 Construction IAQ Management Plan-‐Before Occupancy-‐

Possible Points 1

o Credit 4.1 Low-‐Emitting Materials-‐Adhesives and Sealants-‐ Possible Points 1

o Credit 4.2 Low-‐Emitting Materials-‐Plaints and Coatings-‐ Possible Points 1 o Credit 4.3 Low-‐Emitting Materials-‐Flooring Systems-‐ Possible Points 1

o Credit 4.4 Low-‐Emitting Materials-‐Composite Wood and Agrifiber Products-‐ Possible Points 1

o Credit 5 Indoor Chemical and Pollutants Source Control-‐ Possible Points 1

o Credit 6.1 Controllability of Systems-‐Lighting-‐ Possible Points 1 o Credit 7.1 Thermal Comfort-‐ Design-‐ Possible Points 1 o Credit 7.2 Thermal Comfort-‐ Verification-‐ Possible Points 1 o Credit 8.2 Daylight and Views-‐Views-‐ Possible Points 1

Innovation and Design Process o Credit 1.2 Innovation in Design: Specific Title-‐ Possible points 1 o Credit 1.3 Innovation in Design: Specific Title-‐ Possible points 1 o Credit 1.4 Innovation in Design: Specific Title-‐ Possible points 1 o Credit 1.5 Innovation in Design: Specific Title-‐ Possible points 1 o Credit 2 LEED Accredited Professional-‐ Possible points 1

Regional Priority Credits o Credit 1.1 Regional Priority: Specific Credit-‐ Possible points 1 o Credit 1.2 Regional Priority: Specific Credit-‐ Possible points 1 o Credit 1.3 Regional Priority: Specific Credit-‐ Possible points 1 o Credit 1.4 Regional Priority: Specific Credit-‐ Possible points 1

Total Possible Points: GOLD 60 to 79 points

If the Crawford House is able to achieve its goal of gold LEED status from the USGBC, it

would be quite an accomplishment for the project. The number of LEED certified

buildings is on the rise both locally and nationally, with higher status levels such as gold

ed

project would attract visitors from around the state. It would enhance the image of the

community and provide patrons with information that they could potentially

incorporate into their own home designs.

Appendix E Utah House Monitoring Program

The Utah House: An effective educational tool and catalyst forbehavior change?

Michael E. Dietz a,*, Jayne Mulford b, Kerry Case c

aDepartment of Environment and Society, Utah State University, 5215 Old Main Hill, Logan, UT 84322-5215, USAbCooperative Extension, Utah State University, 920 South, 50 West, Kaysville, UT 84037, USAc Environmental Center, Westminster College, 1840 South, 1300 East, Salt Lake City, UT 84105, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 30 September 2008Received in revised form13 November 2008Accepted 14 November 2008

Keywords:Utah HouseDemonstration housePro-environmental behavior

a b s t r a c t

The Utah House in Kaysville, UT is a demonstration facility built and operated by Utah State UniversityCooperative Extension. It is designed to showcase alternative building techniques, with a focus onsustainable use of resources, energy and water conservation, healthy indoor air, and universal design.A survey was sent to visitors of the Utah House in January 2008. Questions were asked about knowledgeof key topics, and engagement in selected pro-environmental behaviors, to determine if their visit to thehouse influenced their level of knowledge or more importantly, their behavior. Significant increases inself-reported knowledge were found for all five topic areas, indicating that the house was an effectiveeducational tool. Differences in self-reported knowledge before the visit were found for gender andeducational level, but mean ratings for all groups were essentially the same after the visit. Althoughmany visitors had already engaged in at least one pro-environmental behavior before coming to thehouse (83%), a large percentage (63%) made at least one change as a result of their visit, indicating thatthe house was a catalyst for behavior change. Although several interesting correlations were foundbetween knowledge, feelings and behavior, no strong predictor of behavior emerged.

! 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Although the environmental movement has ebbed and flowedsince the 1960s, environmental concern or the ‘‘green movement’’has crept its way into mainstream advertising, marketing andmanufacturing. Public concern for environmental issues is high, yetpeople often cling to outdated or incorrect myths about environ-mental issues [1]. Recent increases in energy and food prices havemade hybrid cars and energy-efficient homes common topics ofdiscussion in the media.

Early environmental education efforts were largely based on themodel that environmental knowledge led to increased environ-mental awareness, which then led to pro-environmental behaviors[2]. It has been noted that this linear progression is over simplified,and increases in knowledge and/or awareness do not necessarilylead to behavior changes [2,3]. However, a recent study onadolescents has shown a significant positive relationship betweenattitudes, knowledge and behavior [4]. Demographic variables suchas education level have been found to be positively, but weaklycorrelated with pro-environmental behaviors [5,6]. Age has been

found to be positively [5,7–9] and negatively [10] associated withpro-environmental behaviors. It seems that in general, women tendto engage more in pro-environmental behaviors than men [4,11–13], although this is not always the case [10]. Interestingly, althoughwomen tend to be the ones engaging in these behaviors more often,men have been found to have higher levels of knowledge onspecific environmental issues [4,11]. This anomaly highlights thefact the increased knowledge does not necessarily lead to increasedaction. Engagement in pro-environmental behavior is increasinglyseen to be a result of complex interactions between internal factorssuch as knowledge, desire to act, emotional responses, and externalfactors such as economic constraints, convenience of the activity,and social pressures [12,14–16]. Other variables, such as an internallocus of control (an individual’s perception that their actions arelikely to ‘make a difference’) have also been found to explainwhether an individual engages in pro-environmental behavior [15].

