LEED Mathematics: Does a LEED-ND Community Add Up to a Healthy Community

LEED-ND or Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, Neighborhood Development is a rating framework for communities created by the US Green Building Council – measuring communities according to benchmarks and indices for good community design. Some have suggested that that the framework could be used to operationalize health-based community impacts, through alignment with the EIR or LEED-ND process. (Corburn, 2007).¹ In the US this means providing a holistic health-based assessment in tandem to an EIR creating a legally binding document. The recent use of tools such as Health Impact Assessment (HIA) and the Healthy Development Measurement Tool (HDMT) within San Francisco’s Eastern Neighborhoods planning project provide other of indicators that could have a place in the environmental planning process and may be a way to further bridge current methodological gaps and advocate for healthier communities on the street-level (Corburn and Bhatia, 2007).²

Such indicators move beyond not only the building level but to levels that gauge community and interacting variables over time, arenas including “housing, transportation, food, parks and green spaces, and squalor,’ not simply more direct-pathway-related issues such as air quality and respiratory illnesses (Frumpkin, 2005, 291).”³ Such methods also may allow policy makers to engage in ‘meaningful community participation’ and ‘meaningful action;’ addressing the issue from a lifestyle basis rather than simply based on science (Pastor, 2007).⁴ This essay will discuss whether or not LEED-ND provides an appropriate and view of community-based health, discusses some potential deficiencies, and how the system might be improved to better address some of these deficiencies.

LEED ND and Health

As listed in some of the USGBC’s references:

“LEED for Neighborhood Development emphasizes the creation of compact, walkable, vibrant, mixed-use neighborhoods with good connections to nearby communities. Research has shown that living in a mixed-use environment within walking distance of shops and services results in increased walking and biking, which improve human cardiovascular and respiratory health and reduce the risk of hypertension and obesity…(Increasing transportation choice and decreasing automobile dependence) go hand-in-hand; convenient transportation choices such as buses, trains, car pools, bicycle lanes and sidewalks, for example, are typically more available near downtowns, neighborhood centers and town centers, which are also the locations that produce shorter automobile trips. (USGBC, 2008⁵)

These are the goals of LEED-ND in drivinga market shift toward healthy communities – mainly related to street design, traffic, and density. They are all factors that encourage passive physical activity such as walking, running, or cycling to work, and being implemented in both suburban and urban frameworks as health interventions. The examples of developments such as Orinco Station in Oregon, Atlantic Station in Georgia, and Village Homes in California, illustrate the potential of these green developments along transit – with opportunities for both incidental and non-incidental exercise.

Such communities have aspects of the built environment associated with higher levels of adult walking, including measures to improve accessibility and safety such as effort to increase the “percentage of blocks with sidewalks, mixed use (residential and at least one other use) and public space (outdoor, open spaces such as gardens, plazas, etc.)” and safety improving elements strong associated with recreational walking, “including more windows facing the street and more street lighting, and fewer abandoned buildings, graffiti, rundown buildings, vacant lots, and undesirable land uses (Alfonzo, et al, 2008, 44)…”⁶ Views and contact with the natural environmental are encouraged, corresponding to the literature by those such as Ulrich ^{7, 8}, Kaplan⁹, and Fisk¹⁰ which supports ideas of health through contact with the natural environment. Site selection for new structures must be made in a manner sensitive to the ecosystem.

Potential Deficiencies

That said, many of these built environment factors appear design-related and some have suggested that the factors may not have a direct causal impact on community health (Ewing and Kreutzer, 2006).¹¹ Based on a simple observation of the total of 115 credits available (with points ascribed to ‘required’ components) to achieve a rating within the benchmarking system approximately 52 of the 115 points available, or 45 percent, could be directly attributable to direct health outcomes – the majority of points available, being focused on sustainability and climate change indices. Within these 52 credits, 88 percent of the points are related to design factors such as increased density, preferred locations, jobs-to-housing balance, walkability, and bike and transit facilities, etc make up to public
health related goals.

