Institute of Environmental Sciences Miami University
Public Service Project
2010-‐2
Crawford House and Woods Demonstration Site
Client City of Hamilton Green Committee
August 2010
Project Managers
Scott Johnston Dr. William Renwick Dr. Sandra Woy-‐Hazelton
Team Members
Gwendolyn Bausmith Michael Chapman Lore Denisse Rivera-‐Hernandez Jereme Simmons
Sarah Van Frank
M.En. Candidates
Miami University
Institute of Environmental Sciences 102 Boyd Hall
Oxford, OH 45056 513-‐529-‐5811 (voice) 513-‐529-‐5814 (fax)
2 | C r a w f o r d H o u s e a n d W o o d s D e m o n s t r a t i o n S i t e
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section I ..................................................................................................................... 3
Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 4 Project Development ................................................................................................... 5 Urban Homesteading/DIY ............................................................................................ 7 Crawford House History ............................................................................................... 8
Section II .................................................................................................................. 11
Crawford House Proposal .............................................................................................. 12 The Age of Homesteading .......................................................................................... 14 The Age of Advancement & Consumerism ................................................................ 21 The Age of Awareness ................................................................................................ 27 Vendor Display Space ................................................................................................. 35 Outdoor Living ............................................................................................................ 39
Section III .................................................................................................................. 49
Renovation of the Crawford House ............................................................................... 50
Section IV ................................................................................................................. 58
Community Involvement Recommendations ................................................................ 59 Educational Outreach ................................................................................................. 59 Local Participation ...................................................................................................... 60 Resource Support ....................................................................................................... 62
Section V .................................................................................................................. 70
Monitoring and Evaluation ............................................................................................ 71
Section VI ................................................................................................................. 75
Conclusion ..................................................................................................................... 76
References................................................................................................................ 78
Appendices ............................................................................................................... 81
Appendix A: Master Floor Plan Appendix B: Hamilton City School Listing Appendix C: Local Participation List Appendix D: LEED Point Summary Appendix E: Utah House Monitoring Program Appendix F: Artifacts Index Appendix G: Water Color Renderings Appendix H: Historical Documents
3 | C r a w f o r d H o u s e a n d W o o d s D e m o n s t r a t i o n S i t e
SECTION I
4 | C r a w f o r d H o u s e a n d W o o d s D e m o n s t r a t i o n S i t e
Introduction
Vision 2020 Plan for Hamilton, Ohio is a comprehensive living plan to move the city into the 21st
all aspects needed to reestablish a thriving city: land use planning, public transportation, public
facilities, education, economic development and the environment. Initiatives under the plan are
to be implemented by collaborative efforts of city employees, city officials, and community
members. One such initiative was launched by the Green Committee in mid 2009. This
subcommittee was initially led by Kathleen Klink, a Vision 2020 Commissioner, and since early
2010 leadership has been shared by Joel Fink and Mike Dingeldein. The members of this
committee are volunteers from the community who have an interest in advancing sustainable
environmental practices for the city of Hamilton.
objectives and to promote their goal of promoting sustainable living, a central site should be
created in Hamilton for residents to visit and gain knowledge of the latest techniques and
practices in sustainable living. The site would serve as a demonstration place for organizations
within the community to display their services and provide instruction to residents on do-‐it-‐
yourself (DIY) projects in sustainable living.
The committee discussed whether to build a new facility, retrofit an older building, or use a
historical site within the city limits as the location. It was decided that an older building would
be used and the committee had the option of one of two homes. The final selection was the
Crawford House and Woods. The Crawford House, built in 1835, sits on a 58-‐acre parcel
located at 2200 Hancock Avenue in the city of Hamilton. The Hamilton Parks and Recreation
Division currently owns the property. Because of its history, the Green Committee felt this was
a great opportunity to renovate an old structure to be used again in the community. They also
believed that combining historical living with the demonstration of current and future
sustainability practices, would be a unique attraction in the region.
5 | C r a w f o r d H o u s e a n d W o o d s D e m o n s t r a t i o n S i t e
(IES) assist in the planning for the development of this demonstration site. In August, 2009 the
team of Gwen Bausmith, Michael Chapman, Denisse Rivera-‐Hernandez, Jereme Simmons and
Sarah Van Frank took on the task as a Public Service Project.
Project Development
The Green Committee provided the team with a list of purposes for the Crawford House and
Woods demonstration site:
Provide citizens with an opportunity to learn about becoming green
Utilize the Crawford Woods house as a demonstration site for both interior and exterior
solutions in a variety of areas.
Provide vendors with an opportunity to showcase their products
Provide the Utility Department with the opportunity to tell their story
Dispel myths about the environment while educating the community
Given this guidance, the team determined the project goal:
Utilize Crawford House and Woods as a local demonstration site for practicing good
In this context, continuous living is defined as building on the past for the benefit of the present
and the future. This definition and its benefits include, but are not limited to, energy, water and
soil conservation, monetary savings and incentives, quality of life issues, food production and
processing and community connectivity and involvement. In order to meet this goal, we
identified three primary objectives.
Provide a plan for program development of Crawford House and Woods.
Suggest building recommendations specific to the Crawford House.
6 | C r a w f o r d H o u s e a n d W o o d s D e m o n s t r a t i o n S i t e
Educate the local community about Environmental Stewardship and Continuous Living.
The scope of the project was determined in consultation with the committee and was defined
in terms of physical geography, historical considerations, governmental jurisdiction, utility
infrastructure, and interested parties or stakeholders.
.
.All recommendations will be confined to the 58 acres of property that compose the
Crawford House and Woods, although the residential and school context of the
surrounding area will be taken into account.
All modifications of the house will be guided by concern for the historical integrity and
character of house, but since it is not on the National Register of Historical Places,
retrofits to emphasize modern energy conservation and sustainable practices will be
possible.
All modifications and utility changes will fall within the legal permits of the local
jurisdictions (City of Hamilton and Butler County) and local utilities.
All educational and promotional recommendations will strive for broad accessibility and
take into account the diverse ethnic and socio-‐economic population of the City of
Hamilton.
In order to prepare a proposal for the Crawford House and Woods we researched sustainable
technologies and practices, methods of consumer environmental education, display techniques
and existing demonstration sites. Along with an extensive literature review we interviewed
technology vendors and experts in sustainable practices and behavior. We visited four local
Connection Home in Cincinnati; the McGuffey House Museum in Oxford; and the Preble County
-‐line reviews
Florida-‐
7 | C r a w f o r d H o u s e a n d W o o d s D e m o n s t r a t i o n S i t e
characteristics and applicable demonstration techniques that would be relevant and useful for
the Crawford House.
Sustainable Living Approaches: DIY to Urban Homesteading:
Although many people like the idea, they are often confused about how to take positive steps
to a lower impact, more sustainable way of living because there are a variety of approaches.
Everyone is familiar with the concept of DIY (do-‐it-‐yourself) projects whose main objective is to
save money using your own labor and materials for household projects. The underlying value
of self-‐reliance can be extended into the more advanced concept of urban homesteading. The
objective of this approach is to provide as many of the inputs needed to maintain a household
on its own as possible, even to the point of becoming completely independent of the energy
grid and supplying large portions of their food from home gardens. Our research has produced
many possible projects for households that range from very simple DIY efforts to more complex
technological alternatives. Projects can range from simple things like sewing your own window
quilts, building garden trellises or patios constructed with stones from the local creek. Each
household can incorporate projects that fit their goals.
The pioneering history of the Crawford House presents a particularly fitting scenario for
demonstrating the practices that embody the spirit of DIY and urban homesteading
independence. The Crawford House and Woods was once a farm that provided much of its
own food necessities and where many DIY practices we wish to demonstrate undoubtedly
occurred, such as home food processing, canning, gardening, water conservation practices,
composting, personal home maintenance and carpentry. Thus a perfect bridge can be built
between the way of life in 19th century Hamilton and a more sustainable Hamilton of
tomorrow.