Numerous tools and techniques have been utilized to provideenvironmental education to the public. For example, in the field ofstormwater education, television, radio, and local newspapers wereamong the most effective tools for getting residents to recalla stormwater message, while brochures and handouts were amongthe least effective [17]. However, even among those techniqueswhich are effective in inducing awareness of a program or recall ofcertain facts, very few take the next step and examine the impacts

* Corresponding author. Tel.: !1 435 797 3313.E-mail addresses: [email protected] (M.E. Dietz), [email protected]

(J. Mulford), [email protected] (K. Case).

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Building and Environment

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/bui ldenv

0360-1323/$ – see front matter ! 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2008.11.007

Building and Environment 44 (2009) 1707–1713

mailto:[email protected]



www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/03601323

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/buildenv

of the educational program on behavior changes in participants.Intensive education efforts, such as one-on-one direct interactionare often thought to be the most effective way to provide educationand induce behavior change. However, this approach is time andmoney intensive, and high success rates are not guaranteed, as wasfound in one study in Connecticut [18].

The use of a demonstration facility has been advocated as aneffective tool to bring about change in consumer choices andconstruction practices [19]. Several such buildings were con-structed in Finland in the 1990s. The Utah House (http://theutahhouse.org) is Utah State University Extension’s sustainablebuilding demonstration and education center. The Utah Houseconcept was based on that of the Florida Learning House (http://sarasota.extension.ufl.edu/FHLC/FlaHouseHome.shtml). The UtahHouse opened to the public in 2003, with a mission to demonstrate,educate, and empower the public about new ways of buildinghomes and creating landscapes that promote energy efficiency,water conservation, healthy indoor environments, the sustainableuse of all resources, and universal design principles. Universaldesign assumes that the facility should be built in such as way as toconsider the needs of the widest array of users, including people ofall ages, sizes, and abilities. Located at the Utah Botanical Center inKaysville, the Utah House is open to the public for tours, work-shops, youth groups, field trips, and event rental. More than 10,000adults and children attended educational programs at the house in2007.

The Utah House has numerous demonstrations of sustainablebuilding techniques, energy andwater conservation, healthy indoorair, and universal design:

Building materials:

! Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) lumber was used for framingmaterials.

! Engineered trusses were used to reduce waste.! During construction, the majority of waste was recycled orreused.

! Concrete for the frost walls and slab had high recycled fly-ashcontent.

! Windowsills and bathroom counters were made of a locallymade, recycled glass product.

! Straw bale and Insulated Concrete Forms were used for walls inthe classroom.

! Reclaimed lumber was used for an arbor in the yard.

Energy conservation:

! Passive solar design was utilized.! 1 kW solar photovoltaic system and solar hot water heatingwere installed.

! Ground source heating/cooling system was installed in theclassroom.

! Light tubes and clerestory windows were installed throughoutthe house to increase natural light.

! Energy Star! appliances were installed, and the entire homewas Energy Star certified.

! Compact fluorescent lighting was used throughout.

Water conservation:

! Low-flow toilets, faucets and washing machine were installed.! Roof runoff is stored in a 6500-gallon cistern and is used toflush a toilet in the house.

! Point-of-use water heater was installed in the kitchen toreduce wasted water when waiting for hot water.

! Drought tolerant plants and a high efficiency irrigation systemwere used for landscaped areas.

Healthy indoor air:

! Low- or no-VOC paints were used throughout.! Durable, formaldehyde-free materials were chosen for kitchenworking surfaces.

! High-efficiency furnace filters were installed.! Recycled carpet materials were installed.

Universal design:

! An open floor plan was utilized to allow movement for peoplewith varying ability levels to move easily through the house.

! Thresholds on doors were avoided, and doors were wideenough to accommodate wheelchairs.

! Main bedroom has emergency access to the outside, spaciousclosets, smoke detector/visual strobe (for those with impairedhearing).

The use of a demonstration facility as an educational tool andcatalyst for behavior change has not been evaluated in the litera-ture. Thousands of adults and children have participated in theeducational programs at the Utah House. To date, a preliminaryonline survey of visitors indicated increases in self-reportedknowledge, and some changes in lifestyle at home. The objectivesof this survey were to perform a more comprehensive analysis todetermine if the Utah House is an effective educational tool, andalso to assess in greater detail what changes visitors have made intheir personal lives as a result of their visit to the Utah House.

