Buildings as Green Infrastructure Report Final 2014...UrbanEcologicalInfrastructure&Spring2014& BuildingsasGreenInfrastructure:)& Perceptions+&+Possibilities&! Kyle&Chamberlain,&Nicole&Joslin,&Nicholas&

Urban Ecological Infrastructure Spring 2014

Buildings as Green Infrastructure:

Perceptions & Possibilities

Kyle Chamberlain, Nicole Joslin, Nicholas Li, Yishuen Lo, Jennifer Steverson, Wen Zuo

University of Texas School of Architecture

May 13, 2014

Buildings as Green Infrastructure 2

Contents

I. Introduction

II. Literature Review

III. Methods

IV. Findings

V. Conclusion

References

Appendix 1: Survey Data

Appendix 2: Interview Data

Figures, Images & Tables:

Table 1: Definitions of green infrastructure in the literature

Figure 1: Research Diagram

Image 1: Adam Joseph Lewis Center (William McDonough + Partners,2001)

Image 2: Interior space ((William McDonough + Partners,2001)

Table 2: Interview subjects

Image 3: Transcription of an interview with highlights

Image 4: White Index cards-‐condensed text Green Index cards-‐ themes

Image 5: 17 themes with supporting White index cards

Table 3: Which statement do you think best describes green infrastructure?

Figure 2: Is Green Infrastructure on campus & how do you recognize it?

Figure 3: Benefits of green infrastructure

Table 4: How would green infrastructure impact your experiences on campus?

Image 6: Mobility, UT Austin Campus Master Plan

Image 7:

Image 8:


I. Introduction

Why we need green infrastructure?

Recently, there have been more environment and social issues arising, such as global warming, flooding, land pollution and increasing population. The mono-‐functional gray infrastructure that serves the majority of our cities today is failing to adapt these changes. This failure leads us to think about the possibility of integrating green infrastructure into our urban environments in order to better cope with our increasing vulnerabilities. A solution could frame a resilient ecological and social structure to allow us to adapt the changing environment. We believe green infrastructure could be one of the solutions.

What is green infrastructure?

The definition of green infrastructure varies across disciplines and organizations. Table 1 includes examples of definitions from various sources pertinent to the study and implementation of green infrastructure. Benedict and McMahon state, “green infrastructure is the ecological framework for environmental, social and economic health-‐ in short, our natural life-‐support system” (Benedict and McMahon 2006). Other perspectives on green infrastructure define it as systems of multi-‐functional green networks with the flexibility to adapt to changes over time compared to mono-‐functional gray infrastructure, which includes highway, water treatment plants, dam, and underground storm water drainage system.

Table 1: Definitions of Green Infrastructure in the Literature

Source Green Infrastructure Definition

President’s Council on Sustainable Development, 1999 http://clinton2.nara.gov/PCSD/Publications/tsa.pdf

A network of open space, air-‐sheds, watersheds, woodlands, wildlife habitat, parks, and other natural areas that provides many vital services that sustain life and enrich the quality of life.

Benedict & McMahon, 2006 http://www.greeninfrastructure.net/content/definition-‐

A strategically planned and managed network of natural lands, working landscapes, and other open spaces that conserves ecosystem values and functions and provides associated benefits to


green-‐infrastructure human populations.

Note: This definition is also used by other federal agencies, including USDA Cooperative Forestry.

Center for Neighborhood Technology, 2009 http://greenvalues.cnt.org/greeninfrastructure

An interconnected network of open spaces and natural areas that naturally recharges aquifers, improves water quality and quantity, and provides recreational opportunities and wildlife habitat.

Center for Neighborhood Technology & American Rivers, 2010 http://www.americanrivers.org/library/reports-‐publications/the-‐value-‐of-‐greeninfrastructure.html

A network of decentralized storm-‐water management practices, such as green roofs, trees, rain gardens, and permeable pavement, that can capture and infiltrate rain where it falls, thus reducing storm-‐water runoff and improving the health of surrounding waterways.

US Environmental Protection Agency, 2011 http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/home.cfm?program_id5298

An approach to wet weather management that is cost-‐effective, sustainable, and environmentally friendly. Green infrastructure management approaches and technologies infiltrate, evapotranspire, capture, and reuse storm water to maintain or restore natural hydrologies.

According to the Environmental Protection Agency, bio-‐swales, green wall systems, urban forests, rainwater harvesting system, and green streets and alleys are some common examples of the green infrastructure. Each form of green infrastructure identified is involved in the process of addressing environmental issues and providing multi-‐functions.

• Bio-‐swales slow down storm water run-‐off and provide wildlife habitat.

• Green wall systems cool down the temperature of the buildings and mitigate urban heat island.

• Urban forests serve as the carbon sink to mitigate the greenhouse effect and also reduce and slow down storm water by intercepting precipitation in their leaves and branches.

• Rainwater harvesting systems collect and store the rainfall for later use.

• Green streets and alleys store, infiltrate, and evapotranspire storm water.


Why should we re-‐conceptualize buildings as a living system?

The pressure of population growth and environmental crisis will require more places for people to live, and the simultaneous integration of ecosystem services to mitigate the impacts of this development. Buildings compose a larger proportion of our built environment as the world becomes more urbanized. We believe that buildings may operate as a form of green infrastructure to distribute ecosystems services across the urban environment. In order to understand the avenues for integrating buildings with green infrastructure, we believe it is important to know how people value green infrastructure and perceive buildings as part of a living system.

Research Questions

The research presented here largely revolves around understanding the perceptions of green infrastructure on the University of Texas at Austin campus and how they influence the potential for its wider implementation on campus. In pursing this topic we also explore how different social groups define and identify green infrastructure and its benefits, functions, and performance on campus. We also wish to understand how perceptions of green infrastructure within the campus community may influence the integration of buildings as part of a green infrastructure system on campus.

II. Literature Review The investigation of the potential for buildings to serve as living infrastructure requires a multidisciplinary literature review. This review pulls primarily from academic journals that are focused on the built environment, primarily building design and maintenance, but it also delves into those concerned with the natural environment, particularly ecology and biology. The literature addresses both existing building functions the possibilities of new design strategies to improve the ecological function of structures in urban areas. As the world urbanizes, this work will become increasingly important. The majority of the world’s population resides in urban areas. The scale of cities is also changing leading to new geographic units of analysis: megacities and mega-‐regions (UN Habitat 2010 and America 2050). The fundamental change in both the organization and the scale of urban areas has led to new paradigms for the governance of cities. Pincetl


2010 describes the concept of sustainable development through the historical urban planning strategies as “the integration of nature’s services in city departments”.

The Ecology of Cities: Building Resilience Capacity through Performance

Resilience is the capacity of a system to withstand shocks and maintain its core structure, functions and feedbacks (Walker et al 2006). The challenge lies in the implementation of resilience theory through the building design, construction and management practices. In other words, how can these theoretical concepts be translated into the design and construction of buildings that will perform as living infrastructure? There are also many questions about how one would measure the resilience capacity of a building or landscape. What are the benchmarks that determine success? The design of buildings can increase resilience through the use of tile roof shingles that are resistant to the sparks from a wildfire. This is an example of designing for disaster. Urban planners collaborate with elected officials, communities and engineers in provisioning infrastructure.

Anderlies (2014) proposes combining Ostrum’s Institutional Design Principles (also known as Institutional Analysis and Development or IAD) with Socio-‐ecological systems to make resilience theory more applicable to designed systems. IAD has some things in common with panarchy (Walker et al 2006, Anderlies 2014). It describes the ability of small groups to effectively manage complex infrastructure without top down governance. Anderlies (2014) suggests shared best practices. These practices are part of the Robustness framework, which can be applied at three different scales (micro, meso, and macro). The defining characteristics of robust systems are: redundancy, modularity, diversity in agents (components) and connections.

The work of Pickett et al (2001) presents a paradigm for understanding the ecology of cities and the impact of urbanization process on ecosystem function and structure. Rather than differentiating between urban and natural systems, the ecology of cities investigates the “exchanges of material and influence between cities and surrounding landscapes”. The research assesses this interchange using biogeochemical budgets, ecological foots and citywide species richness (Pickett et al 2001). The ecology of cities has been undertaken by biologists and ecologists. Its tools of analysis include biogeochemical budgets, ecological footprints, and the investigation of metropolitan species richness (Pickett et al. 2001). The research findings are focused on unique


components that influence the structure and performance of urban ecosystems, mainly-‐ environmental stresses, subsidies, and constraints. Paradoxically, these constraints create more predictable species assemblages (Pickett et al. 2001). This work has implications for designers, planners, and building managers who are interested in understanding how buildings operate within ecosystems. Pickett et al. 2001 define urban ecosystems as “those in which people live at high densities or where the built infrastructure covers a large proportion of the land surface”. The second part of this definition encompasses suburbs, exurbs, and rural areas in addition to the core central cities. Resilience theory was developed by ecologist to describe self-‐organizing systems but has been adopted by designers and social scientists (Anderlies 2014).