We have created a living, evolving toolbox of ideas that can be customized to fit the
circumstances, desires and needs of individual households. Certainly families that live in
apartments will not be able to raise dairy goats or install gray water recycling units, but they
8 | C r a w f o r d H o u s e a n d W o o d s D e m o n s t r a t i o n S i t e
can learn to grow tomatoes or other vegetables on their balconies or terraces. People from all
walks of life will be able to take something of practical use for their situation away from the
experience. As families grow and circumstances evolve, it is our hope that the initial steps they
learn and take will continue to grow. Visitors who respond positively to the Crawford House
experience may continuously increase the sustainability of their lifestyles, the enjoyment of
accomplishing household tasks formerly left to professionals and continue to contemplate their
This report is our proposal for a unique facility, one that revives a historically important site in
an environmentally sustainable way, which can serve as an active community educational
center. The following sections provide: 1) a brief historical overview of the Crawford House, 2) a
detailed proposal for a floor )
recommendations for the house, 4) recommendations for community involvement, and 5)
means of monitoring and evaluating the proposed demonstration site.
Crawford House History
Prior to owning what we currently think
of as the Crawford House, David and his
wife, Jeanette Giffen Crawford, lived in a
log cabin near a canal on an adjoining
tract of land to the current Crawford
House Woods. This land sits slightly
north of Grand Boulevard and the cabin
was constructed of local timber found on
the property (Heiser, 1957). What we now know as the Crawford House was originally built in
1835, and at the time, was known as
house, the land was the wood lot for Hamilton resident William Daniels and included a 17-‐acre
Figure 1 County Atlas (1875).
9 | C r a w f o r d H o u s e a n d W o o d s D e m o n s t r a t i o n S i t e
materials such as stones from adjacent fields and bricks that were molded from clay deposits
found on the property. Walnut and poplar trees on the property were used in the flooring and
fireplace mantels (Blount, 2005). The house was occupied by Mr. Daniels until 1845, when he
sold it to David Crawford (Heiser, 1936). The house would go on to be occupied by three
generations of the Crawford family until 1948 (Blount, 2005). David passed it on to his son
David M, who occupied the house in the early 1900s before he passed it on to his son, William
C. Crawford.
William, known as Billy, lived in the house with his cousin, Mary Cavanaugh, who was known as
generous with their property, inviting townspeople over for picnics and hosting sled riding and
Easter festivities. They also hosted tours of the house and it became an extremely important
part of the city. When Billy passed away in 1948 at the age of 79, the 58-‐acre lot was
bequeathed to Aunt Dolly and another heir, Robert Crawford Falconer. Robert and Dolly then
donated the house and property to the city of Hamilton for park and recreation use. A 17-‐acre
portion of the land was available for immediate use by the city and the rest of the 48-‐acres,
including the house, was made available after Dolly passed away in 1958 (Blount, 2005).
After the passing of Aunt Dolly, the house fell into a state of disrepair and remained that way
for the next 8 years. Finally, in 1966 Hamilton citizens began voicing concerns about the house
and its shabby state. What had once been an important part of the community had become an
eyesore. The Historic Restoration Committee for the Butler County Park District proposed that
just
that. The house and five acres of the land were then leased to the Park District for the next 20
years. Once funds were raised (about $7,000), they began the restoration process, which was
delayed when a fire swept through the house. Rather than abandon the project, they set out
with more fervor than ever and were able to dedicate the house a mere five months behind
schedule. Once restored, the house again became an integral part of the community. Rather
10 | C r a w f o r d H o u s e a n d W o o d s D e m o n s t r a t i o n S i t e
than simply serving as a historical museum, it became a meeting hall and headquarters for the
park district (Brush, N.D.).
After the restoration of the 1960s, the Crawford House thrived for approximately the next 20
years. Sadly, the house once again fell into disrepair. The Park District has been using the
house for storage of various sports equipment and old documents over the years but little else
has been done with it in many years. We hope that the following proposal for its reuse as a
sustainable living showcase, merging the past with the future, will not only revitalize the house,
but the entire city.
11 | C r a w f o r d H o u s e a n d W o o d s D e m o n s t r a t i o n S i t e
Section II
12 | C r a w f o r d H o u s e a n d W o o d s D e m o n s t r a t i o n S i t e
Crawford House Proposal
This proposal is designed to create a unique educational experience by demonstrating
sustainable living technologies in a historical context. It features five visitor spaces using four
rooms on the first floor of the house and an outdoor area. Each room focuses on a particular
historical era and a specific environmental theme. The history of the house is illustrated with
appropriate artifacts in each room. Sustainable practices and technologies will be
communicated through signage, interactive displays, brochures and media, among other things.
These practices will be divided into two parts, 1) short-‐term responses to problems that are
relatively low cost and can be completed in a timely manner; and 2) long-‐term, initially more
expensive efforts to address major problems.
The route through the house is planned for visitors to walk through different time periods and
see a progression of energy technologies and sustainable practices. In the Parlor, visitors will
droom/study where window and
lighting technologies are highli
ustainable heating and the most
modern energy saving appliances are displayed. The fourth room in the house is to be used as a
vendor area where local enterprises can showcase their products and services. This will be an
area of interactive stations where informational pieces on the technologies of the site are
available. The outdoor space provides an opportunity to promote sustainable gardening, rain
barrel use, and composting, among other practices. The following page is the full floor plan of
the proposed site. This floor plan can also be seen in Appendix A.
13 | C r a w f o r d H o u s e a n d W o o d s D e m o n s t r a t i o n S i t e
14 | C r a w f o r d H o u s e a n d W o o d s D e m o n s t r a t i o n S i t e
The Age of Homesteading: Parlor Room 1835-‐1900
Historical Theme The Age of Homesteading was chosen to represent a period that embodied self-‐reliance. It was
a time in which sustainability was a natural way of life and self-‐sufficiency left a much lighter
impact on the surrounding environment. The practices of that time can provide many lessons
that can benefit current lifestyles. The setting of a parlor room is appropriate for this time
period because it was the social gathering place inside the house. Highlighting interpersonal
communication as the original source of entertainment focuses individuals away from energy
draining technologies, such as the television and computer, back toward human contact and
conversation. Without the modern technol
were deeply intertwined with the local environment and required them to work with rather
than against the natural world.
Rather than air conditioning, houses were designed in order to maximize airflow patterns and
shipment. Food was produced on site and clothing hand sewn, again reducing the need for
shipment of goods from outside areas. These examples of sustainable behavior, among others,
15 | C r a w f o r d H o u s e a n d W o o d s D e m o n s t r a t i o n S i t e
will provide the educational content for this room, with the intent of encouraging visitors to
engage in similar behaviors and tread more lightly on the Earth.
This room (Figures 2 & 3) can be decorated with period furniture and artifacts that are owned
by the City of Hamilton. Some of the pieces were left in the house, others are era appropriate
and owned by the Butler County Historical Society.
Figure 2: Current state of parlor room. Photo courtesy of Sarah Van Frank.
Figure 3 Artist rendition of Parlor Room. Painting courtesy of Natalie Otrembiak.
16 | C r a w f o r d H o u s e a n d W o o d s D e m o n s t r a t i o n S i t e
Featured Technology: Insulation The parlor room will focus on insulation technologies within homes. Historically, insulation was
not typically added to homes, they simply consisted of frame construction without insulation,
or brick/stone with possibly a layer of plaster. This allowed air to escape and a large amount of
heat to be lost. The lack of insulation and gaps in existing structures, especially in older homes,
can lead to abundant heat and energy loss, greatly increasing the cost of utility bills for
homeowners and renters. Leaks can occur in many places within a typical home, but roughly
31% of all air loss occurs within the floors, ceilings and walls according to the US Department of
Energy (2009).