2. Methods

2.1. Survey

Visitors to the Utah House have the option to leave contactinformation as they are leaving the site, so that they can be notifiedof upcoming events at the house. The key topics that are addressedduring tours at the house are overall sustainability, energy effi-ciency, water conservation, healthy indoor air, and universal design.In January 2008, a three-page survey (see supplemental informa-tion) was sent out to 1636 people who had left their contactinformation at the house in the last three years. The survey wassent with a cover letter and a business reply envelope. The coverletter explained the survey, and offered a random drawing forprizes (three $50 gift certificates) for those who returned it.

The surveywas designed to assess several areas: how people feelabout the key topics, did their visit to the Utah House change theirlevel of knowledge about each topic, and what have they actuallydone in response to their visit. Other questions were also includedsuch as what types of programs each person participated inwhile atthe house (workshop, self-guided tour, guided individual tour,K-12/youth activity, small group tour, larger group tour), how longago they visited, how often they visit, why they haven’t done thelisted actions (too busy, too expensive, need more information,don’t feel it’s that important, other), and demographic information(gender, age group, home ownership status, ethnicity, and educa-tion level). A number of other questions were included to obtaininformation for the house and the educational programs, such astheir rating of our teaching, types of workshops they would attendin the future, and other suggestions.

The questions about knowledge change and how they feel aboutthe topics were posed with the five key topic areas, and a five-pointscale. For the knowledge questions, 1 was labeled ‘‘Nothing’’, and 5was labeled ‘‘A lot’’. For the question on how important each topicis, each number had a label (1 " Not important at all,2 " Somewhat important, 3 " Important, 4 " Very important,5 " Extremely important). The rating of our teaching also had

M.E. Dietz et al. / Building and Environment 44 (2009) 1707–17131708

http://theutahhouse.org

http://theutahhouse.org

http://sarasota.extension.ufl.edu/FHLC/FlaHouseHome.shtml

http://sarasota.extension.ufl.edu/FHLC/FlaHouseHome.shtml

a label for each number (1 ! Poor, 2 ! Fair, 3 ! Good, 4 ! Verygood, 5 ! Excellent). The question about actions that they havetaken was listed in a matrix format. Actions that are highlighted inthe house were listed in rows, such as ‘‘Install compact fluorescentlighting’’, or ‘‘Install an efficient irrigation system’’, alongwith threecolumns that were labeled ‘‘I did this before visiting the UtahHouse’’, ‘‘I have done this because of what I learned at the UtahHouse’’, and ‘‘I plan to do this in the future’’.

2.2. Statistical analysis

All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS [20], version16.0.1. Survey results were entered by hand into a SPSS file. Toassess whether visitors’ knowledge of each of the key topic areasincreased, a paired t-test was used to compare their stated level ofknowledge before the visit, and their stated level of knowledgeafter the visit. An unpaired t-test was used to assess differences inknowledge before and after a visit, by gender. Analysis of variance(ANOVA) and mean separation (Bonferroni) was performed onknowledge ratings for the different levels of education groups todetermine if significant differences existed. Cross-tabulations wereperformed on several variables, and the Chi-square statistic wasused to determine if there were significant differences in thecomparisons. A significance level (p-value) of <0.05 for all statis-tical tests performed was considered significant. The remainingdata were summarized in terms of mean responses, standarddeviations, and sums.

3. Results

Of the 1636 surveys that were sent out, 5 were returned asundeliverable and 254were returned completed, for a response rateof 15.5%. A largenumberof respondentshadvisited thehousewithinthe last year (41.5%). A smaller percentage (28.5%) stated that theyhad visited 1–2 years ago, and 30.0% visited more than 2 years ago.

3.1. Demographics

In general, the survey respondents were predominantlyCaucasian (92.9%), aged 45–64 (55.1%), female (70.1%), and highlyeducated (Figs. 1 and 2). The ethnicity of this group reflects thepredominantly Caucasian (92%) population of Davis County (U.S.Census, 2000). Initially, it was not clear whether the typical visitorsto the Utah House were middle-aged women, or whether this

group was more likely to have completed the survey. A review ofvisitor logs at the Utah House indicated a slightly higher percentageof female visitors (56%) compared to male visitors (44%), but thedifference was not as great as the difference in gender of surveyrespondents. Therefore, it appears that women were more likely toput their names on our mailing list, and/or return the survey. Thevisitor logs also indicated that around 17,200 visitors (excludingchildren’s field trips) came to the house from 2005 to 2007.A statistical test of confidence can be performed on the number ofrespondents compared to visitors. Assuming 95% confidence, anda population of 17,200 visitors, a confidence interval of 6% is foundfor this study (www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm).

3.2. Knowledge change, importance, and rating of teaching

Comparisons (t-test) of self-reported knowledge on the five keytopics taught at the Utah House before and after a visit indicatedsignificant (p ! 0.001) increases in knowledge for all five topicareas (Fig. 3). In general, respondents came in with more knowl-edge (higher mean rating) in energy efficiency and water conser-vation than in the other three areas, but the differences were small.Respondents reported low levels of knowledge about universal

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 Over 75

Co

un

t

Age

Male

Female

Fig. 1. Age and gender of survey respondents.

7.9

2.8

23.2

40.6

25.6

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

High school Trade/vocational Some college/2year degree

College/4 yeardegree

Graduate school

Percen

t

Fig. 2. Highest level of education of survey respondents.