There is considerable overlap between the Robustness Framework and Ahern’s “strategy for building urban resilience capacity (Ahern 2011). Both are focused on modular systems. Within the Robustness Framework, individual communities are modular political units that manage resource allocation. Ahern conceives of infrastructural systems as modular in their design and organization. These two ideas could be brought together to design and manage green infrastructure (for example, vegetated stormwater retention systems that are modulated by city block. Ahern’s theory includes multi-‐functionality, adaptive planning and design, and includes biological diversity. Anderlies emphasizes the need to move beyond a services approach to buildings to a focus on the entire system.

Systems-‐thinking is also emphasized by Benedict and McMahon (2006), who see green infrastructure as inherently systematic, rather than single sites or projects. They borrow the language of landscape ecology to describe the distribution of green infrastructure across cities. Green infrastructure and smart conservation borrow from the spatial matrix of landscape ecology. Hubs anchor infrastructural networks and serve as both an origin and a destination for wildlife and people. Links are the connections that bind the system together. Links are long and wide corridors for wildlife (Benedict and McMahon 2006). These theories all provide a rich foundation for understanding how buildings can be living infrastructure but architects, landscape architects, facilities managers, and planners need more concrete guidance. Two programs have been developed to fill the gap between theory and practice: the LEED credit system developed by the U.S. Green Building Council and the Sustainable Sites Initiative.


Building Performance

Building performance can be used to assess several different categories: materials, user experience, energy efficiency, and resource consumption. With the advent of SITES, landscape performance can be folded into this category. The LEED and SITES credit systems set benchmarks for the design, construction, and maintenance of buildings. LEED credits are concerned with neutralizing the negative impacts of buildings on the environment and on generating positive impacts through the management of structures. SITES is more explicitly focused on the way in which built structures can perform and deliver ecosystem services.

One theme shared across the literature on building performance is rapid change of climates, sources of funding, and the expectation of people using buildings. Facilities managers are ultimately the people who care for buildings and their surrounding landscapes. Both LEED and SITES include credits and benchmarks for building maintenance practices. Facilities management is focused on increasing building efficiency and fulfilling the expectations of users (Amaratunga and Baldry 2000). One area of overlap between design, planning, and facilities management is the move towards performance-‐based evaluation. More research needs to be done on the overlap between how each of these professions define performance.

Urban Habitat for Plants and Animals

With the rise in interest about green roofs and living walls there has been a surge in research about the performance of these hybrid systems. There is currently more political and financial support for green roof projects. The advent of mandatory green roof programs in Basel, Switzerland and Copenhagen, Denmark, has coincided with an increase incentive programs a range of cities (Portland, Oregon and Chicago, Illinois and London, England). There will be a greater focus on multidisciplinary metrics to measure the positive impact of green roofs at the local scale (Oberndorffer et al. 2007). Planners and designers in particular, are incorporating ecological principles into their work (Pickett et al 2001). Green roofs are an example of this confluence of ideas. Using native plants on green roofs is one way to encourage the use of roofs by local animal species; however, rooftop conditions are not suitable for all plants and animals. Brenneisen (2006) studies the way that the materials used in green roofs can influence their ability to function as habitat for native species in Basel, Switzerland.


Extensive green roofs with shallow substrate are the most cost-‐effective type of system. The shallow depth of substrate undermines its use by local species. A deeper substrate and the use of local soils culled from adjacent greenfield development sites will improve the habitat function of those roofs (Brenneisen 2006). The cost and the engineering challenges increase with the depth of the substrate since intensive green roof systems require more structural support. This information is useful within a temperate climate but may have limited utility in arid or tropical climates. For example, in less temperate climates the species diversity of green roofs could be enhanced through the inclusion of apiaries for native bee species. The Ladybird Johnson Wildflower Center in Austin Texas has been developing and testing green roof prototypes for central Texas. They have discovered that the survival of native plants increase with a substrate shallower than those found in typical extensive green roofs (John Hart Asher, lecture February 20, 2013 Ladybird Johnson Wildflower Center). In both Basel and Austin green roofs can be colonized by native plant species but their use by animals will require more documentation. Existing buildings can be retrofitted to perform as living infrastructure, however, there must be a careful consideration of the local conditions and stressors.

Various animal species do use existing buildings as habitat. In the United Kingdom, rare bat species use historic buildings as habitat (Howard 2014). A study of historic churches was undertaken to help building owners and managers make informed decisions about preserving heritage sites and protecting urban habitat (Howard 2014). One potential barrier in designing and managing buildings to serve as urban habitat are the conflicting needs of humans and other species. Howard, 2014 notes that in some instances the smell of bat droppings can be unpleasant. Perhaps more pressing is the fact that alterations to historic buildings that are intended to increase energy efficiency may destroy bat roosts. The research found that in most cases there was no apparent conflict between human and bat uses of historic buildings, but that building owners were simply unaware of the presence of endangered bats.

On campus at the University of Texas at Austin wildlife is often treated by the Facilities office as a nuisance, controlled through integrated pest management. The list of nuisance species includes bats because they can harbor rabies (University of Texas at Austin 2014). There is no inherent conflict between the manner in which campus buildings are used by bats and by humans. The challenge faced by Facilities is how to ensure safe conditions on campus for humans, who are the primary users of the spaces.


Ultimately, facilities management is as much about managing interdepartmental relationships and user expectations as it is about the maintenance of structures (Amaratunga and Baldry 2001). This is why education for building users and adaptive management are considered essential for the success of green infrastructure by the Sustainable Sites Initiative, a rating system for landscape architecture projects.

Stormwater Management

The SITES initiative requires designers to design water efficient landscapes that allow for the retention, treatment and percolation of storm water. Low impact development is a systematic approach that seeks to reduce negative impacts on watersheds through the preservation of sensitive areas such as wild lands and riparian zones. The negative impact of buildings and landscapes on water can be mitigated during the design and construction phase. The city of Austin requires stormwater retention mechanisms for construction sites in sensitive watersheds (City of Austin Watershed Ordinance No.2013017-‐0146). Green roofs and living walls allow for an increase in stormwater retention for buildings (Oberndorffer et al, 2007).


Case Study: Buildings as Green Infrastructure

A number of projects have achieved significant success in considering building as a part of green infrastructure. In these case studies buildings produce various benefits throughout these projects. This section will discuss the successes and benefits of these projects.

Adam Joseph Lewis Center Oberlin College

Oberlin, OH | William McDonough + Partners The Oberlin College, the Adam Joseph Lewis Center for Environmental Studies, designed by William McDonough, is a 13,600 square feet project completed in January 2001, which creates a new generation approach to energy, water, materials, and landscape. The building is designed to act as a living machine” that produces oxygen, sequesters carbon, fixes nitrogen, is photosynthetic, accrues solar energy as fuel, makes complex sugars and food, changes colors with the seasons, creates microclimates, and self-‐replicates while purifying water” (William McDonough).

The Adam Joseph Lewis Center includes: a two-‐story main building with classrooms, faculty offices and a two-‐story atrium and a connected structure that hosts a 100-‐seat auditorium and a solarium (Image 1). Maximum energy efficiency is achieved through: a 4800 square feet,60kW photovoltaic array roof, the thermal mass of the concrete floors, exposed masonry walls, a natural ventilation, a wastewater system, a constructed wetland and 7,500-‐gallon rainwater cistern on-‐site (Living Machine, Barista 2010). The center is primarily used for teaching. The public spaces integrate natural energy flows and the building’s energy needs (William McDonough). This strengthens the students’ connection between work and the natural environment.