We propose that the primary display in this room be a
wall cutaway that demonstrates the various layers of
insulation. The cutaway would expose the brick and
plaster from the original house and also display the
layers of new insulation that have been added to the
house in order to make it more energy efficient This
type of display provides visitors with a rare glimpse of
how far insulation technologies have come.
The educational signage and displays in this room should
provide the visitors with a summary of the major problems, ways to identify the severity of the
problem in their own homes, and the short-‐term and long-‐term responses to address these
problems in a sustainable manner. For example, after highlighting the types of problems in
floors, ceilings and walls, the visitor could be shown how to discover air leaks by placing an
incense stick or smoke pen next to windows, doors, electrical outlets, ceiling fixtures or any
other places where air might possibly escape and observe the smoke trail. If it follows a path to
a specific area, rather than traveling vertically, then you may have discovered a possible air leak
area.
Figure 4 Cutaway of wall insulation. Source: www.askhandyman.com.
17 | C r a w f o r d H o u s e a n d W o o d s D e m o n s t r a t i o n S i t e
Short Term Responses Sealing off heated and cooled spaces from those that are not, is one of the easiest and most
cost effective ways that homeowners can improve the efficiency within their homes. Target
areas include but are not limited to cracks around windows, doorways leading into crawl
spaces, attics, garages or outside (Chiras, 2007) The following sealing techniques, defined by
the US Department of Energy (2009) could be provided to visitors as a checklist to minimize the
amount of air escaping from their houses.
Caulk and weather-‐strip all doors and windows in addition to areas where wiring or
piping travels through walls, floors or ceilings.
Install foam gaskets behind electrical switch plates.
Seal insulation holes with inexpensive spray foam.
Close the flue damper on your chimney when not in use. If you do not use your chimney
very frequently, inflatable chimney balloons can be used to seal the area. They are easy
to remove and are reusable.
Cover your kitchen exhaust fan; this will reduce the amount of air that can enter the
area or escape the area when it is not in use.
Install pliable sealing gaskets to the bottoms of doors to reduce drafts.
18 | C r a w f o r d H o u s e a n d W o o d s D e m o n s t r a t i o n S i t e
Sealing the House
High performance paintable silicone caulk performs well for
this purpose. These caulks have great adhering capability,
are extremely flexible and usually have a 40-‐50 year life
span. When filling larger cracks, foam backer rod can be
used in conjunction with caulk. Gaps can be filled with
spray on expandable foam (Figure 5). These sealing
-‐
room, and can be communicated through interpretive
signage or can be demonstrated within the vendor display
area. The air within walls is classified as unconditioned air, so sealing wall switch plates and
electrical receptacle plates can help to stop heat or conditioned air loss. Foam gaskets inserted
behind the plates help to seal off escaping air. These gaskets can be purchased at most
hardware stores. This is a solution that homeowners can easily and quickly implement (Chiras,
2007). These plate gaskets can be displayed in the room through the use of a clear switch or
receptacle plate so visitors can see the foam gasket beneath. Interpretive signage adjacent to
the plate gasket should also be provided.
Long Term Returns
Wall Insulation
Many older homes were built without any insulation within exterior walls. The rule of thumb
says that the older the house, the more insulation should be added (Chiras, 2007). There are
four types of insulation systems that we recommend for the educational displays; they include:
blown in, batt, rigid foam and spray-‐on insulation. In Ohio, a value of R-‐11 to R-‐26 is advisable
(Litchfield, 2005). The educational component for these insulation systems should compare
and contrast each technology for their advantages and disadvantages for investment returns,
ease of installation and environmental benefits.
Older houses have only brick and mortar construction and little or no exterior wall framing
present a challenge for retrofitting insulation. The most economical and straightforward
Figure 5: Expandable foam. Source: Litchfield, 2005.
19 | C r a w f o r d H o u s e a n d W o o d s D e m o n s t r a t i o n S i t e
manner for adding insulation is to use furring strips coupled with rigid foam insulation board
(Figure 4) (Litchfield, 2005). Although Figure 4 features concrete block instead of brick, the
image provides a cut-‐away example of how these materials and techniques can be displayed
within the parlor (Litchfield, 2005). A cutaway display of this furring technique also provides an
excellent opportunity to show how to conceal wiring and conduit for a more finished look.
For the benefit of visitors who have frame houses, it
may be appropriate to create a display showing 2x4 or
2x6 frame construction, with closed cell spray-‐on (Figure
6) or batt insulation (Figure 7). In either case, the
insulation rests between the wall studs. Spray-‐on
insulation is applied through a fine screen that is stapled
across the studs. This type of insulation typically has an
R-‐value of about 3.9 per inch. Once this foam cures it can easily be cut with a handsaw. Most
spray-‐on insulations are petrochemical free and virtually fireproof. Because of the level of skill
required, this type of insulation requires professional installation. (Litchfield, 2005).
Figure 7 provides an illustration of batt insulation. This is the most
common type of insulation and can be installed fairly easily. Batt can
be made of recycled cotton or denim, mineral wool, and fiberglass;
the latter accounts for the most widely used
have as many of the negative side effects
such as eye, skin and lung irritation that was
associated with older batt insulation.
Typical high-‐density fiberglass batt
insulation is rated at R-‐11, R-‐13 and R-‐15
and 5-‐1/2 inch thick batts (for use between 2x6 studs), are rated at R-‐
Figure 6: Closed cell spray-on. Source: Litchfield, 2005.
Figure 7: Batt insulation. Source: www.cardallsfiberglassins.net, 2010.
Figure 8: Blown-in insulation. Source: Litchfield, 2005.
20 | C r a w f o r d H o u s e a n d W o o d s D e m o n s t r a t i o n S i t e
21 (Litchfield, 2005).
Another means of insulating within the wall cavities of old houses that have little if any wall
insulation is to use a blown-‐in insulation (Figure 8). The main advantage of this type of
insulation is that it can be installed without having to open up walls. Small holes are drilled at
the top of inside or outside walls of the house and the insulation is pumped through a hose
until the wall cavity is full. Due to the level of skill and equipment required, this type of
insulation requires professional installation. Most blown-‐in insulation is environmentally safe.
This insulation is made from recycled paper and can be treated with borates to make it more
resistant to mold, insects and fire. The installation of blown-‐in insulation becomes more
complicated when framing is irregular or contains fire-‐stops (Litchfield, 2005).
Attic Insulation
Attic insulation provides the greatest cost to benefit ratio for
the homeowner. In Ohio, a value of at least R-‐49 is
advisable (Litchfield, 2005). R-‐49 or greater will provide a
noticeable difference
should also be well-‐ventilated, therefore, it is advisable to
install soffit vents and air channel along the underside of the
roof
Ventilation allows air to circulate beneath the roof, which helps keep shingles cooler. This
reduces breakdown and extends shingle life. In addition, air movement within attics helps to
reduce the likelihood of mold growth and exhausts hot air during warm season months
(Litchfield, 2005) (Figure 9). Although visitor access to the attic may not be possible, it would
be appropriate to display attic insulation technologies in the parlor room.
Figure 9: Soffit vent. Source: www.ajaxroofing.com, 2009.
21 | C r a w f o r d H o u s e a n d W o o d s D e m o n s t r a t i o n S i t e
The Age of Advancement & Consumerism: Bedroom/Study 1900-‐1970
Historical Theme:
The Age of Advancement & Consumerism will be represented by the bedroom/study. In the
1900s individuals started acquiring goods, consuming materials and services for personal use in
greater amounts. Consumerism, a socioeconomic activity based on the systematically
manufactured desire to increase the purchase goods or services describes a society in which a
majority of the population formulates life goals partly through attaining material effects.