****** ***

*** ***

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

5.5

Mean

Resp

on

se

BeforeAfter

Fig. 3. Mean self-reported knowledge of key topics before and after visit to the UtahHouse. Asterisks indicate a significant difference using a t-test (***p-value!0.001).Error bars are "1SD.

M.E. Dietz et al. / Building and Environment 44 (2009) 1707–1713 1709

http://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm

design before visiting the house (mean ! 2.2); however the visit tothe house increased their knowledge level to 3.8 (Fig. 3).

There were several differences found in self-reported knowl-edge of the five topic areas. Male visitors reported significantlyhigher levels of knowledge before their visit for all of the topiclevels except universal design (Fig. 4). Men have been found to havehigher levels of knowledge on specific environmental topics [4,11],although the present study does not use an actual test of knowl-edge, only self-reported knowledge. Interestingly, after the visit theonly significant difference betweenmale and female visitors was onthe topic of sustainability (Fig. 5). Differences were also found forvisitors with varying levels of education: ANOVA analysis revealedthat self-reported knowledge on sustainability and healthy indoorair was higher for college graduates than for those who did notattend college (Table 1). However, after the visit, there were nosignificant differences in self-reported knowledge for any of thetopics across education levels (Table 1). Although these ratings areonly for self-reported knowledge, and are limited as such, thesefindings show that after a visit to the facility, visitors left witha uniform level of knowledge, independent of gender or educa-tional background.

In general, survey respondents felt that energy efficiency andwater conservation were more important to them, but the differ-ences were slight (Fig. 6). Mean responses for all five key topic areaswere between 3.6 and 4.5, indicating a high level of concern for allof the topic areas.

Mean ratings of the teaching of all five key topic areas at theUtah House were above 3.5, indicating that in general respondentsfelt that the staff at the Utah House did a good to very good job ofteaching the topic areas. Teaching of energy efficiency and waterconservation were rated highest (mean responses ! 4.0). Interest-ingly, the mean response for teaching of universal designwas lowerthan the others at 3.7, yet respondents reported the greatestincrease in knowledge for this topic area (Fig. 3).

3.3. Actions before visit

The target actions from the survey are listed in Table 2. Many ofthe respondents reported doing some of these activities beforevisiting the house; 82.7% reported doing at least one of theseactions before their visit. The most common actions wereinstallation of the following: compact fluorescent lighting (52.4%),

water- efficient toilets or faucets (37.4%), more insulation in thehome (29.1%), an efficient irrigation system (24.4%), and low-waterlandscape plants (23.2%) (Table 2). One determinant of whetherpeople perform the actions seems to be how strongly they feelabout the key topic areas, or their level of environmental concern.The number of actions that people had done before visiting thehouse was significantly (p ! 0.01) correlated with the average oftheir ratings of how important each of the topic areas was to them.Although this relationship is not strong (Pearson correlation coef-ficient ! 0.175), the relationship is significant, indicating some

***

*****

**

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

Sustainability Energy efficiency

Water conservation

Healthy indoor air

Universal design

Mean

Resp

on

se

MaleFemale

Fig. 4. Mean self-reported knowledge of key topics before visit, by gender. Asterisksindicate a significant difference using a t-test (**p-value!0.01, ***p-value!0.001). Errorbars are "1SD.

*

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5


Water conservation

Healthy indoor air

Universal design

Mean

Resp

on

se

MaleFemale

Fig. 5. Mean self-reported knowledge of key topics after visit, by gender. Asterisksindicate a significant difference using a t-test (*p-value!0.05). Error bars are "1SD.

Table 1Mean self-reported knowledge of key topics before and after visit, by educationallevel. Means followed by the same letters are not significantly different from eachother at p!0.05 using Bonferroni’s mean separation test.

Topic area Education level Meanbeforevisit

Meanaftervisit

Difference

Sustainability High school 1.8 cd 3.5 a 1.7Trade/vocational 2 abcd 3.7 a 1.7Some college/2-year degree 2.1 ac 3.9 a 1.8College/4-year degree 2.7 ab 3.8 a 1.1Graduate school 2.7 a 3.9 a 1.2

Energy efficiency High school 2.9 a 4.2 a 1.3Trade/vocational 2.6 a 4.2 a 1.6Some college/2-year degree 2.9 a 4.4 a 1.5College/4-year degree 3.3 a 4.4 a 1.1Graduate school 3.2 a 4.3 a 1.1

Water conservation High school 2.7 a 4.1 a 1.4Trade/vocational 3.3 a 4.2 a 0.9Some college/2-year degree 2.7 a 4.3 a 1.6College/4-year degree 3.1 a 4.4 a 1.3Graduate school 3 a 4.3 a 1.3

Healthy indoor air High school 2.2 abc 3.3 a 1.1Trade/vocational 2 abcd 3.3 a 1.3Some college/2-year degree 2.2 bcd 4 a 1.8College/4-year degree 2.6 a 3.8 a 1.2Graduate school 2.4 ab 3.8 a 1.4

Universal design High school 1.8 a 3.7 a 1.9Trade/vocational 2.3 a 3.7 a 1.4Some college/2-year degree 1.9 a 4.2 a 2.3College/4-year degree 2.3 a 3.8 a 1.5Graduate school 2.2 a 3.7 a 1.5


linkage between how important the respondents believe the issuesare and the number of actions that they had implemented. This isnot surprising given other research on correlations between envi-ronmental concern and environmental behavior: a meta-analysis ofresearch on determinants of pro-environmental behavior revealedan average correlation coefficient of 0.347 ! 0.224 between atti-tudes on environmental issues and engagement in pro-environ-mental behaviors [15].