While this percentage seems quite generous, the focused of these points is heavily focused on design and built environment factors not community-based intervention. This is despite some research that indicates that neighborhood health may be more strongly tied to behavior and lifestyle preferences that to neighborhood design measures (Forsythe et al, 2007).¹² Other research deemphasizes street-level design as a health indicator and interventions
arguing that there is limited benefit or statistical increases in mode shift from design-level transportation improvements – that health transportation such as biking and walking is more influenced by “exogenous factors such as topography, darkness, and rainfall (Cervero and Duncan, 2003).¹³”

Furthermore this design-based framework gives little credence to having an ‘open community’ or non-gated community that is accessible and equitable. Only six points (5 percent of the total points available within the LEED-ND rating system) are available within the entire rating framework for community-based measure like having an open community, access to the surrounding vicinity, access to public space, access to active space, universal accessibility, and local food production. These 6 points make up only, something that may contradict bio-social public health perspectives that indicate the multivariate nature of health and disease risk that is not always derived from physically deterministic notions of design or directly causal variables (Massey, 2004).¹⁴

One example of this over emphasis of design is provided by a pilot LEED-ND project in Napa County, California. Having worked on the initial planning of this new community I was able to make a strong case increasing density and improving walkability through design. The community archived almost all of the credits available for having ‘walkable streets’; integrating cross walks every 200 to 300 feet, having continuous paths and site lines, setting maximum residential speeds at 20mph, building in bulb-outs and corner radii, integration of street-level landscaping and bike parking/lanes while at the same time putting a comprehensive transportation demand management program to reduce auto trip generation. While attention and subsequent funding was allocated to these design-oriented points, little attention was paid to promoting equity, affordability, or community-based programs within the community – items that might have the highest correlation with increased activity levels.

While 2 credits within the rating system encourage meeting local affordable housing goals, very little is offered within the framework to encourage diversity and meet varying health needs. There is not recognition of community level education and support for clinical and/or integrated community health workers that could raise awareness of less well-to-do populations. The system simple does not address complexity of community-based health, including issues related to things such as affordability, gentrification, social and behavioral health, behavioral and community-level policy and programmatic intervention – both of which can have huge weight in determining health characteristics (Goldman et al, 2005, 99).¹⁵

Conclusions and Opportunities for Improvement

While LEED-ND is a positive at meeting green and sustainable goals to address environmental needs, there is still ample opportunity to increase its health-based framework. The benchmarking framework is a great paradigm shift, but it does not ensure a healthy community. The equation does not always equal a holistic healthy place, however it does raise awareness of public health issues and moves the discussion regarding health and the built environment outside of the building envelope to encompass community design.

The encouragement of community-based measures (Leung, 2003)¹⁶ or the use of methodologies that move toward the integration of street scale, lay knowledge folk provide health-inducing framework could provide a promising improvement to the LEED-ND framework (Corburn, 2005).¹⁷ Programmatic community-based and educational interventions could also be integrated within the framework using activity promotion methods such as those implemented in Boulder, CO, Portland, OR, Cambridge, MA, Olympia, WA, and Lexington, KY that have worked to establish healthy habits in local residents (ALbD, 2006¹⁸; Wong, et al, 2004).¹⁹ Research indicates that by creating healthy lifestyles and habits at an early age, not simply creating an active-living environment, later-life activity levels can be increased, a factor that could be viewed independently of location (Huhman et al, 2008).²⁰

In summary if LEED-ND is to become a useful tool for evaluating health impacts, similarly to the HDMT and HIA indicators, it must embrace more community aspects and move to integrate new policies and programs that take into account these factors. Steps could include:

• Greater encouragement of affordability, reducing gentrification and increasing diversity
• An emphasis on community involvement within the planning process;
• Integration of potential credits for items such as:
• Educational programs aimed at healthy behaviors;
• Integrating community health awareness programs and the use of community health workers;
• Focus on healthy food accessibility;
• Focus on health care accessibility;
• Sustainability and longevity of measures and programs;
• An evaluation of how to better prioritize LEED-ND credits to frame community health and equity issues;
• Improved credit distribution and weighting that could place more emphasis on non-design health interventions;
• Research on market-based incentives to generate LEED communities and potential policy implications;
  
• Analysis on community retrofitting, and how to improve on existing suburban or urban landscapes to integrate such positive health frameworks.