Consumerism has certainly become a field for new historical discovery (Stearns, 2001).
This room should communicate the idea that consumerism has brought an end to the previous
sustainability. Because this room spans such a long timeframe, it might contain turn of
the century products as well as consumer products. The idea with this room is to show a major
transformation into consumerism that occurred from 1900-‐1970. This room will also focus on
the fact that houses di
unrelated tasks were performed together in relatively small rooms.
22 | C r a w f o r d H o u s e a n d W o o d s D e m o n s t r a t i o n S i t e
When the Crawford House was built in 1835, windows,
candles, and oil lamps were the typical lighting
technologies available. Through the availability of
electricity, incandescent lamps for indoor use became
available around 1870, although lamps did not see
widespread use until around 1926. Prior to this time,
electrical lighting was mostly enjoyed by the wealthy
(Carter, N.D.). The Crawford House has witnessed multiple lighting technologies throughout its
ll display examples of period
lighting from roughly 1835 to present day. The vintage fixtures can be non-‐functional display
pieces while contemporary, high efficiency lighting will actually be used in each room of the
house.
When using interpretive signage and a working display (Figure 10), clear comparisons should be
made among all available lighting technologies, such as CFL, and LED fixtures. Because changing
out light bulbs is a relatively easy upgrade that visitors can immediately implement, it will be
important to demonstrate the various levels of efficiency for each lighting type so visitors will
better understand how efficiency levels are determined. Replacing incandescent lamps with CFL
lamps can quadruple lighting efficiency. CFLs also last up to ten times longer and provide
significant financial benefits to consumers (Dawson et al., (2009).
Figure 10: Lighting display. Photo courtesy of Michael Dingeldein.
Figure 11: Current state of bedroom. Photo courtesy of Sarah Van Frank
Figure 12: Sample image of bedroom. Source: www.remodel.net, 2010.
23 | C r a w f o r d H o u s e a n d W o o d s D e m o n s t r a t i o n S i t e
Featured Technologies: Windows and Lighting
Windows
Windows are usually the greatest single cause of heat and cooling loss in homes. In fact, studies
have shown that over 40% of a typical home's annual energy budget is lost through windows
and doors (USEPA & DOE, 2010).
gains through windows in residential and commercial building cost the United States $20 billion
(one-‐
2000). If properly selected and installed, windows can help reduce costs associated with
heating, cooling, and lighting. Over the last 10 years there have been significant technological
developments on windows that prevent heat and cooling escaping from homes and buildings
reducing costs (National Fenestration Rating Council, 2005). For this reason, we would like to
use this room to demonstrate to visitors the benefits of having energy efficient windows and
day lighting in their homes to help significantly lower their utility bills.
One possible display for this room at the Crawford House will be a standalone window that
could demonstrate a window quilt in one side and the addition of a storm window in the other
side. Installation of energy-‐efficient windows will be an important area where homeowners can
decrease their energy usage and help the environment at the same time. Investing in energy
efficient windows provides a continued payback not only in dollars/cents but also in a more
comfortable living environment.
Short Term Returns
Educational information can provide visitors with checklists for quick and simple ways to see an
immediate benefit (USDOE, 2009).
Windows
Window Tips for Warm Climate
Window quilts are a traditional solution for reducing heat transfer between windows
and the outdoors.
24 | C r a w f o r d H o u s e a n d W o o d s D e m o n s t r a t i o n S i t e
Keep window coverings closed during warm days to prevent the sun from heating your
home.
During the day, keep curtains closed on south and west-‐facing windows.
Reduce solar gain by applying sun-‐control or other reflective films on south-‐facing
windows too (Energy Savers Tips on Saving Energy & Money at Home, 2009).
Window Tips for Cold Climate
Close curtains and shades at night and open them during the day.
Use clear plastic film to the inside of your window frames during cold weather. To help
decrease infiltration, seal the plastic tightly to the frame.
To reduce air leakage, fit the window sash tightly in the window frame.
Keep windows clean on the south side of the house in order to let in the sun.
Fix and weatherize existing storm windows, if necessary (Energy Savers Tips on Saving
Energy & Money at Home, 2009).
Lighting Lighting is perhaps one of the easiest and cheapest ways
in which the typical person can reduce energy
consumption. On average, 11% of energy bills are
devoted to lighting (United States Department of Energy,
2009). The following recommendations will assist in
reducing this portion of an energy bill.
Install linear fluorescent tubes and compact
fluorescent (CFL) bulbs (Figure 13). Not only are they more energy efficient, but they
also last much longer than typical incandescent bulbs.
The use of timers and dimmers can dramatically reduce energy consumption.
Light colored, thin draperies can maximize the amount of daylight entering a room while
still providing a moderate level of privacy. If privacy is not a concern, open blinds during
the day to maximize the use of daylight.
Figure 13: Lighting display. Photo courtesy of Michael Dingeldein.
25 | C r a w f o r d H o u s e a n d W o o d s D e m o n s t r a t i o n S i t e
Long Term Returns
Windows
Many older houses have very old, if not original, windows. The least invasive, most cost
effective solution is to repair and keep the original windows. In order to increase the R-‐value
of the original single pane windows it would be necessary to modify the window through the
use of either storm windows or by installing Plexiglas inserts on the interior side of the window.
Plexiglas is a clear durable polycarbonate plastic, which conducts heat more slowly than glass.
Ideally, a space would be created between the window
which reduces heat transfer (Chiras, 2007).
Below are some long term returns that can be implemented within a household or building to
increase its thermal efficiency.
Replace old drafty windows.
o Install exterior or interior storm windows provides an extra barrier to the cold
outside air. Storm windows can reduce heat loss through the windows by 25% to
50%. Storm windows should have weather stripping at all movable joints, be
composed of heavy-‐duty materials, and feature interlocking or overlapping
joints.
Window Frame Replacements
o Aluminum-‐ Aluminum framed replacement windows are the least expensive but
unfortunately the most inefficient.
o Fiberglass-‐ Similar to wood in efficiency and cost, fiberglass window frames are
clean and fresh, moderately energy efficient, very light, and easy to handle.
o Wood-‐ Some historic upgrades necessitate Wood framed windows, which are
heavier and pricier than vinyl or aluminum. Vinyl clad wood is a fashionable,
though expensive, option for optimal energy efficiency and durability.
o Vinyl-‐ The most popular preference for replacement windows, vinyl is energy
efficient, relatively inexpensive, and looks nice with the vinyl siding featured on
most homes.
26 | C r a w f o r d H o u s e a n d W o o d s D e m o n s t r a t i o n S i t e
In order to occlude summer light, install shades, awnings or sunscreens on windows
facing south and/or west.
Install tight-‐fitting, insulating shades on drafty windows after weatherizing.
Install awnings on south and west-‐facing windows.
Daylighting and skylights
Before electric lighting, sunlight was essential to indoor work, leisure and habitation for almost
as long as human beings have been living in homes.
Sunlight was still the best source of interior lighting,
even after inventions such as oil lamps, candles,
torches and gas lighting (Phillips, 2004).
Historically, skylights, horizontal windows or domes
built into the roof of buildings, have been utilized for
daylighting and roof lanterns have been valued both as sources of natural light and as means
for providing better vision. Furthermore, when a skylight is opened, it provides ventilation and
even an emergency outlet. This would help reduce greenhouse gasses and would have an
important role in reducing global warming. The more people use daylight, the more electrical
energy will be reduced, which, in turn, helps solve the energy crisis (Phillips, 2004).
Figure 14: Sample skylight. Source: www.bartlettexteriors.com, 2010.