Self-reported knowledge of two of the topic areas was alsofound to be significantly correlated with specific related actions.For example, the self-reported knowledge of water conservationbefore the visit to the house was significantly correlated (p " 0.01,Pearson correlation coefficient " 0.333) with the number of waterconservation actions performed before the visit. These actionsincluded installation of water- efficient toilet or faucet, purchase ofa front-load washer, installation of an efficient irrigation system,and changing landscape plants to native or low-water demandtype. The same relationship was found for energy efficiency: self-

reported knowledge of energy efficiency before the visit wassignificantly (p " 0.01, Pearson correlation coefficient " 0.386)correlated with the number of actions related to energy efficiencyperformed before the visit. These actions included installation ofcompact fluorescent lighting, installation of light tubes, installa-tion of solar panels for electricity or hot water generation, instal-lation of a ground-source heat pump, and installation of moreinsulation in the home. In general, the positive coefficients suggestthat the more knowledge people had of a particular issue, themore likely they were to engage in activities that addressed theissue. These findings are consistent with literature values ofcorrelations between knowledge and engagement in environ-mental behaviors: an average correlation coefficient of0.299 ! 0.195 between knowledge and behavior has been reported[15]. Although the reported range in correlations is quite wide, theresults of the present study are very close to the reported meanfrom the meta-analysis.

Cross-tabulations for engagement in specified activities beforethe visit by gender and age indicated that there were no differencesfor men between expected and actual counts (Chi-square).However, a significant difference (p " 0.05) was found for women:actual counts were higher than expected for engaging in anyactivity for both the 35–44 and the 45–54 age groups. These resultsindicate that middle-aged women were significantly more likelythan other age groups to be engaging in the listed activities beforetheir visit to the house. Women were found to be more likely toengage in pro-environmental behavior in other studies [4,11–13],although the relationship was weak in general [15].

Educational level has also been found to be weakly correlated(correlation coefficient 0.185 ! 0.122) with pro-environmentalbehavior [15]. In the present study, education level was notsignificantly correlated with the number of specific environmentalactions performed before the visit to the Utah House.

3.4. Actions as a result of visit

A substantial number of people reported implementing at leastone of the actions (63.0%) as a result of their visit to the Utah House.The most common actions were installation of low-water uselandscape plants (27.6%), compact fluorescent lighting (26.4%), andwater efficient toilets or faucets (16.1%). This finding is consistentwith another study which found convenience of the activity to bepositively related to engagement [12]. Not surprisingly, actionswith high up-front costs such as installing solar panels for elec-tricity or hot water were not highly implemented, either before orafter the visit. However, these two actions were the highest ratedactions that people plan to do in the future, with a high percentageof respondents stating that they planned to install solar panels forelectricity (41.7%) or hot water (37.8%) (Table 2). Installation ofa ground-source heat pump is also an expensive up-front cost, andless than 1% of respondents had installed this before their visit, oras a result of their visit. However, nearly 21% of respondents statedthat they planned on doing this in the future.

In contrast to the cross-tabulations for engagement in activitiesby gender and age before the visit, cross-tabulations for engaging inany activity as a result of the visit indicated no significant differ-ences for women, but a significant difference (p " 0.05) for men.Fewer than expected men in the 25–34 age group made a change,and more men in the 45–54 age group made a change as a result oftheir visit to the Utah House.

A significant but weak correlation was found between increasesin self-reported knowledge after the visit to the house (the calcu-lated difference between knowledge before and knowledge afterthe visit) and the number of related actions performed as a result ofthe visit. The increase in knowledge of energy efficiency wassignificantly (p " 0.01, Pearson correlation coefficient " 0.178)

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

5.5


Water conservation

Healthy indoorair

Universal design

Mean

Resp

on

se

Fig. 6. Mean response of how important each topic is to respondents. Error bars are!1SD.

Table 2Percent of respondents performing target actions, and future intention.

I did this beforevisiting theUtah House

I have done thisbecause of whatI learned at UtahHouse

I plan to dothis in thefuture

Install compact fluorescentlighting

52.4 26.4 13.0

Install light tubes 18.5 8.7 25.6Install a water efficient toilet

or faucet37.4 16.1 25.6

Purchase a front load washer 14.6 12.6 40.6Install a solar panel for electricity 2.0 2.0 41.7Install a solar panel for hot water 1.6 0.8 37.8Purchase green power through

power company8.7 5.5 23.2

Install an efficient irrigationsystem

24.4 11.4 29.1

Change landscape plantsto nativeor low-water demand type

23.2 27.6 29.5

Install a recycled carpet product 5.1 3.9 26.0Install a recycled counter top 1.2 2.8 28.7Install a rain barrel or cistern

for landscape irrigation3.5 3.5 34.6

Install a ground source heatpump

0.4 0.8 20.9

Install more insulation inmy home

29.1 9.4 29.9

Use low- or no-VOC paint 7.5 6.7 25.6


correlated with the number of actions related to energy efficiencyperformed as a result of the visit. However, no significant correla-tions were found between increases in knowledge of waterconservation and related behaviors.