The goals of LEED-ND provide a tool for healthy design, but they should be used as a guide and not a rule. The system does not currently fully account for factors that influence healthy lifestyles, thus planners and developers must continue to think beyond systematic compliance to a list of indicators – thinking about the ties between health, local factors and diverse community living.

---

1. Corburn, J. 2007. Reconnecting with Our Roots: American Urban Planning and Public Health in the Twenty-first Century. Urban Affairs Review. Vol. 42: 688.
2. Corburn, J. and Bhatia, R. 2007. HIA in San Francisco: Incorporating the Social Determinants of Health into Environmental Planning. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Vol. 50, No. 3: 323-341.
3. Frumpkin, H. 2005. Health Equity and the Built Env. Environmental Health Perspectives, Vol. 113, No. 5.
4. Pastor, M. J. Saad, R. Morello-Frosh. 2007. Still Toxic After All These Years: Air Quality and Environmental Justice in the San Francisco Bay Area. Center for Justice, Tolerance & Community, University of California, Santa Cruz. http://cjtc.ucsc.edu
5. US Green Building Council. 2008. LEED References. http://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CMSPageID=148.
6. Alfonzo, M. 2008. The Relationship of Neighbourhood Built Environment Features and Adult Parents' Walking. Journal of Urban Design, Vol. 13, No. 1: 29-51.
7. Ulrich, R. 1984. View through a window may influence recovery from surgery. Science. Vol. 224: 420-421.
8. Ulrich, R.S., et al. 1991. Stress recovery during exposure to natural and urban environments. J. Environ. Psychol, Vol. 11: 201-230.
9. Kaplan, R. and Kaplan, S. 1989. The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective. Cambridge University Press.
10. Fisk, William J. 2000. Health and Productivity Gains from Better Indoor Environments and Their Implications for the U.S. Department of Energy. Annual Review Energy & Environment, Vol. 25: 537–66.
11. Ewing and Kreutzer. 2006. Understanding the Relationship Between the Built Environment and Public Health. A Report Prepared for the LEED-ND Core Committee. http://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=1736
12. Forsythe, A. et al. 2007. Does Residential Density Increase Walking and Other Physical Activity? Urban Studies. Vol. 44, No. 4: 679-697.
13. Cervero, R. and Duncan, M. 2003. Walking, Bicycling, and Urban Landscapes: Evidence From the San Francisco Bay Area. American Journal of Public Health, Vol 93, No. 9.
14. Massey, D. 2004. Segregation and Stratification: A Biosocial Perspective. DuBois Review, Vol. 1: 7-25.
15. Goldman, N. el al, 2005. Perceived stress and physiological dysregulation in older adults. Stress, Vol. 8, No. 2: 95-105.
16. Leung,M., Yen,I, H., & Minkler, M. 2004. Community-based participatory research: a promising approach for increasing epidemiology’s relevance in the 21st century. International Journal of Epidemiology; 33: 499-506.
17. Corburn, J. 2005. Street Science. The MIT Press.
18. Active Living by Design Case Studies. 2006. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Accessed May 2008 at: http://www.activelivingbydesign.org/index.php?id=342.)
19. Wong, F. et al, 2004. A Social Marketing Campaign to Increase Physical Activity Among Youth. Preventing Chronic Disease: Public Health Research, Practice and Policy. Vol, 1 No. 3. (Accessed May 2008 at: http://www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2004/jul/04_0043.htm.)
20. Huhman, M. et al. 2005. Effects of a Mass Media Campaign to Increase Physical Activity Among Children: Year-1 Results of the VERB Campaign. Pediatrics. Vol. 116: 277-284.