27 | C r a w f o r d H o u s e a n d W o o d s D e m o n s t r a t i o n S i t e
The Age of Awareness: Dining Room/Kitchen 1970-‐Present
This section of the tour and house will be introduced to visitors as the Age of Awareness. The
time period starts in 1970 and continues into the present. Senator Gaylord Nelson introduced
the idea of a national Earth Day and on April 22, 1970 the first Earth Day was established
national spotlight and national agenda. For many this was the start of the modern
environmental movement (www.nelsonearthday.net, 2010). Americans have became more
aware of the damage they are doing to the Earth because Earth Day celebrations. This period
of awareness continues today and therefore this part of the tour has been named as such.
The Age of Awareness rooms will showcase two different technologies. In the Dining Room
heating systems will be the educational focus, and the Kitchen will provide an area in which to
highlight water-‐saving appliances as a means to decrease energy consumption.
28 | C r a w f o r d H o u s e a n d W o o d s D e m o n s t r a t i o n S i t e
Dining Room Featured Technology: Heating
Visitors to the Crawford House will benefit from seeing displays of the different eras of heating
technology. Before 1885, the primary heating and cooking source for American houses were
wood burning fireplaces (Figure 18) and stoves. The Crawford House has three fireplaces that
would have been used for the distribution of this heat. The one in the dining room can
illustrate the dual function as a heating and cooking source. Interpretive signage can explain
how houses from this period were heated using wood burning fireplaces.
During the 19th century, the invention of coal fired boilers provided home owners with a low
cost central heating technology that would remain in existence until the late 1930s, when the
first oil and gas fired boilers came into existence (Pearson, 2007). Whether boilers were coal,
oil or gas fired, they all shared the same type of cast iron register or
radiator. The adaption of the Crawford home to radiators will provide
a basis to compare the various forms and sources of heating available
today.
Displays would include a vintage coal or gas fired boiler, as well as an
antique radiator (Figure 17). In fact, what better way to support the
Figure 15: Current state of dining room. Photo courtesy of Lore Denisse Rivera Hernandez.
Figure 16: Sample image of dining room. Source: www.awebresource.com, 2010.
Figure 17: Radiator. Source: www.castrads.com, 2010.
29 | C r a w f o r d H o u s e a n d W o o d s D e m o n s t r a t i o n S i t e
nt hot
water boiler connected to reclaimed steam or hot water radiators? This would speak volumes
about sustainable living.
This same radiator technology is very relevant today for
gas fired radiant hot water systems. New hot water boilers
can be up to 98% efficient due in part to the fact that even
after the thermostat shuts the system off, the radiators
continue to emit heat. This is different from forced air
systems, which simply heat the air.
Another benefit to installing a hot water boiler in a house
with original radiators is that these radiators are perfectly
compatible with most new boiler systems. This eliminates
waste by allowing the homeowner to continue using a portion of the homes original heating
system.
Short Term Returns
Atmospheric Heating & Cooling Technologies
The short-‐term improvements that residents can make in their own homes to reduce heating
and cooling costs are numerous. Our team has identified a list of easy to do changes and
maintenance tips for visitors of the Crawford House Demonstration Site to take home with
them.
Install Thermostats (settings and technology)
o Lower thermostat settings
Lower furnace setting by 2 F.
Lower water heater to 120 F.
o Programmable Thermostats
Figure 18: Current state of a Crawford House fireplace. Photo courtesy of Sarah Van Frank.
30 | C r a w f o r d H o u s e a n d W o o d s D e m o n s t r a t i o n S i t e
These thermostats allow residents to regulate the temperature of their
environment when they are home and not at home. This allows for a the
home to be a different temperature during the vacant hours of the day,
but when the residents are to return the thermostat will turn on and heat
or cool the house as programmed.
Clean and/or replacing of furnace filters on a regular schedule
Install a thermal blanket on the water heater.
Insulate the hot and cold water pipes.
Install heat traps on the hot and cold water pipes to prevent further heat loss.
Use passive ventilation
o Install double pane windows
Water Heating Technologies
Approximately 14%-‐ rgy consumption is used by the water
heater (United States Department of Energy, 2009). One of the largest issues with typical water
heaters is known as standby heat loss. As the water is constantly heated in the tank, it allows
for energy to be lost even when the hot water is not running. One of the easiest solutions to
this form of heat loss is proper insulation on your water heater, which can help reduce energy
costs over the lifetime of the appliance. If shopping for a newer, more energy efficient water
heater, look for R-‐values between 12-‐25. Below are several methods that the U.S. DOE
suggests in order to assist in lowering your water heating bills.
Reduce hot water use
o Repair water leaks in fixtures and pipes
Install low flow water fixtures
o Showerheads: flow rate should be less than 2.5gpm
simple calculation can be used:
1. Place a bucket underneath your showerhead and place a mark at
the one-‐gallon level.
31 | C r a w f o r d H o u s e a n d W o o d s D e m o n s t r a t i o n S i t e
2. Turn on the shower.
3. Record the amount of time that it takes for the shower to fill the
bucket to the one-‐gallon mark.
4. If it takes less than 20 seconds to reach the one-‐gallon mark, then
installing a low flow showerhead would be beneficial.
o Faucets: flow rate should 2.2gpm for the kitchen and 0.5-‐1.5gpm for the
bathroom
Lower the thermostat on your water heater to 120 F.
In addition to insulating your water heater, also consider insulating the hot and cold
water pipes.
Install heat traps on the hot and cold water pipes to prevent further heat loss.
Consider draining a quart of water from your tank every 3 months in order to remove
sediment and buildup and improve the efficiency of your water heater.
Long Term Returns
Two state-‐of-‐the-‐art improvements that could
illustrate long-‐term savings are: geo-‐thermal system
and hydronic radiant floor tubing. Both are expensive
improvements to a house, but provide high levels of
energy efficiency. We chose these technologies for
display because they are appropriate to the
Hamilton/Butler County region and there are many
local vendors and contractors capable of installing
these systems
Installation of a geo-‐thermal system (Figure 19)
o These systems take advantage of the nearly constant 55 degree temperature of
the earth to provide heat in the winter and cooling in the summer.
Installation of a hydronic radiant floor tubing
Figure 19: Illustration of geothermal system. Source: www.engineer.gvsu.edu, 2009.
32 | C r a w f o r d H o u s e a n d W o o d s D e m o n s t r a t i o n S i t e
o Effective way to distribute heated fluid. This would be made possible by
installing the tubing on the underside of the existing wood floors via access from
the basement. Tours could also be taken through the basement so that visitors
can view the working systems of the house.
Kitchen Featured Technology: Energy/Water Saving Appliances
The kitchen presents a unique opportunity to display a multitude of energy saving and
environmentally friendly concepts in a natural, uncluttered way. Kitchens typically contain
many energy-‐
water consumption and usage takes place. The original faucets and countertops and tables of
the Crawford Home are absent, so displays including signage will discuss the water delivery
methods of the original house and their relative inefficiency in comparison to modern fixtures.
Behavioral norms concerning the consumption of energy and water can also be compared and
contrasted between past ages, the present and future.
Figure 20: Current state of proposed kitchen area. Photo courtesy of Sarah Van Frank.
Figure 21: Sample image of kitchen. Source: www.treehugger.com, 2010.
33 | C r a w f o r d H o u s e a n d W o o d s D e m o n s t r a t i o n S i t e
As in the rest of the home, we will be demonstrating both long and short term ways to deal
ing attributes. Ways to educate
visitors on managing and reducing water usage, contamination and waste are crucial to
achieving the objectives of the site and are readily available on the commercial market. Many
options are easily installed by homeowners, while others require much more investment and
expertise. Some of the most effective methods for reducing energy and water consumption, as
well as waste, can be achieved by anyone through simple modifications in the way existing
appliances and water resources are utilized, which is important for rent/lease paying visitors
and young people who do not have control over home improvements.
Short-‐term Returns
Our Energy Saving Checklist for this room
Catch cold and lukewarm water in a basin or container while waiting for water to heat
up to use for watering plants, hygiene, etc.
o Run dishwashers or other water intensive appliances when there is a full load.