When asked why they did not do the activities listed (if they infact, had not), the most common reason was the cost (44.1%), fol-lowed by the need for more information (21.7%). Another reasonfrequently listed for not doing the actions was that people wereeither renting, or have a home that does not currently needupgrades (9.8%).

3.5. Participation in different programs at the Utah House

Cross-tabulations were performed on the participation in eachtype of activity at the Utah House by whether a person performedat least one of the actions on the list as a result of their visit. Itshould be noted that participants could participate in differenttypes of activities. Therefore, statistically, the groups of differenttypes of activities are not independent. Interestingly, the onlysignificant association was for participants in large group tours:those who participated in a large group tour were significantly(p ! 0.05) less likely to engage in at least one of the target activities.The reason for this association is unclear; however it is not likelythat participation in the large group tour caused visitors to notengage in a target activity. If smaller group or guided tour activitieshad a significant associationwith engagement in target activities, itcould be assumed that increased interaction with a guide mightinfluence behaviors at a later date. However, no such associationswere found, so the large group association is difficult to explain.

A relationship was found between the number of different typesof activities (sum) that participants engaged in at the Utah House,andwhether they performed at least one of the desired actions. Thecorrelation was weak (Pearson correlation coefficient ! 0.137), butsignificant (p ! 0.05). This relationship makes sense given thecomplex factors cited in the literature as determinants for pro-environmental behavior [15,16]; if a person engaged in varyingactivities such as individual tours where they could learn at theirownpace, guided tourswhere they could have personal interaction,and workshops where they deepen their knowledge, they wouldperhaps be more likely to engage in target behaviors.

4. Discussion

Several limitations to the Utah House survey exist. First, thelevel of knowledge measured was self-reported. It may be difficultfor people to remember what they knew before and after their visit,especially since 30% of respondents had visited the Utah Housemore than two years ago. Also, behaviors were self-reported,although the actions in the survey were ones that would be likelybe easy to recall (e.g., changing landscaping, installing a newwasher). Respondents to the survey were skewed towards highlyeducated, middle-agedwomen. Despite the limitations, the authorscontend that the findings from this study have value. The knowl-edge increases found are still a good assessment of what people feelthey learned at the facility, even if the changes in knowledge werenot specifically quantified. Also, there were enough men andyounger people who responded to perform valid statisticalcomparisons on gender and age cross-tabulations.

Although several statistically significant relationships werefound between visitors’ knowledge of issues, how important theythink the issues are, and the number of actions that they per-formed, no strong predictor of engagement in pro-environmentalbehavior emerged. This is consistent with literature findings, wherecorrelations between pro-environmental behavior and certainvariables have been found; however a linear progression fromknowledge to awareness to action has not been supported [3,7,21].

For example, the authors of the meta-analysis of research ondeterminants of pro-environmental behavior concluded thatknowledge of an issue appears to be a prerequisite to action, butother complex factors such as desire to act, economic constraints,and social pressures can interact in different ways to determinea behavior outcome [15]. Other variables, such as an internal locusof control (an individual’s perception that their actions are likely to‘‘make a difference’’) also were found to be positively correlatedwith pro-environmental behavior [15]. In a study of waste reduc-tion behaviors, numerous environmental values, situational char-acteristics, and psychological factors explained some variance inwaste reduction behavior; however the majority of the variance inbehavior was unexplained [7].

Significant increases in self-reported knowledge from before toafter visiting the Utah House were found for all of the key topicareas listed, which included sustainability, water conservation,energy efficiency, healthy indoor air, and universal design. Malevisitors reported significantly higher levels of knowledge for mostof the topics before their visit than females, and visitors with moreeducation reported higher levels of knowledge for some topicsbefore their visit; however the self-reported knowledge levels werevirtually indistinguishable for all groups after the visit.

The majority of respondents (83%) reported performing at leastone of the target behaviors before their visit to the house.Respondents’ level of environmental concern was weakly corre-lated with the number of actions they had performed, indicatingthat concern was somehow involved with the decision to act. Self-reported knowledge of water conservation and energy efficiencywas also correlated with the number of related actions performedbefore the visit, indicating that knowledge also was a precursor topro-environmental behavior. Middle-aged women were morelikely than other ages or than men to report engagement in pro-environmental behaviors before their visit.