After 10 years in operation, the living machine still grows and runs the system in a sustainable way. It becomes a net energy exporter powered by current sunlight, purifies its own wastewater and generates zero discharge (Zero Energy Buildings). The site is being monitoring and collecting data includes electricity and water flow after it completed. The building consumed 33.1 kBTU/ft2/yr (10.5 kWh/m2/yr) from March 1, 2001 through February 28, 2002, which is less than half of the average educational


building use of 79 kBTU/ft2/yr (25 kWh/m2/yr) (EIA 1998). Even after operating more than 10 years, it still produces more energy than it needs to operate and sharing this excess energy with the community. According to the figure report from building dashboard from June1, 2013 to May 11, 2014, the total solar electricity production reaches at 126,715kwh which is almost 20% more than the Lewis Center itself consumed gross electricity. The living machine recycled the amount of gallons of water at least twice than the city water in each month in 2014.

The Adam Joseph Lewis Center is a sustainable building that advances energy efficiency but also a sustainable design that “integrates culture, art, society, economics-‐ a quality of life”. It achieves the goals that Dr. David Orr anticipated that the building could be a great place to work, while also providing sustainable solutions to save energy and deal with environmental issues. Orr is most proud of the effect of the building on Oberlin students, he believes it really did change lives and perceptions:” students could see solutions to problems in built environments”. With the building integrated with green infrastructure, students can take advantage of it and find an educational opportunity for them to improve the learning experiences.

Considering the variety of environmental and landscape performance benefits, the Adam Joseph Lewis Center not only is a green building but acts as green infrastructure and a living system that clearly provide multiple benefits. Implemented the building to be one holistic system may even amplify its overall value. As the survey results shows before, since only 38% of the survey respondents think the university implements green infrastructure on campus, the green infrastructure could be considered as a living machine and improved on areas where there is a greater opportunity for integrating outdoor and indoor spaces, such as the west, east, and main malls on the university, and future development in the central campus area. In the future campus master plan, it could integrate building as part of the strategy and systems in order to raise people’s awareness of green infrastructure.


Image 1: Adam Joseph Lewis Center (William McDonough + Partners,2001)

Image 2: interior space ((William McDonough + Partners,2001)


Adam Joseph Lewis Center for Environmental Studies, Oberlin College, William McDonough + Partners 2001 Adam Joseph Lewis Center, building dash board, http://buildingdashboard.net/oberlin/ajlc/#/oberlin/ajlc Living machine, Dave Barista, Building Design+ Construction 2010 http://www.bdcnetwork.com/living-‐machine Photovoltaics for Buildings: New Applications and Lessons Learned, S. Hayter, P. Torcellini, and M. Deru, 2002 Adam Joseph Lewis Center for Environmental Studies-‐-‐Oberlin College, Zero Energy Buildings, http://zeb.buildinggreen.com/overview.cfm?projectid=18

III. Methods The methodological approach for this study assumes that people’s perceptions, influenced by their constructed realities, are important considerations to understand for potentially using buildings as a medium for providing plant and animal habitats. Using this approach we aim to better understand the socially constructed realities around the goals, benefits, technologies, functions, and trade offs of green infrastructure. When interpreting the understandings of research subjects concerning green infrastructure it is important that we, as the researchers, aim to minimize our personal biases. However, our own subjective reality is ultimately inseparable from our ability to discern and interpret information. The data collection strategies employed here aim to augment our methodological framework. The research team conducted an online survey, and semi-‐structured interviews to identify themes in


perceptions of green infrastructure on campus. These themes were then compared against the literature and the University of Texas master plan to identify alignments or conflicts that may assist or inhibit the integration of green infrastructure on campus.

Surveys

In order to understand the perceptions of green infrastructure and its use on the University of Texas Austin campus, the research team conducted an online survey. The survey questions were designed to gauge the participant’s general understanding of the definitions, forms, functions, and benefits of green infrastructure and how that understanding relates to their view of how green infrastructure may be incorporated into campus planning. In an effort to keep the survey simple and quick to take the questions were mostly formatted as multiple choice prompts with the choices coming from definitions, functions, and benefits cited in the literature. In a series of three short answer questions at the end of the survey participants were asked to describe how the incorporation of green infrastructure might impact their experiences on campus, their daily use of facilities, and their job duties on campus. The full survey instrument is available in Appendix 1.

The survey was composed in the online survey software known as Qualtrics with an introductory page explaining the purpose of the research and that participation was voluntary. A link to the survey was sent to administrators of several electronic mailing lists for distribution to staff, faculty, and students on the Austin campus. The survey was active from March 25, 2014 through April 11, 2014. Over the 2.5 weeks 63 responses were collected with an average duration of 12 minutes. The average completion rate for the survey as a whole was 62%, while the completion rate for multiple-‐choice questions alone was 85%. Though the survey was made available to people in all positions on campus, 95% of respondents identified themselves as students, 2% identified as campus maintenance, and 3% identified as faculty. The survey instrument used in this research was not distributed widely across campus so the responses are likely not representative of campus as a whole.


Interviews

In order to gain a deeper understanding of peoples’ perceptions towards using buildings as habitats, semi-‐structured interviews were conducted. The interview instrument contained six questions related to perceptions of green infrastructure: functional and technological aspects, benefits, conflicts, and goals.

We used a purposive sampling strategy when selecting interview subjects. Specifically we sought interviewees who had administrative, management, or expert authority at the University of Texas, at Austin, or in the municipal departments of Austin. The table below depicts the classification of each interviewed subject. Due to time constraints, only four interviews were conducted.

Table 2: Interview subjects

Professional Role:

Austin’s Municipal Department-‐Office of Sustainability

Academic at the University of Texas, at Austin: Field of Architecture

Landscape Architect

Landscape Maintenance Personnel at the University of Texas, at Austin

Pseudonym City Employee Academic Designer Maintenance Worker

The interviews were lead, transcribed, and coded by the same individual; and transcriptions took place within a week of the interview. The transcripts were numbered (such as the red 4 in Image 1), and these numbers were later used in the coding process. Each transcript was read, and important1 phrases were highlighted. These highlights were then given a code (such as the red 2.7 in Image 2). The codes, along with condensed versions of the supporting highlighted text were then written on white index cards. If in proceeding text information supporting earlier codes was found, that information was not given the same code as the preceding text. It was still highlighted and given a separate code. The purpose of the white index cards was to condense transcribed text, and give the condensed text a code that could be traced to specific locations within the transcription.

1 Phrases were considered important if the coder thought they contributed to the interviewees argument


Themes were then developed from the white index cards. After going through all the interviews and compiling white index cards, all were shuffled together and laid out on the floor. Each white card was read and categorized into specific themes. These themes were then written on green index cards (17 total themes were developed). Image 3 depicts all the theme categories developed, with supporting white index cards.

The 17 themes developed were further categorized into meta-‐themes from which our interview findings developed. Certain themes were not relevant2 and thus were not developed into meta-‐themes, and not focused on in the findings section of this report. Five relevant meta-‐themes, which were fairly unique to respondents, as well a few generic meta-‐themes are discussed in the preceding sections.

2 Relevance was based on the judgment of the coder, and the themes he interpreted as important to discuss in the preceding sections of this paper.

Image 1: Transcription of an interview with highlights

Image 2: White Index cards-‐condensed text Green Index cards-‐ themes

Image 3: 17 themes with supporting

White index cards


IV. Findings

Respondents’ answers to survey and interview questions concerning goals, functions, benefits, conflicts, and management conditions are developed in this section. The pseudonyms given to the interviewees, located in table 2, will be referred to throughout this section. Many of the responses concerning green infrastructure resulted in similar ideas expressed by the survey participants and interviewees, while other viewpoints were unique to respondents or more strongly expressed by them.

Survey Findings

Defining green infrastructure

Ninety-‐eight percent of the survey respondents state that they are aware of the concept of green infrastructure. Nearly three quarters of respondents (74%) identify the American Rivers definition: “an approach that incorporates both the natural environment and engineered systems to conserve ecosystem values and functions, and provide a wide array of benefits to people and wildlife” as the one that best describes green infrastructure. In a follow-‐up question, respondents are asked to provide any additions to the definition. While most say they would prefer an “all of the above” option, one respondent notes the inherent tension that exists between the conservation focus of most definitions and the reality of increasing competition for land in places like Austin. Another respondent emphasizes the multi-‐scalar and multifunctional characteristics of green infrastructure systems.