Whenever possible, use cold or mildly warmed water.
o Turning water taps off while soaping up hands or body while washing, brushing
teeth, etc.
o In restrooms, checking for leaky toilets is as simple as adding food coloring to the
look to see if any of the dye has leaked into the bowl.
Low flow faucet heads
o Easy to install, relatively inexpensive
o Simple methods for measuring the pressure of a given household to determine
the cost effectiveness of installing low pressure faucets, showerheads, etc., such
as the stopwatch and gallon bucket method, can easily be demonstrated by staff
or visually portrayed with creative signage or in literature.
34 | C r a w f o r d H o u s e a n d W o o d s D e m o n s t r a t i o n S i t e
The EPA has a water conservation program called WaterSense, which provides many
useful ideas for water savings that can be demonstrated at the Crawford House.
Long-‐term Returns
Greywater recycling systems are also referred to in the outdoor living section.
o Can be installed in any plumbing situation, kitchen, bathroom, utility room, etc.
o These systems can be as complex and involved as entire house systems
connected to underground cisterns which catch, and in some cases treat,
greywater for uses including washing cars, watering plants and lawns, etc.;
conversely, these systems can be as simple as wash basins in bathrooms that run
into the upper portion of toilets, using greywater for flushing, instead of fresh
clean water.
35 | C r a w f o r d H o u s e a n d W o o d s D e m o n s t r a t i o n S i t e
Vendor Display Room:
The Vendor Display Room will be the final room of the Crawford House Demonstration site
tour. As visitors are guided through the facility they will be introduced to numerous
technologies and concepts. The Vendor Display Room will be the area of the house where
additional information, take-‐home brochures, and interactive displays are provided.
Figure 22: Current state of proposed vendor display space. Photo courtesy of Sarah Van Frank.
Figure 23: Sample images of displays for vendor display space. Source:
36 | C r a w f o r d H o u s e a n d W o o d s D e m o n s t r a t i o n S i t e
The interactive displays that our team is proposing will allow visitors to virtually create a home
energy audit and calculate their carbon footprint. A dashboard system is the device that would
allow for software programs to be utilized by visitors.
There are technologies that do not fall into specific era rooms within the house; therefore, our
team is suggesting that these technologies be presented to visitors in this room. These
technologies may include solar power and voltage control. As new technologies are invented,
this will be the place for those technologies to be introduced to the public. Our team envisions
this room as a rotating space of educational materials and displays.
Solar Power
Photovoltaic panels (Figure 24) and solar collectors (Figure 25)
work in different ways but are both excellent energy
technologies that could be incorporated into the Crawford
House. Photovoltaic (PV) is a technology that transforms
sunlight into electricity (Orange Coat,
N.D.). Solar collectors are solar
thermal units that contain a circulating
n
indoor water tank that can then be used as the primary source of hot
water for the house (Orange Coat, N.D.). A back up electrical or
natural gas energy source would be required in the event that
demand for hot water increases beyond the capabilities of the solar
collectors. Both PV panels and solar collectors can be installed on the
roof or elsewhere on site. Of course maximum sun exposure will dictate the ideal location for
these solar power devices.
Voltage Control Guard
Figure 24: Photovoltaic panels. Source: www.heliotropics.com, 2010.
Figure 25: Solar collectors. Source: www.superlist.com, 2010.
37 | C r a w f o r d H o u s e a n d W o o d s D e m o n s t r a t i o n S i t e
The voltage control guard (VCG) (Figure 26) is a simple low cost
energy management device that helps reduce electrical
consumption. The VCG reuses normally wasted electricity by
current to return to household appliances or equipment, this in
turn decreases demand for unneeded power. The average
kilowatt-‐hour consumption is reduced 8-‐15% by installing the
Voltage Control Guard (SEO, 2009).
Furthermore, the Vendor Display Room will be an area in which to showcase local vendors and
their services to the community. We would recommend that the Green Committee enlist
several of its members to form a subcommittee that would focus on contacting the vendors
from our list, in addition to others, to garner support and interest as the project continues to
unfold.
Local Contractor List
An important objective of this project is to emphasize the talent and labor of local craftsman
and professionals wherever possible. This is in keeping with our desire to help encourage the
local economic circle, one of many benefits we hope that the Crawford House can have for
Hamilton and the Greater Butler County region. Local entrepreneurs were interviewed
concerning their capabilities and specialties, as well as their experience and/or willingness to
use alternative, green and/or sustainable materials. Although the majority of those
interviewed had no major experience with such materials/methods and none specifically
expressed willingness to work with them. Many went further and expressed deep interest in
the topic as well as the project, and said that given current market trends, specializing in this
niche was something they had or would consider.
Figure 26: Image of voltage control guard. Source: www.saveenergyohio.com, 2009.
38 | C r a w f o r d H o u s e a n d W o o d s D e m o n s t r a t i o n S i t e
We realize that contracts are awarded in a competitive bidding process and some services
cannot be provided locally, but we feel that a list of locally supportive vendors is an important
resource for the Crawford House project. (Appendix C).
39 | C r a w f o r d H o u s e a n d W o o d s D e m o n s t r a t i o n S i t e
Outdoor Living
Figure 27: Current state of Crawford House. Photo courtesy of Sarah Van Frank.
Figure 28: Artist rendition of Crawford House. Painting courtesy of Eleanor O'Leary.
40 | C r a w f o r d H o u s e a n d W o o d s D e m o n s t r a t i o n S i t e
In keeping with the objectives of the Crawford House and Woods Demonstration Site proposal,
the outdoor areas of the property, especially those in close proximity to the home, should be
utilized to their maximum potential in ways that are practical, money saving and consistent
with quality outdoor living. Activities such as, but not limited to gardening, environmental
stewardship, composting, and rainwater harvesting, can be demonstrated to visitors and
patrons in this area near the basement entrance and running along the side of the house.
Visitors and patrons will be directed through this outdoor showcase as part of the proposed
pattern of site visitor traffic (Appendix A).
Gardening Activities
Urban Gardens The outdoor space at the Crawford House and Woods is a large forested area with great
potential. Urban gardens and community gardens are two of the possible activities for the
property that the team has identified. Urban gardening
and distribution of food and other products through intensive plan cultivation and animal
s on the Crawford House
and Woods property are to be demonstration gardens. The area that we have designated as
the outdoor living space will partially be utilized for the urban garden demonstration.
Urban gardens and agriculture have been a part of the American community since World War II
and the Victory Gardens. Victory Gardens were promoted during the war as a way for
American citizens on the home front to help the war effort. Families were encouraged to use
the space on their land to produce enough vegetables for their family, creating a sustainable
and affordable food production system (Thone, 1943). American families were provided
instructions and advice for producing a successful garden. After the war the Victory Gardens
became less common. As the Crawford House and Woods site is reintroduced back into the
community the concept of Victory Gardens or urban gardens can be introduced as well.
The city of Denver, Colorado has established a program for urban gardens, Denver Urban
Gardens, DUG. The mission of the organization is to connect urban gardens throughout the
41 | C r a w f o r d H o u s e a n d W o o d s D e m o n s t r a t i o n S i t e
Denver metro area (www.dug.org, 2010). The organization also has five areas of technical
expertise that they continue to provide to the community. These concepts and support are
what the Crawford House and Woods site can be to the Hamilton community. The areas of
expertise provided are; (1) Securing sustainable land for gardens, (2) Designing and building
gardens, (3) Supporting garden organization, leadership, outreach and maintenance, (4)
Utilizing gardens as extraordinary places for learning and healthy living, and (5) Linking gardens
with related local food system projects and policy (www.dug.org, 2010). The Crawford
demonstration site can be the start garden for promoting and teaching community members.