A large percentage of respondents (63%) reported engaging in atleast one target behavior as a result of their visit. Not unexpectedly,the least expensive, easiest to implement activities were the mostpopular. Convenience was a significant factor in willingness toengage in electronics recycling [12]. No differences in behaviorengagement were noted for men; however fewer men thanexpected in the 25–34 age group engaged in target behaviors.A weak correlation was found in knowledge increase for energyefficiency, and engagement in energy efficient activities. Given theweak relationship for energy efficiency topics and lack of rela-tionship for water conservation topics, this suggests that theknowledge of the topics gained at the Utah House was not theprimary driver behind the behavior changes noted. This is consis-tent with the literature in which wide ranges of correlations(average correlation 0.299 " 0.195) have been found for therelationship between knowledge and behavior [15].

In general, no strong associations were found between the typeor number of activities in which the respondents participated, andwhether they engaged in pro-environmental behaviors. Unex-pectedly, it was discovered that those who had participated ina large group tour were less likely to engage in any pro-environ-mental behavior. The cause of this association was unclear.

Although changes in targeted behaviors were found for thosewho visited the Utah House, a substantial percentage (37%) ofvisitors did nothing as a result of their visit. This may be due to thehigh percentage (83%) of visitors who had engaged in at least one ofthe actions before their visit to the house. Several statisticallysignificant correlations were found that could explain whethera person would engage in targeted pro-environmental behaviors,but no strong predictor emerged. This is consistent with theliterature in which the decision to act has been found to bea complex blending of demographics, values, intentions, situationalcharacteristics, and psychological factors.


The Utah House has been very successful at providing educa-tional activities to the public through the demonstration site, andmoderately successful at encouraging pro-environmental behav-iors. If increases in targeted pro-environmental behaviors aredesired, it seems that other strategies may be more appropriate toencourage greater implementation. The community-based socialmarketing technique advocated by McKenzie-Mohr [21], whichmerges knowledge from psychology with social marketing, seemsto have great potential. The technique involves identification ofbarriers, selecting target behaviors, designing strategies, pilotingprograms, then evaluating the programs [21]. Behavior changes inthe general population have been recognized as necessary to ach-ieve a more sustainable future [1]. Techniques such as community-based social marketing may actually lead us in a direction wherethe desired changes can occur more readily.

A distinction has been made in the literature between pro-environmental behavior and the actual environmental impactassociated with that action [22]. The authors of one study reportedthat engagement in pro-environmental behaviors was significantlybut weakly correlated (Pearson correlation coefficient ! 0.22) withhousehold energy use [23]. This finding supports efforts to selectspecific behaviors that will have the most benefit, as suggested byMcKenzie-Mohr [21]. As a result of the present study, the managersof the Utah House intend to increase educational efforts in thehouse related to specific actions that people can do themselves, andthat will have themost environmental benefit. The house as it is hasbeen awonderful resource for people seeking to build a new house,or modify their existing house. Most people are not usually makingmajor modifications to their house at any given time. However,there are other lifestyle choices that can be targeted, such as food,transportation, and waste management choices that can be per-formed at any time. A future study is planned to measure theimpacts of these educational efforts at the Utah House.

The Utah House was found to be a successful educational tool,and a catalyst for pro-environmental behaviors. Other techniques,such as community-based social marketing, were identified toperhaps increase the influence of the programs at the Utah House,and foster greater positive environmental impact.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge the hard work anddedication of Leona Hawks whomade the Utah House a reality, andalso the efforts of numerous volunteers and interns that havecontributed to the success of the Utah House since its inception.

References

[1] Coyle K. Environmental Literacy in America. Washington, DC: The NationalEnvironmental Education & Training Foundation; 2005.

[2] Ramsey CE, Rickson RE. Environmental knowledge and attitudes. Journal ofEnvironmental Education 1976;8(1):10–8.

[3] Hungerford HR, Volk TL. Changing learner behavior through environmentaleducation. The Journal of Environmental Education 1990;21(3):8–21.

[4] Meinhold JL, Malkus AJ. Adolescent environmental behaviors: can knowledge,attitudes, and self-efficacy make a difference? Environment and Behavior2005;37(4):511–32.

[5] Lansana FM. A comparative analysis of curbside recycling behavior in urbanand suburban communities. Professional Geographer 1993;45:169–79.

[6] Vining J, Ebreo A. What makes a recycler? A comparison of recyclers andnonrecyclers. Environment and Behavior 1990;22:55–73.

[7] Barr S. Factors influencing environmental attitudes and behaviors. Environ-ment and Behavior 2007;39(4):435–73.

[8] Derksen L, Gartrell J. The social context of recycling. American SociologicalReview 1993;58:434–42.

[9] Granzin KL, Olsen JE. Characterising participants in activities protecting theenvironment: a focus on donating, recycling, and conservation behaviours.Journal of Public Policy and Marketing 1991;10:1–27.

[10] Theodori GL, Luloff AE. Position on environmental issues and engagement inproenvironmental behaviors. Society & Natural Resources 2002;15(6):471–82.

[11] Tikka PM, Kuitunen MT, Tynys SM. Effects of educational background onstudents’ attitudes, activity levels, and knowledge concerning the environ-ment. Journal of Environmental Education 2000;31(3):12–9.