Table 3: Which statement do you think best describes green infrastructure? Source: Definition: Selected: American Rivers an approach that incorporates both the natural environment

and engineered systems to conserve ecosystem values and functions, and provide a wide array of benefits to people and wildlife

74%

European Commission

systems addressing the spatial structure of natural and semi-‐natural areas but also other environmental features which enable citizens to benefit from its multiple services

11%

Environmental Protection Agency

an approach that communities can choose to provide multiple environmental benefits and support sustainable communities

8%


Eighty-‐five percent of respondents perceive a link between climate change and the benefits associated with green infrastructure. One respondent directly ties the impacts of climate change to how the university plans and manages campus facilities. The respondent states that the university needs to be more aware of “the benefits of more thoughtful environmental, architecture, and landscape design” in combating the effects of climate change. Another respondent notes that human impacts have altered the global environment to a point where it “may no longer perform many of their ecosystem services” and sees green infrastructure as a means to restore those services in our built environment.

Several respondents identify functions such as reducing the urban heat island effect, storm water management, and absorbing carbon, but only two recognize that there may be trade-‐offs required for successful implementation of green infrastructure in an urban environment. One notes that in order to function properly green infrastructure must be designed properly for the site, while another notes that expected climatic changes are so great that any negatives of implementing green infrastructure will be outweighed by its benefits. Overall respondents see green infrastructure as a tool to slow down or mitigate the impacts of climate change.

Green Infrastructure at the University of Texas

When asked if they believe the University of Texas at Austin is using green infrastructure in designing buildings and landscapes 38% of respondents say yes, 36% say no, and 26% are not sure. Overall, landscape appearance is the most popular way of recognizing green infrastructure on campus (selected by 63% of respondents). Building design follows closely behind (selected by 60% of respondents) and campus planning is the least recognized form of green infrastructure on campus (selected by 43% of respondents). Thirty-‐four percent of respondents say that you cannot usually see green infrastructure. There is an interesting divergence in how green infrastructure is recognized depending on if respondents believe green infrastructure is present on

Center for Clean Air Policy

practices that adapt existing infrastructure and technological practices to better manage environmental pressures

6%

Conservation Fund networks of open spaces and natural resources that connect communities and regions

2%


campus or not. Those who say that green infrastructure is present on campus largely identified “how buildings are designed” as the form they recognize it in. Those who say

that green infrastructure is not on campus also say that you cannot actually see where it has been implemented more than those who do think green infrastructure is on campus or those who are not sure.

The three most widely recognized benefits of green infrastructure on campus in order of ranking include: improving quality of life, improving public health, and reducing capital costs over time. Contributing to hazard mitigation follows closely in fourth place. Increasing land-‐value is by far the least identified benefit by survey respondents.

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18

How campus is planned

How buildings are designed

How the landscape looks

You can't usually see it

I don't know

Figure 2: Is green infrastructure on campus & how do you recognize it?

Yes No Not Sure

4%

29%

24%

21%

22%

Figure 3: Bene_its of Green Infrastructure

Increase land-‐value

Improve quality of life

Improve public health

Contribute to hazard mitigation

Reduce capital costs over time


Improving public health could be considered a subset of improving quality of life, which together represents the bulk of benefits identified by respondents (selected by a combined total of 53%). The more tangible benefits, such as hazard mitigation and cost reduction, appear to be secondary to quality of life concerns.

The themes that appear in short answer responses to how green infrastructure would impact the respondent’s experiences on campus, their daily use of campus facilities, and their job duties on campus are also largely related to quality of life. Respondents associate green infrastructure with higher quality space, enticing campus exploration, and contribution to a greater good. Others are skeptical of green infrastructure actually being implemented properly or do not see it impacting there experience on campus.

Table 4: How would green infrastructure impact your experiences on campus?

Themes Number of Responses

Example Quotes

Higher Quality Space

30 “As a pedestrian, green infrastructure strategies that visibly support human comfort and aesthetics would improve my day to day user experience.” “UT should be a leader in design innovations and this would make the campus a better place to spend time.”

No Impact 21 “I don't believe they would have a large impact on my campus experiences.” “I think the availability and ease of access to the campus facilities would not be impeded.”

Campus Exploration

20 “Increased variety and connectivity in green spaces might alter my walking/ biking routes or outdoor study and recreation habits.” “I may be more likely to venture beyond my typical lunch spot. Or this could be a way to raise awareness with fields of study across campus that may not consider questions like these on a daily basis, thus sparking cross-‐collaboration and interest across a broad spectrum of talents and knowledge.”

Greater Good

13 “I would feel as though I am part of something that is contributing to greater good. Not only would the university be educating minds for a better future, but it would additionally be contributing to better tomorrow environmentally.” “It would make me feel as if my tuition dollars are going towards not only my education but also an environmental cause.”

Skeptics 10 “I hear a lot about the Waller Creek work, which I think is an abandoned, littered swamp (when its not dry) which is wildly overblown by the


university so that landscape architects can have something to talk about and the university can pretend it does something for the natural environment.” “When attempted, they are done in a minimal way that does not have the ability to make the impact necessary to received adequate benefits.to larger systems.”

Higher Quality Space

Thirty respondents believe that green infrastructure will produce higher quality spaces around campus. Respondents believe that these spaces would contribute to higher productivity and better health for campus users. Green infrastructure is repeatedly associated with energy savings, more pleasing aesthetic qualities, more pleasing lighting, and improvement in general “happiness” by respondents. As consumers of the built environment, several respondents express a preference for buildings and outdoor spaces they identify as sustainable.

Campus Exploration

Twenty respondents identify green infrastructure as providing more interesting and engaging outdoor spaces that serve multiple functions, such as providing gathering spaces, moderating outdoor temperature, and managing storm water. Several respondents say that the presence of green infrastructure on campus would encourage them to walk or ride their bike around campus more often in search of new spaces to socialize and study in. Additionally, respondents say that the presence of the green infrastructure projects on campus could provide a valuable educational opportunity for students to learn about the environment.

Greater Good

Thirteen respondents say that incorporating green infrastructure on campus would contribute to a more progressive image for the university. Even when respondents cannot identify specific improvements green infrastructure may bring to them individually, they still identify a personal benefit in knowing that the university is being environmentally responsible.


Skepticism

Ten respondents express skepticism about the intentions and successes of past green infrastructure projects. Waller Creek is seen as an example of green infrastructure but more in the light of its perceived failure and insincerity. One respondent identifies the effort to re-‐design Waller Creek as “overblown” and accuses the university of using the project to “pretend it does something for the natural environment.” Other respondents recognize past failures of projects that were attempted at too small of a scale to provide “adequate benefits.” These negative perceptions of past experiences with green infrastructure may be an important force to overcome if the university is to seriously endeavor to incorporate green infrastructure on campus and address Waller Creek.

Interview Findings

SIMILARITIES AND QUESTIONS CONCERNING GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE

Green infrastructure was primarily perceived as using “natural” or plant systems to achieve a goal. At the start of the interviews natural systems were contrasted against engineered systems. Respondents generally referred to green infrastructure as a landscape that performs a function, often attributed with water management. The hydrology of the biophysical environment, mitigating the adverse effects of storm water, and the need to reduce potable water consumption were topics brought up by interviewees. However as the interviews progressed, respondents began to question the meaning of green infrastructure. The Designer mentioned, “At some point all landscapes become green infrastructure.” The difference between a landscape and green infrastructure was unclear, as well as the divide separating purely engineered systems from green infrastructure. The Designer and the City Employee both referred to strictly engineered systems, such as louvers or reflective roofs, as being components of green infrastructure. The City Employee furthered this inquiry through a rhetorical question, “What do you usually use infrastructure for?” He stated that green infrastructure was unable to achieve many infrastructure needs, such as “plumbing” or “electrical” needs. He viewed green infrastructure as being functionally limited to “water management” concerns.

Another important framework, expressed by most interviewees, was the importance of using a systems framework when analyzing landscapes. All interviewed, disregarding the


Academic, perceived conflict with nuisance specie as resulting from “improper management…[by not looking at the] big picture”, or being inconsiderate to the role nuisance species have in an ecological order, or resulting from “[un] thoughtful design.” The Maintenance Worker, the City Employee, and the Designer thought using a systems approach for understanding why conflicts existed, and the role nuisance species might have were important issues.

All respondents focused on the necessity of green infrastructure to achieve a goal. The academic noted the etymological root of infrastructure, and the shallowness of its definition when describing green infrastructure. The term “infrastructure” was described as a French derivative, originating out of the necessity to move “people and objects to the war front.” The term came about as “a means to an end”; infrastructure was about achieving an end-‐ or a goal. In this way, green infrastructure and grey infrastructure can be seen as similar. However, such an interpretation leads to a “shallow” understanding of green infrastructure, and its capacity to accomplish multiple goals, said the Academic.