Community Gardens As this facility is designed to have visitors guided through the demonstration, residents of
Hamilton will be able to learn techniques and methods of gardening from these
demonstrations. Community gardens are to be available to community members to cultivate
and maintain themselves. These gardens are also going to be available to the school systems
for potential use as instructional areas for their students.
Three successful community/urban garden examples are provided below to illustrate the
potential for the demonstration site.
Involving Local Youth in Sustainable Gardening
In recent years there has been a movement in Cleveland, Ohio to rezone the use of vacant lots
within the city corporation limits. Community members have formed an organization that has a
plan for Re-‐Imaging a More Sustainable Cleveland. The goal is to create urban gardens that are
maintained by the residents of that neighborhood. The produce grown in the gardens will
42 | C r a w f o r d H o u s e a n d W o o d s D e m o n s t r a t i o n S i t e
The vacant land in the city limits is owned
by the Cleveland Land Bank. Currently 7%
of the land owned by this organization is
vacant land and is about 3,300 acres. The
Cleveland Land Bank leases out the land to
members of the community who are going
to use it for an urban garden. One
particular example to discuss that
demonstrates great community involved,
which is an objective of the Crawford House
demonstration site, is Sharon Glaspie and
the Garden Boyz. She leased land from the Cleveland Land Bank and recruited six
neighborhood teenage boys to work in the garden. Her focus was on inter-‐city boys as most
are likely to be involved with gang related activities. Thus far, the garden has been a success.
The Garden Boyz have learned not only gardening techniques, but live skills as well. They are
paid for their work, $50 a week, and are allowed to take some of the produce from the garden
to their families. These young men are taking an active role in their community and family.
The funding for these gardens is subsidized in different ways. The Garden Boyz garden has
received a grant from the Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP) from the federal
government. The amount received was $15,600. From the total funding received from the NSP
by the City of Cleveland Community Development Department, $500,000 is being utilized for
these projects. Funding for other gardens has come from in-‐kind technical services from the
U.S. EPA.
Currently the Greater Cleveland area has 225 community gardens with two dozen farmers
markets that the produce from these gardens is being sold at (American City, 2010). The model
that the City of Cleveland has and is implementing is an effective model to follow and the
beginnings of community gardens can start at the demonstration site in Hamilton, Ohio.
Figure 29: Garden Boyz of Cleveland. Source: www.americancity.org, 2010.
43 | C r a w f o r d H o u s e a n d W o o d s D e m o n s t r a t i o n S i t e
Opportunities For the Entire Community
The City of Seattle is home to over 70 individual community gardens, totaling over 20 acres of
land and serving 3800 gardeners, as of 2008. The city-‐wide phenomenon, called P-‐Patches, can
be traced back to the early 1970s. The name is often mistakenly taken to mean pea patch, in
reference to the popular vegetable, when it is in fact a shortening of the name of one of the
-‐roots
movement, it has since been incorporated into
has brought in a more stable, organized and uniform character to the network of food
production plots.
average of 40% of their crops, at least once a month, which in 2009 totaled 12.4 tons of food
for programs for the needy (Seattle Dept. of Neighborhoods, 2010). All production is strictly
organic and sustained by community volunteers and volunteer coordinators who are required
to donate a minimum of 8 hours of labor a year. Most report exceeding that minimum and in
official website, 77% of participants report having no gardening space where they live and 55%
live in multi-‐family dwellings. A 2007 survey by the P-‐Patch Program states that 55% of
participants fall into the low-‐income category.
Fees for reserving plots, which have been limited in size due to demand, are kept low, with a 10
by 40 foot plot costing $67 a year. Low income gardeners can take advantage of plot fee
assistance programs. The various plots are owned by multiple holders including private
landowners, the Seattle Housing Authority, the P-‐Patch Trust and King County. The P-‐Patch
Trust, originally called Friends of the P-‐Patch, is a 501 (c) 3 organization began in the 1990s to
manage the funds of the program, develop fund raisers and found the low-‐income assistance
programs associated with the community plots.
44 | C r a w f o r d H o u s e a n d W o o d s D e m o n s t r a t i o n S i t e
Altho
produce to local food banks, and could serve as a seed and model for other gardens in the city
implications for application in the City of Hamilton due to the large number of multi-‐family
dwellings and general limited space for gardening
A Sustainable Showcase Home
As previously mentioned, the Cliffs Cottage on the campus of Furman University is a sustainable
showcase home. On the site is an acre organic garden where over 80 varieties of vegetables,
fruits, herbs and flowers are grown. This being an organic garden, chemicals (pesticides,
herbicides, insecticides or fungicides) are used for the enhancement of the plants (Cliffs
Cottage, 2010). The ability to no use chemical is made possible by a rotation of plants that are
grown in the garden. The rotation plan is four or five years and by implementing the health of
the soil is greatly improved. Another ingredient to an organic garden is the incorporation of
compost.
Although this is not a community garden with volunteers maintaining it, it is used as a
demonstration area for visitors of the facility. The sustainability coordinator for Cliffs Cottage is
responsible for the management and care of the organic garden.
The urban demonstration garden for the Crawford House site will not measure an acre in size,
but similar techniques should be utilized. The site will contain a composting system. The
options for composting systems will be discussed later, but the compost can be use for the
demonstration garden. A rotation of crops and the discussion of why the rotation is important
is recommended as a point of interest for the tour.
45 | C r a w f o r d H o u s e a n d W o o d s D e m o n s t r a t i o n S i t e
Master Gardeners partnership:
The Ohio State Extension Master Gardener Program is a statewide program for community
members to be trained in different aspects of horticultural. The program has been in existence
3,000 active members of the program in over 60 of the 88 counties in Ohio. Members come
from urban, suburban and rural regions of the state.
The mission of the Master Gardeners as stated on their website is
and develops the leadership abilities of, volunteers who in turn enable others to improve the
quality of their lives by enhancing their home and community environments through
A partnership with the
Master Gardeners has been established. Dan Remley is our contact with the Master Gardeners.
Composting
Compost is an organic material that can be used as soil and/or plant nutrition. The act of
composting provides individuals with an opportunity to reduce the amount of waste that is
produce at their homes, and to reuse that compost for the improvement of a garden.
Just as checklists were provided to visitors for energy technology, they will be receive similar
information about the benefits of composting (USEPA, 2010).
Decrease the amount of waster that goes into our landfills. 26% of the waster that
enters this system is yard waste and food residuals.
Capture and destroy 99.6 percent of industrial volatile organic chemicals (VOCs) in
contaminated air.
Reduce or eliminate the need for chemical fertilizers. This would be in accordance with
the Cliffs Cottage organic gardening practices.
Remove solids, oil, grease, and heavy metals from stormwater runoff.
Methane is a greenhouse gas that is generated in landfills when organic material decays.
This gas is 21 times more potent in its heat trapping capabilities than carbon dioxide. If
46 | C r a w f o r d H o u s e a n d W o o d s D e m o n s t r a t i o n S i t e
organic material is put into compost this will decrease the amount of methane gas that
is produced in landfills.
Types of composting systems:
There are several different types of composting systems. All of these types can be displayed
either hands-‐on or pictorially at the demonstration site.
Onsite composting (backyard)
o This type of composting will likely be the most effective and plausible for the
visitors of the demonstration site. Visitors can compost their own waste from
their homes, reducing the amount of waste that is disposed of in the landfill.
Vermicomposting
o This method of composting requires red worms or field worms that are placed in
the composting bins with the organic matter. The worms are able to break down
the material into effective compost called castings. These castings can then be
used on gardens. The worm bins are relatively easy to construct and work well
for residents with not a lot of property space.
In-‐vessel composting
o The final method of composting requires a drum, concrete-‐lined trench or silo
that can be closed and contained. Organic material is placed inside the container
and then the environmental conditions of the container are monitored. The
right temperature, moisture level, and aeration levels are needed to create the
compost. This type of composting is often more on the city or neighborhood
level, not at the single residence level.