[12] Saphores J-DM, Nixon H, Ogunseitan OA, Shapiro AA. Household willingnessto recycle electronic waste: an application to California. Environment andBehavior 2006;38(2):183–208.

[13] Hunter LM, Hatch A, Johnson A. Cross-national gender variation in environ-mental behaviors. Social Science Quarterly 2004;85(3):677–94.

[14] Edgerton E, McKechnie J, Dunleavy K. Behavioral determinants of householdparticipation in a home composting scheme. Environment and Behavior 2008;in press.

[15] Hines JM, Hungerford HR, Tomera AN. Analysis and synthesis of research onresponsible environmental behavior: a meta-analysis. The Journal ofEnvironmental Education 1986;18(2):1–8.

[16] Kollmuss A, Agyeman J. Mind the gap: why do people act environmentally andwhat are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? EnvironmentalEducation Research 2002;8(3):239–60.

[17] Swann CP. A survey of nutrient behavior among residents in the ChesapeakeBay Watershed, In: National Conference on Tools for Urban Water ResourceManagement & Protection, Chicago, IL.U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,Office of Research and Development EPA/625/R-00/001; 2000.

[18] Dietz ME, Clausen JC, Filchak KF. Education and changes in residentialnonpoint pollution. Environmental Management 2004;34(5):684–90.

[19] Kua HW, Lee SE. Demonstration intelligent buildingda methodology for thepromotion of total sustainability in the built environment. Building andEnvironment 2002;37(3):231–40.

[20] SPSS for Windows. Rel. 16.0.1. Chicago: SPSS Inc; 2007.[21] McKenzie-Mohr D. Promoting sustainable behavior: an introduction to

community-based social marketing. Journal of Social Issues 2000;56(3):543–54.

[22] Stern PC. Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior.Journal of Social Issues 2000;56(3):407–24.

[23] Gatersleben B, Steg L, Vlek C. Measurement and determinants of environ-mentally significant consumer behavior. Environment and Behavior2002;34(3):335–62.


Appendix F Artifacts Index

-‐1900)

Although the energy exhibits for the room will be contemporary in nature, artifacts

should communicate an age before products and consumerism when items served a

utilitarian purpose. Most if not all of these items were born out of necessity and were

(Energy Exhibit) Cutaway exposing original brick and plaster construction with

new framing and multiple types of modern insulation (closed cell spray-‐on, batt

and blown-‐in)

Vintage organ

Vintage couch

Hair wreath

Vintage circular table that was used to play parlor games. This could be a place

where visitors or students are able to sit down to fill out work sheets.

Dressy period clothing (something appropriate to wear in a parlor) hanging on a

dress stand

Rocking chair with knitting needles with in-‐progress knitting work

Fireplace set (stoker, broom, etc.)

Items showing shoe repair in progress

(1900-‐1970)

This room should communicate the notion that consumerism has brought an end to

sustainability. Because this room spans such a large range, it should contain turn of the

century products as well as modern consumer products. The idea is to show a major

transformation from an age of homesteaders to that of a society full of consumers. This

multiple (seemingly) unrelated tasks were performed together in relatively small rooms.

(Energy Exhibit) Window quilts over new efficient, double-‐hung insulated

windows (reintroduce people to the idea of natural ventilation)

(Energy Exhibit) One of the old Crawford House windows (placed on a stand or

hanging from the wall), with single pane (wavy glass) with a modern storm

window attached

(Energy Exhibit) A long table displaying three major eras of lighting (candle, oil

lamp, early electrical lamp) at the end of this progression might be a display

showing contemporary light bulb technology (CFL and LED)

Antique wash tub or early washing machine

A cot or small bed

Factory work clothes hanging on a hanger in a closet or armoire (communicates

the transition from agrarian to industrial living)

Old ironing board with antique electric iron

A desk containing vintage office products such as: adding machine, or early

calculator, old telephone, etc.

Staging of various consumer products from 1900-‐1970: starch, Scotch tape, soap,

detergent, etc.

-‐Present)

The main idea of this room is to show a rebirth of sustainability through continuous

living.

(Energy Exhibit) Progression of heating technologies

o Fireplace

o Cast iron radiators (still relevant today with hot water heat)

o Cutaway in floor showing hydronic heating tubes

Low-‐flow water fixtures

Counter tops made from recycled material (paper, glass, concrete, etc.)

Energy star appliances

Renewable flooring (cork)

Reusable grocery shopping bags

Auxiliary plumbing system which directs gray water from sink outside into the

landscape

Recycling bin

LED lighting

Sealable container for carrying organic waste from kitchen to compost bin

Vendor Display Space

High efficiency gas fireplace inserted into existing chimney

Wall mounted LCD where people can compute their carbon footprint

Information pertaining to local environmental vendors and contractors

LCD screen with historic Crawford picture loop

Outdoor Living

Rain gardens

Rain barrels

Cistern

Community gardens

Demonstration of organic gardening and lawn care practices

Landscape beds irrigated with gray water from the house

Native drought tolerant landscape plants

Compost bin

Appendix G Water Color Renderings

Appendix H Historical Documents

For the historical documents, please refer to the hard copies included with the original report.