The ability of green infrastructure to achieve multiple goals was expressed by all interviewees, and those goals were seen as contextually dependent. Some responses to questions concerning “goals” had to do with: desired output, regulation, measurability, and higher order goals. These were topics emphasized by certain respondents.

FINDINGS CONCERNING GOALS

Desired output:

The City Employee emphasized the importance for green infrastructure to achieve a specified need. He stated, “well the main goal is basically; you have an output that you desire…it’s all about priority, anything outside of that is a just a co-‐benefit.” The desired output of green infrastructure was to be able to accomplish an infrastructure priority, or need. These needs were suggested as being the goals of different city departments. In the interview the City Employee clearly makes the point that co-‐benefits, or “outcomes”, achieved through green infrastructure are not the main goal. The main goal is a specific “infrastructure need.”


The idea of infrastructure “needs” was again brought up when discussing green roofs as a type of infrastructure. Providing habitats for different animal and plant species, through such technology, was presented to the City Employee as a possible goal. In his reply he wondered, “well is that an infrastructure need?” Providing habitats for plant and nonhuman animal species was not seen as a clear need of the city’s. This led to a conversation concerning ecosystem services, which the City Employee correlated with the provision of habitats. The goals of green infrastructure were not synonymous with providing ecosystem services. The City Employee said, “There is definitely some overlap, between green infrastructure and ecosystem services”, but it becomes a question of scalability. He states that, “[it’s] really kind of hard, to link between a two-‐block radius, to do ecosystem services.”

Water Security:

Becoming water secure, or less “depend[ent] on drink[ing] water”, was the primary goal of green infrastructure as expressed by the Maintenance Worker. “The city of Austin has a lot of regulation associated with [reuse-‐water], and a lot of fees associated with it.” The Maintenance Worker saw the associated costs and regulations behind reuse water as limiting its, “effectiveness.” He hoped it would, “get to a point where it’s more obtainable.” The Maintenance Worker saw certain regulatory, and cost barriers inhibiting green infrastructures effectiveness in achieving water security.

In pursuit of becoming more water secure, the same worker saw green infrastructure as a means to question current infrastructure practices. He stated that, “[questioning] the reasoning behind why we don’t want to do buildings with rainwater capture”, discussing the barriers surrounding, “what’s called cross-‐connection tested3 ”, and the need to use, “reuse lines for the city”, were goals of green infrastructure. This framework situates green infrastructure as a means to question the city’s current infrastructure paradigm.

3 Cross connection is a link or structural arrangement where potable water in a distribution system can be exposed to unwanted contaminants. It is the point at which it is possible for a non-potable substance to come in contact with the drinking water system. Cross connections are generally unintentional and can happen anywhere pipes supply water. The previous definitions was source from:

West Virginia University. Cross Connection and Backflow Prevention. N.p.: West Virginia U, 2009. Http://www.nesc.wvu.edu. National Environmental Service Agency at West Virginia University. Web. 11 May 201


Measurability

The Designer viewed measures that were comparable between green and grey infrastructure as being important goals. He thought that green infrastructure should fulfill the same functions as purely engineered systems, so that green infrastructure would be “competitive.” The competitiveness was in it being, “marketable”, “maintainable”, and “quantifiable.” Marketability was based on green infrastructure’s ability to accomplish the same tasks as grey infrastructure, while being cost comparable. Once green infrastructure could be shown to be competitive with grey infrastructure, it would allow for easier “buy in from people.”

Higher order goals:

The Academic emphasized the goal of green infrastructure as the development of life enhancing systems. Goals such as water management, or carbon sequestration were viewed as “mid level goals.” The real goal, “[a] higher order goal…[was] making the city [into] a functional eco-‐socio system.” His idea of function was about developing systems that were “life enhancing…instead of detracting.”

FINDINGS CONCERNING BENEFITS:

Benefits were differentiated from functions by being the output of functionally performing green infrastructure. For example, when a bio swale abates and treats storm water run off we considered that a function. One benefit derived from a bio-‐swale performing a water management function could be the treated water. This benefit could be ascribed to a variety of people, plants, and animals; that could be direct or indirect users of the infrastructure. The primary beneficiaries of green infrastructure, as expressed by three interviewees, were people-‐viewed as direct users. Green infrastructure is about providing services, such as ecosystem services for, “our” benefit (City Employee), and when retrofitting buildings, “if you’re not getting that added value of people getting to experience and use it, I think for green roofs…you’re losing out (Designer).” Two topics concerning benefits brought up by respondents were: scalability, and green infrastructure providing an educational benefit. Both will be discussed further below.


Scalability: As discussed by the City Employee, the issue of scale was directly related to who receives the greatest benefits from green infrastructure. At a site level, “[a] roof-‐garden-‐fantastic for maybe butterflies, but it’s pretty fantastic for people that live there.” However if, “[you] were talking about you know-‐60 to 1,000 acres [of green roofs], then yeah its definitely going to benefit species more.” The Cite Employee saw the benefits of green infrastructure, at smaller scales, being primarily attributed to people. When scaled up, it would cross a, “threshold” in which species then become the primary benefactors. At this point green roofs would become less about helping storm water runoff, which he correlated with a human benefit, and “more of a species thing.”

Education: The Maintenance Worker, and the Designer described education as a benefit of green infrastructure. “B-‐low…the communications building [at the University of Texas, at Austin]” had an, “educational benefit.” said the Maintenance worker. He perceived this building as a, “[good] example”, of how buildings could be better designed for water management issues. The Designer similarly thought, “green infrastructure [could] have the same engineering benefits of traditional ponds, and traditional detention basins…but it [could] look a whole lot nicer.” Both the Designer, and the Maintenance Worker believed there was an educational benefit gained through visually interacting with green infrastructure.

The Maintenance Worker’s response to job specific questions drew another link between green infrastructure and education. He viewed, “trial and error”, runs as a way to find, “the right place, [for the] right plant.” In finding this equilibrium he was conscious of the need to use a long temporal scope, and think of how a landscape will look, “ten fifteen years down the road.” This educational process, which he called “looking at the big picture”, was largely in reference to landscape designers and managers. He did also mention however, the need to educate investors such as “donors.” The Maintenance worker recognized the challenge of having the landscape around a donor’s building consist of, “dirt.” He saw it as a, “tough situation” for someone that just donated, “millions.” He suggested locating a, “sign” on the landscape that would convey why it appeared void of plant life. Overall, the Maintenance worker saw the educational benefit of green infrastructure as on ongoing process that included: investors, designers, and grounds keepers. The educational benefit was about learning


to, “utilize a format of natural processes”, such as rainwater capture and planting more drought tolerant landscapes.

University of Texas Master Plan Findings

The University of Texas at Austin is currently devising a new master plan to address the development of the university. Sasaki Associates from Watertown, Massachusetts are the leading design consultant team. Sasaki aims to incorporating the university’s values, as a leading educational institution, into the master plan through strengthening its facilities, infrastructures, and educational opportunities.

In Sasaki’s master plan, the university campus is divided into three parts: The Core Campus, Central Campus, and East Campus (depicted in Image 6). Guadalupe Street, Waller Creek and San Jacinto Street, and Interstate-‐35 are used as boundaries for the three areas. In the new master plan proposal, Central Campus is said to have the greatest potential for accommodating growth due to the availability of land.

Sasaki identified 8 goals in the 2012 master plan which were: to accommodate growth, revitalize the core campus, forge strategic partnerships, facilitate and accommodate safer and more efficient mobility, transform the Waller Creek and San Jacinto Corridor, improve the learning and research environments, and integrate academic and residential life. We believe green infrastructure could be implemented to further these goals on campus, through various methods, which will be explained below.

Accommodate Growth

The potential for future building development allows for the introduction of the new perception that buildings are green infrastructure. Using to landscape ecology theories as a framework in examining green infrastructure network, the university campus could be considered as a matrix, with buildings as patches and landscape and street features as corridors. In other words, buildings play important roles as habitats not only for people, but also for wildlife. Since only 38% of the survey respondents think the university implements green infrastructure on campus, and 36% do not think so and 28% not sure, the new buildings proposed by the master plan of 2012 in Central Campus could start integrating green infrastructure as part of its strategy and forms in order to


raise people’s awareness of green infrastructure (Image 7, UT Austin Campus Master Plan).

Revitalize the Core Campus

The installment of green infrastructure fosters sense of place that strengthens the existing historic buildings on campus, maintains density and social activities, and improves ecological connectivity to the larger context. As for the Central Campus, its potential for future building development allows for the introduction of the new perception that buildings are green infrastructure. Furthermore, the exposure of green infrastructure could be improved by identifying where people are most mobile on campus and which areas have higher connectivity (Image 8, UT Austin Campus Master Plan); therefore, the Core Campus delivers the best locations for demonstrating the functions and benefits of green infrastructure in the present and near future.

Forge Strategic Partnerships

UT Green Fee Committee (GFC) is a student majority organization that reviews and rewards funds to environmental service projects and researches on campus. A partnership between GFC and students and faculty will promote student engagement in establishing green infrastructure on campus. For example, GFC is currently partnering with The School of Architecture on a project called Integrated Landscape Design where team of students and UT landscaping service identifies areas on campus that inefficient irrigation areas and come up with a design that maximize water savings. Additionally, projects for Waller Creek in the Urban Ecological Infrastructure Course allows research and in-‐depth study of the important urban creek on campus that could further act as a beacon in transforming the university campus.

Facilitate Safer And More Efficient Mobility

Using green infrastructure as way finding devices, could start to foster and help establish safer mobility on campus. Also, as several respondents have expressed in the survey, the presence of green infrastructure on campus would encourage them to walk or bike on campus more often.


Transform The Waller Creek/San Jacinto Corridor

The Waller Creek Corridor on the university campus is an important natural system asset that could be capitalized to be an educational center and teach students about sustainable practices, such as water management strategies, native plant community preservation, and wildlife habitats.

Improve The Learning And Research Environments

With new buildings integrated into the larger part of green infrastructure network, students can take advantage of new LEED buildings and landscape infrastructure, and use them as educational opportunities that provide hands-‐on learning experiences and actively engage students on exploring the campus. In other words, not only do green infrastructure could be used to environmental services like manage storm water and reduce heat island effects, as it is currently conceived by our interviewees; green infrastructure could also become an important actor in conveying environmental service knowledge to the greater community, which further build onto the university’s identity as a leading educational institution.

Integrate Academic And Residential Life

By implementing green infrastructure on campus, it could merge students’ academic and residential lives. Several survey respondents believe green infrastructure contribute to better designed space, which will ultimately promote higher productivity and enhance health.

Overall, the implementation of green infrastructure at the University of Texas, at Austin’s could further enhance Sasaki’s goals in improving the current campus.


Image 4: zones of UT Austin campus, UT Austin Campus Master Plan

Image 5: New buildings proposal, UT Austin Campus Master Plan


Image 6: Mobility, UT Austin Campus Master Plan

V. Conclusion This study identifies the gaps between people’s perception of green infrastructure and the actual ecological functions and performance of green infrastructure as identified in the literature. Findings from surveys and interviews of users and decision-‐makers on the University of Texas at Austin campus conclude that people currently do not perceive buildings as a form of green infrastructure. The concept of buildings as habitats is relatively novel and people may not be ready to accept habitats for “nuisance species” as a critical part for urban ecosystems. Considering The University of Texas at Austin is a nationally leading research institution, experimentation and application of buildings as habitats may be implemented through the new campus master plan, and strengthens the university’s commitment to establish infrastructure framework that provides ecosystem services.

Further research is needed to examine how designers and planners can align people’s perceptions and the ecological functions of green infrastructure. And by viewing buildings as potentially patch in term of landscape ecology, further studies may begin to challenge the scale for patch dynamics. How could landscape ecology begin to be applied in an urban scale, and what role of buildings would begin to play in regard to the


landscape? Additionally, definition of “life-‐enhancing” may be developed further to address the benefits of green infrastructure in terms of human health and well-‐being.


References

Ahern, J. (2011) “From fail-‐safe to safe-‐to-‐fail: Sustainability and resilience in the new urban world”. Landscape and Urban Planning 100

Anderlies, JM. (2014) “Embedding built environments in social-‐ecological systems: resilience-‐based design principles”. Building Research & Information vol.42, no.2

Amaratunga, D. and Baldry, D. (2000). “Assessment of facilities management performance in higher education properties”.Facilities vol.18,no.⅞

Baldwin, R. F., Powell, R. B., & Kellert, S. R. (2011). Habitat as Architecture: Integrating Conservation Planning and Human Health. Ambio, 40(3)

Balvanera, Patricia, Andrea B. Pfisterer, Nina Buchmann, Jing-‐Shen He, Tohru Nakashizuka, David Raffaelli, and Bernhard Schmid. (2006)"Quantifying the Evidence for Biodiversity Effects on Ecosystem Functioning and Services." Ecology Letters 9.10

Belanger, P.(2009) “Landscape as infrastructure”. Landscape Journal 28

Benedict, M. and McMahon, E. (2006). Chapter 1: Why green infrastructure? In Green Infrastructure: Linking landscapes and communities

Brack, C.L. (2002)“Pollution mitigation and carbon sequestration by an urban forest”. Environmental Pollution vol.116 Supplement 1 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0269749101002512 (accessed February 22, 2013)

Brenneisen, S.(2006) “Space for Urban Wildlife: Designing Green Roofs as Habitats in Swizerland”. Urban Habitats vol. 4, no.1

Bowman Consulting. “Ecological Assessment for the UT Battlelab Engagement Dashboard Project Area, Approximately 1.4 Acres, Travis County Texas”. Center for Sustainable Development. 2014


Chapman, M. G., & Blockley, D. J. (2009). ‘Engineering novel habitats on urban infrastructure to increase intertidal biodiversity”. Oecologia, 161(3), 625-‐635.doi: 10.1007/s00442-‐009-‐1393-‐y

Chiquet, Caroline, John W. Dover, and Paul Mitchell. (2003) "Birds and the Urban Environment: The Value of Green Walls." Urban Ecosystems 16.3

Echols, S. and Pennypacker E.(2008). “From stormwater management to artful rainwater design”.Landscape Journal

Escobedo, F.J., 2004. A cost-‐effective analysis of urban forest management’s role in improving air quality in Santiago, Chile. PhD Dissertation. State University of New York-‐College of Environmental Science and Forestry, Syracuse.

Francis, Robert A., and Jamie Lorimer. "Urban Reconciliation Ecology: The Potential of Living Roofs and Walls." Journal of Environmental Management 92.6 (2011): 1429-‐437. Print.

Halliday, S.P., Kendall, K. (1997). “Architecture of Habitat: Design for Life”. Philosophical Transactions: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 355 (1728), Clean Technology: The Idea and the Practice, 1389-‐1403

Hobbs, R. J., Arico, S., Aronson, J., Baron, J. S., Bridgewater, P., Cramer, V. A., Epstein, P. R., Ewel, J. J., Klink, C. A., Lugo, A. E., Norton, D., Ojima, D., Richardson, D. M., Sanderson, E. W., Valladares, F., Vilà, M., Zamora, R. and Zobel, M. (2006). “Novel ecosystems: theoretical and management aspects of the new ecological world order”. Global Ecology and Biogeography, 15: 1–7.doi:10.1111/j.1466822X.2006.00212.

Howard, J. (2014) “Bats and historic buildings”. Journal of Architectural Conservation

JHA, S.,STEFANOVICH, L., KREMEN, C. (2013) “Bumble bee pollen use and preference across spatial scales in human-‐altered landscapes”, Ecological Entomology, 38, 6

Kantsa, A., Tscheulin, T., Junker, R.R., Petanidou, T., Kokkini, S. (2013) “Urban biodiversity hotspots wait to get discovered: The example of the city of Ioannina, NW Greece. Landscape and Urban Planning 12


McDonough, W. and Braungart, M. (2002). “Buildings like trees, cities like forests”. MacDonough Innovation: Design for the Ecological Century

Neuman, M. and Smith, S. (2010). “City planning and infrastructure: once and future partners”. Journal of Planning History vol.9 no.21

Oberndorfer, E., Lundholm, J., Bass, B., Coffman, R.R., Doshi, H., Dunnet, N., Gaffin, S., Kohler, M., Liu, K.K.Y., and Rowe, B. (2007) “Green roofs as urban ecosystems: Ecological structures, functions, and services”. Bioscience vol.57 no10

Pickett, S.T.A., Cadenasso, M.L., Grove, J.M., Nilon, C.H., Pouyat, R.V., Zipperer, W.C., and Costanza, R. (2001). “Urban ecological systems: Linking terrestrial, ecological, physical, and socioeconomic components of metropolitan areas”. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics vol.32

Pincetl, S. (2010) “From the sanitary city to the sustainable city: challenges to institionalising biogenic (nature’s services) infrastructure”. Local Environment vol.15, no.1

Rosenzweig, Michael L. (2003) "Reconciliation Ecology and the Future of Species Diversity." Oryx 37.02

Stang, G.L. (1996). “Infrastructure as Landscape”. Places. College of Environmental Design. UC Berkeley

Sustainable Sites Initiative. (2009) Sustainable Sites Performance Benchmarks 2009 University of Texas at Austin

Environmental Health and Safety. (2014) “Animal Problems-‐Who to Call”. http://www.utexas.edu/safety/ehs/animalmakesafe/who_to_call.html

Facilities Management. (2014). “Pest Control”.

University of Texas at Austin Campus Master Plan | What Starts Here Changes the World." University of Texas at Austin Campus Master Plan. N.p., n.d. https://www.utexas.edu/operations/masterplan/documents/MasterPlan20130509.pdf. 11 May 2014.


Voight, J.C. (2008) “Designer, developer, and regulatory selection preferences for integrated storm water management techniques in North Central Texas”. MLA Thesis. University of Texas at Arlington

Walker, B., Gunderson, L., Kinzig, A., Folke, C., Carpenter, S., and Schultz, L. (2006). “A handful of heuristics for understanding resilience in social-‐ecological systems”. Insight Special Feature: Exploring Resilience in Social-‐Ecological Systems


Appendix 1: Survey Data Survey Report:

1. What group best represents your position in relation to the University of Texas at Austin campus?

Statistic Value Min Value 3 Max Value 5 Mean 4.02 Variance 0.05 Standard Deviation 0.23 Total Responses 58

2. If other, what is your position? Text Response

Statistic Value Total Responses 0

3. Are you aware of the concept of green infrastructure? # Answer

Response % 1 Yes

52 98% 2 No

1 2%

Total 53 100%

# Answer

Response % 1 Campus Planning

0 0% 2 Campus Management

0 0% 3 Campus Maintenance Services

1 2% 4 University of Texas Student

55 95% 5 University of Texas Faculty

2 3% 6 University of Texas Staff

0 0%

7 Professional Designer (not affiliated with UT)

0 0%

8 Professional Ecologist (not affiliated with UT)

0 0%

9 Other

0 0% Total 58 100%



4. Which statement do you think best describes green infrastructure? Source (not provided to participants)

# Answer

Response %

Center for Clean Air Policy

1

practices that adapt existing infrastructure and technological practices to better manage environmental pressures

3 6%

Env. Protection Agency

2

an approach that communities can choose to provide multiple environmental benefits and support sustainable communities

4 8%

American Rivers

3

an approach that incorporates both the natural environment and engineered systems to conserve ecosystem values and functions, and provide a wide array of benefits to people and wildlife

39 74%

European Commission

4

systems addressing the spatial structure of natural and semi-‐natural areas but also other environmental features which enable citizens to benefit from its multiple services

6 11%

Conservation Fund

5

networks of open spaces and natural resources that connect communities and regions

1 2%

Total 53 100%



5. Are there other aspects of green infrastructure that you feel are not described above? Text Response There are many definitions of green infrastructure. I think it varies depending on one's disciplinary or professional perspective. It would be good to mention working and conservation landscapes that comprise green infrastructure, as that is where most tension lies -‐ the competition for land uses and types of activities which take place on those lands. All of the above are valid interpretations of the concept Each of these statements is too long-‐winded and not concise enough -‐ SIMPLIFY! I wanted to select all of the above Green infrastructure is a combination of some of the above statements. It is any natural/plant features or green spaces that provide environmental and other services to citizens. It can exist on multiple scales and serve multiple purposes, from storm water management, to providing shade trees for pedestrians and cyclists. I think green infrastructure should be a compilation of all of the above.


6. Do you perceive a connection between the predictions for warmer and drier weather and the benefits associated with green infrastructure projects?

# Answer

Response % 1 Yes

45 85% 2 No

2 4% 3 Not sure

6 11%

Total 53 100%



7. Please explain Text Response I am not sure what you are asking here. Are you assessing the impact of green infrastructure on local or global climate change, in terms of its potential to mitigate adverse living conditions? Thermoregulation via cooling effects of vegetation as a response to UHI; features that seek to direct stormwater back into plantings (to adapt to sparser water availability) As our climate warms, we'll need to address the reality of a hotter climate here in Texas and adjust our environmental policies appropriately -‐ I.E. water less, plant more cacti, etc. etc.... as well as informing UT about the benefits of more thoughtful environmental & architecture & landscape design green infrastructure will help us reduce our water consumption. Permeability and replenishing of ground water will help to maintain plant life and create cooling microclimates. Cooler environments use less AC which both put out heat into the environment and use fossil fuels that add to the greenhouse effect and climate change Urbanization and human development has thrown many (if not all) of the planet's ecosystems for a loop. The natural coping mechanisms that used to regulate and maintain the global environment may no longer perform many of their ecosystem services. By incorporating green infrastructure into the built environment, we may hope to encourage the return of such services. These functions are not only beneficial to humans but also to many of organisms around the world. Green infrastructure can help mitigate some of the anticipated changes in climate. Not sure what that question is asking -‐ do I think Green infrastructure could help mitigate and manage the effects of climate change? yes. GI, if managed well, might provide a more flexible and resilient and multifunctional type of infrastructure than traditional 'hard' or 'grey' infrastructure. Yes, but climate change will bring not only warmer/drier but also cooler/wetter climates in certain areas. Green infrastructure will help reduce impacts of human infrastructure. There is potential to mitigate weather and climate effects that have negative impacts on humans. For example, adding green infrastructure could mitigate effects of urban heat islands, and with enough carbon-‐absorbing plant life, the effects of climate warming could potentially be lessened somewhat. Native trees and vegetation can help cool buildings or help us maintain decent water quality. As temperatures rise this will become exponentially more important. for example, a bioswale or similar structure (without supplemental irrigation) would not benefit the site or plants/trees without adequate rainfall. I consider this more in particular to urban development. The issue of the "uban heat island effect" I believe can be moderated and controlled by the use of alternative materials and building practices. That can make a definite difference in a hot, urban environment such as Austin. We can slow the rate of environmental change by adopting green infrastructure. if we are incorporating ecosystem services in GI, then there should be a natural benefit from reduced heat island effect, or at least mitigated microclimate effects that should serve to make some spaces cooler. pervious cover mitigates flooding, tree canopy lowers temperatures slightly Saving/recycling water in buildings can help lower water stress in times of drought and saving energy in



8. Do you think that the University of Texas at Austin is using green infrastructure in designing buildings and landscapes?

# Answer

Response % 1 Yes

20 38% 2 No

19 36% 3 Not sure

14 26%

Total 53 100%


9. How do you recognize a building or part of campus that is using green infrastructure?(select all that apply)

# Answer

Response % 1 How campus is planned

23 43% 2 How buildings are designed

32 60% 3 How the landscape looks

33 62% 4 You can't usually see it

18 34% 5 I don't know

1 2%

Statistic Value Min Value 1 Max Value 5 Total Responses 53

powering buildings could help lower carbon footprint. Green infrastructure includes energy and water efficient buildings/applications, which reduce CO2 contributions and conserve scarce resources. With warmer and drier weather the benefits of green infrastructure project may begin to out weight any negatives


10. What would you say are the top 3 benefits of green infrastructure on the University of Texas campus?

# Answer

Response %

1 Increase land-‐value

6 11%

2 Improve quality of life

43 81%

3 Improve public health

35 66%

4 Contribute to hazard mitigation

31 58%

5 Reduce capital costs over time

32 60%

11. How do you think green infrastructure projects on the UT campus do or would impact your experiences on campus?

Statistic Value Min Value 1 Max Value 5 Total Responses 53

Text Response They have the potential to reduce the urban heat island effect on campus, beautify existing and create new green spaces. contributes to a generally more pleasant atmosphere I think you need to define what green infrastructure projects you are referring to -‐ green buildings, stormwater management, shade for walkable areas. As a pedestrian, green infrastructure strategies that visibly support human comfort and aesthetics would improve my day to day user experience. Aesthetic benefits associated with public health and more functional / performative impacts such as stormwater management that directs resources towards vegetation instead of sending it all into Waller Creek spending more time outdoor and engaging in a more active way with the existing buildings and landscape It wouldn't, unless it was expressed spatially They would improve my interaction with my UT community -‐ the more (projects) the better! Better quality of life. Green infrastructure projects would likely only effect my experience of campus in that it would make UT feel more progressive and cutting edge. Also, depending on design, it could effect where I hang out on campus. Better feeling of attending an institution that takes responsibility for its impact. Green infrastructure often creates more favorable microclimates which is important when it gets insanely hot in August Not really, I hear a lot about the Waller Creek work, which I think is an abandoned, littered swamp (when


its not dry) which is wildly overblown by the university so that landscape architects can have something to talk about and the university can pretend it does something for the natural environment. I would feel as though I am part of something that is contributing to greater good. Not only would the university be educating minds for a better future, but it would additionally be contributing to better tomorrow environmentally. Create a healthy environment for us to live, work and study in. Could also be an educational opportunity. UT should be a leader in design innovations and this would make the campus a better place to spend time GI might make my experience better -‐ it depends on its design and management. Boost morale that the University is environmentally concerned. It would make me feel as if my tuition dollars are going towards not only my education but also an environmental cause. Green infrastructure undoubtedly increases the quality of the experience of being on the UT campus, both from tangible benefits such as shade from trees, and from other psychosomatic benefits of contact with "nature"/green space / plant and animal life. I think more green infrastructure could be added to provide more environmental management services and also to areas that are lacking "green features". This would require an assessment of existing conditions and infrastructure. It would make it more tolerable during the summer months to be around campus. Too much cement and 'modern' era building design. some have been successful and some not. we have to continue implementing them even with past failures. we cannot continue to make planning & development decisions that do not integrate green infrastructure. Improve I would be more likely to explore the campus out of curiosity Healthy buildings and landscapes that are designed with better lighting, low emissions paints, etc....etc....benefit all! they certainly can serve as educational features on campus while performing their other intended functions When attempted, they are done in a minimal way that does not have the ability to make the impact necessary to received adequate benefits.to larger systems. Buildings have windows that can't be opened and lights that turn off when no one is in the room. The first of these can feel a bit cut-‐off from the outside world, but the second saves energy. Improve health, educate me on natural systems during the summer, having green infrastructure would help keep microclimates cooler. It may enable people to be outdoors longer in hot weather, and perhaps also in cool weather. Would not impact my experience, would just make me feel better to know my university is doing its best to protect the environment. They would make my experience more enjoyable and give me something more to be prideful in regarding my educational institution. I think they would enhance experiences on campus. Increase attention span in classrooms and help increase grades A big focus of a lot of green infrastructure projects is bringing users of the spaces closer to their natural setting by doing things that bring natural light into buildings, incorporating larger windows and planters etc. I think these things greatly improve the user experience of these spaces. I think green infrastructure projects on the UT campus would improve my quality of life and would help



12. How do you think green infrastructure projects on the UT campus do or would impact your daily use of campus facilities?

with sustainability. I don't believe they would have a large impact on my campus experiences

Text Response specifically taking even light or moderate flooding into account it could improve my daily cross-‐campus commutes See above. Increased variety and connectivity in green spaces might alter my walking/ biking routes or outdoor study and recreation habits increasing interaction with the outdoor spaces it could make more interesting areas More sustained connection to the natural environment = better for everyone (not just wasting energy in buildings, services, etc.) More likely to sit and study near these projects. Depending on how the projects are linked to the greater context of the city, I may ride my bike through it, or just like looking at it in passing or hanging out. Minimally They don't, in large storms I do not understand how the campus manages the stormwater-‐ there's nothing to absorb it! I would feel encouraged to use buildings or sit beside landscaping that is "green infrastructure". By choosing such buildings over conventional ones, I would hopefully be reducing a tiny portion of my impact upon the planet. Unlikely that they noticeably impact my daily impact. Not sure -‐ it depends what kind of green infrastructure we are talking about. Hopefully I would spend more time outside...? To vague a question. It depends... A general awareness of the University's efforts would I think encourage students, faculty, and staff to be more environmentally concerned. I don't think they would have a noticeable impact. Even if they did, it could be something I can adapt to. Anytime I can look out a window and see "green", I feel better. I would spend more time in areas with more green features. On a larger scale, environmental service features such as storm water catchment and other types of green infrastructure could alter use of certain areas. Not sure. Na not sure I may be more likely to venture beyond my typical lunch spot. Or this could be a way to raise awareness with fields of study across campus that may not consider questions like these on a daily basis, thus sparking cross-‐collaboration and interest across a broad spectrum of talents and knowledge. Healthy buildings and landscapes equal healthy people.


13. How do you think green infrastructure projects on the UT campus do or would impact your job duties on campus?

GI porjects on the campus doesn't really work, or at least, doesn't work well. this is a design issue, but it could potentially enhance how everyone uses the campus facilities It could potentially improve the aesthetic value of the UT campus while educating the public on improvements to how current infrastructure is used/constructed. Not very much, though it would be nice sometimes to have an office window I could open. Reduce energy used in buildings, and around them I might be more willing to try studying in/visiting other buildings if I knew they were "green." If possible, would try to utilize green buildings more than other buildings. I target buildings and areas with higher LEED raitings, more aesthetic, natural landscape, and more sustainably focused products and services I think I would be more likely to use facilities. make for a better learning environment I definitely prefer to study in green spaces with natural lighting. Anything that gets me away of the harvest yellow carpets and fluorescent lighting of the PCL or the dim glow of a computer lab is considered a plus to me, and will attract my use. I think the availability and ease of access to the campus facilities would not be impeded. I think I would be more apt to frequent a building I felt was built with sustainability in mind


Text Response n/a Easier to get to work, better campus image. No impact not sure would not n/a ? No effect. would not They wouldn't. I don't really have job duties on campus. Would likely not impact Make my job more pleasant See above. I work in the Materials Library and I would hope materials awareness / knowledge about how material selection can contribute to improved infrastructure might increase. I don't think it would have a huge impact. I doubt they would impact my job duties on campus. Not sure. maybe more maintenance, but well worth the additional time -‐ especially if its working properly and


performing a vital function. minimally It would bring good Karma :) I don't work on campus. N/A not at all Same as previous comment. Occasionally my students study them. Make them more pleasant where green infrastructure is visible I would feel better about working/going to class if I felt the ventilation was really beneficial and not so artificial. I would appreciate more natural ventilation. I also get concerned sometimes about materials used in the mid-‐century renovations (updates to older buildings) or some other buildings. Are those materials safe, or are they off-‐gassing in a harmful way?? who knows... Not at all. I am not employed by the university, I am a student. Refer to the first question asked on this page. I would be more willing to stay in working longer. no not necessarily I think greener spaces make people happier. Simple. An increase in job duties might happen if the green infrastructure projects require people to look after them. I don't believe they would have a large impact on my job duties



Appendix 2: Interview Data

Interview Questions

Intent Questions & Subquestions

Perception 1. What does the idea “green infrastructure” mean to you?

a. Please provide me with three words that characterize your idea of GI

Function 2. GI is often associated with providing multiple functional benefits to both people and wildlife. An example of GI are the Rain Gardens near Ladybird Lake which help catch water runoff from Highway 1, reducing the water’s velocity, helps decrease erosion and improve water quality, provide aesthetic appeal for lady bird lake trail users, as well as provide habitats for plants and animals. What functions of GI do you consider the most important, and why?

Technological practices

3. Could you list specific kinds of GI designs and technologies best provide the function that you previously mentioned?

Benefits of GI 4. What benefits, or end goals, do you consider to be the most important for GI to achieve?

Benefits when retrofitting buildings

5. When thinking about retrofitting buildings with GI, what benefits do you consider to be most important?

Recipients of GI benefits

6. Who or what reaps the greatest benefit when implementing GI?

Benefit & Cost relationship

7. GI often provides habitats for varying unwanted, or nuisance species, as well as for desired species. When do the benefits of having desired species outweigh the costs of having nuisance species?


Questions for management personnel

Changes in working environment

8. How might your job change if, for example, more plants were incorporated to attract different kinds of pollinators?

Building management and conflict management

9. If, for example, a building you worked with was modified to accommodate falcons or hawks—how might this change how you take care of the building?

a. What would your role be in managing conflicts between, for example, increased bees and people, some of whom might be allergic to bee stings?

Documents

Buildings as Green Infrastructure Report Final 2014...UrbanEcologicalInfrastructure&Spring2014& BuildingsasGreenInfrastructure:)& Perceptions+&+Possibilities&! Kyle&Chamberlain,&Nicole&Joslin,&Nicholas&