(USEPA, 2010)
Not all of these systems should be utilized at the demonstration site, but should be displayed
for the visitors to see the options.
47 | C r a w f o r d H o u s e a n d W o o d s D e m o n s t r a t i o n S i t e
Rainwater Harvesting Systems
One of the most important aspects of low impact design is the concept of rainwater harvesting.
Rain harvesting devices range from manufactured devices such as cisterns and rain barrels to
natural rain gardens designed to manage both the volume and quality of water moving through
specific sites. All three of the aforementioned methods for managing rainwater are applicable
to the Crawford House and are recommended for both practical and demonstrational use.
Cisterns represent the largest investment in capital, labor and
space, but also boast the largest benefit in terms of volume of
water. Cisterns are generally, though not exclusively, placed
underground and hold water from rooftops and associated
structures. Cisterns can be
manufactured from
concrete, stone,
plastic, metal and
other non-‐porous materials. Water from these and other
sources are directed into the cistern through varying systems
of pipes, gutters and catchments. Once collected, the water
is most often used for irrigation, although when coupled with
treatment equipment can be used for household uses as
well. The latter use was very common in the not-‐so-‐distant
past and many rural homes still use this type of system to
supply their non-‐drinking water. It is possible that many older homes in Hamilton and the
surrounding area still employ cisterns, or have unused cisterns remaining on their properties.
We recommend using cisterns as both an educational model and a practical, working system
within the Crawford House.
Rain barrels are more or less a smaller, less resource intensive version of a cistern. The most
common use of rain barrel collected water is gardening. Multiple rain barrels are often used at
Figure 30: Cistern illustration. Source: www.oak-barrel.com
Figure 31: Rain barrel. Source: www.cityofws.org, 2010.
48 | C r a w f o r d H o u s e a n d W o o d s D e m o n s t r a t i o n S i t e
single sites for maximum effectiveness. They are most often linked directly to a home or
alleviate excess pressure and/or backup. It is the recommendation of our team that at least
one, preferably more, rain barrels are put to use for demonstrational and practical use in the
outdoor living area of the Crawford House.
Rain gardens are a popular LID tool for managing stormwater run-‐off and are most effective
when placed in areas near non-‐porous surface areas or in low-‐lying portions of properties.
When effectively designed and placed they can mitigate problems associated with excess run-‐
off, such as excess volumes of water in sewers and in low-‐lying areas, and are often by nature,
low maintenance. Another attractive feature of rain gardens is that they are conducive to the
use of native species, which has value in and of itself in regard to achieving the objectives of the
Crawford House and Woods Demonstration Site. We recommend strategic placement of rain
gardens throughout the property, both in close and distant proximity to the home itself. They
will not only have practical benefits, but will enhance our environmental stewardship objective.
49 | C r a w f o r d H o u s e a n d W o o d s D e m o n s t r a t i o n S i t e
Section III
50 | C r a w f o r d H o u s e a n d W o o d s D e m o n s t r a t i o n S i t e
Renovation of the Crawford House In the previous sections our concern was the use of the Crawford House as a demonstration
and educational center. This section will focus on the reconstruction of the Crawford House
itself and our attention is organized into two general categories: building envelope technologies
and building systems. The first category of envelope technologies is concerned with structural
integrity, moisture control, heat transfer and the safe and sustainable use of materials. In order
to make the house safe, comfortable and dry, these objectives must be addressed. The second
category encompasses the building systems, which are mainly concerned with the distribution
of heat and air-‐conditioning, electricity and water. The information below has been provided as
a guide for the Green Committee as it explores options for restoration and renovation.
Building Envelope Technologies
Corrective Measures and Necessary Upgrades
Because the house is in disrepair and has not had any upgrades in decades, many corrective
measures will have to be taken in order to bring the house into compliance with local and state
codes. Visitors may not necessarily see these upgrades but they are critical for the success of
the Crawford House project. Building envelope components that will be discussed include:
roofing, flooring, walls, foundation, brick/ chimney repairs, and the presence of mold and
asbestos.
Roofing
A new roof is a top priority because the roof must be weather-‐tight in order to protect
everything within, and a structural engineer must be consulted in order to identify all structural
issues relating to the roof. Aside from moisture control and structural issues, we identify
options within this section that address heat absorption issues, otherwise known as heat island
effect. We suggest the use of a surface material that has high solar reflective qualities which
help to reduce heat island effects. Heat island effects can be detrimental to plant and wildlife
habitats that are sensitive to higher temperatures and may not thrive in unnaturally hot areas
51 | C r a w f o r d H o u s e a n d W o o d s D e m o n s t r a t i o n S i t e
(U.S. Green Building Council, 2003). Light colored asphalt shingles are probably the most cost
effective alternative and this type of system has life spans in the 18-‐30 year range depending on
the environment and the level of ventilation provided within the attic space. A disadvantage to
asphalt shingles is their relatively low reflectance capabilities. Even white asphalt shingles only
are about 30% reflective (U.S. Green Building Council, 2003).
Metal roofs coated with high albedo (reflective)
products (Figure 32) offer much better reflectance,
typically in the 60-‐80% range. Metal roof coatings
contain transparent polymeric materials and white
pigments which make them opaque and reflective
(U.S. Green Building Council, 2003). Although metal
roofing will cost more, 2-‐3 times that of asphalt
shingles, it has a much longer life span. A well cared
for metal roof will last 40-‐60 years and beyond (Metal
Roof Alliance, 2007). The ENERGY STAR® website (www.energystar.gov) is a great resource for
compliant roofing materials and products. The Cool Roof Rating Council Web Site
(www.coolroofs.org) is also a good source (U.S. Green Building Council, 2003).
Adding attic insulation is an effective way to reduce heat transfer and increase the energy
efficiency of the Crawford House. We recommend installing soffit vents and air channel along
the underside of the roof (between rafters) and then installing denim batt insulation below the
air channel. Denim batt insulation is a sustainable alternative to other types of batt insulation
due to the use of post consumer recycled content. An R-‐value of at least R-‐49 is advisable for
Southwestern Ohio (Litchfield, 2005).
Flooring
Practicing good sustainability often means working with what you have. Flooring provides a
good example of this. The wood floors within the Crawford House are old but appear to have a
Figure 32: Metal roof coating. Source: www.88connection.com, 2010.
52 | C r a w f o r d H o u s e a n d W o o d s D e m o n s t r a t i o n S i t e
lot of life left in them. By refinishing and reusing these floors, additional energy and materials
are not needed to manufacture ship and install new floors. Another benefit to this approach is
that the old floors will not have to be discarded into a landfill. A visual inspection reveals that
often
expected of a house this age. But in some rare instances such as when the structural integrity
of the floor is in question or when damage has occurred due to termite or rot, it may be
necessary to pull the floors up so that corrections can be made to the structural components
beneath. An inspection of structural members such as joists, beams and posts should be
conducted for each room in order to determine if any repairs will be necessary. In the event
that floor boards need to be removed in order to complete repairs; a program of salvage and
reuse should be considered. If it is not possible to reuse the existing wood floor, flooring made
from rapidly renewable materials such as cork or bamboo will provide sustainable options that
will be in keeping with the theme of the house.
The flooring in the kitchen will have to be
substantially modified in order to accommodate new
plumbing. Therefore we recommend that the 150
feet of renewable cork flooring, which has been
donated to the Crawford House project by the IES
students, be used in that space. Cork floors work well
in kitchens because they are more comfortable to
stand on for long periods and they are unaffected by liquid spills (Figure 33).
Walls
Reducing heat transfer through exterior walls will be critical for increasing the energy efficiency
of the Crawford House. Because this house was constructed with solid masonry walls, it will
not be possible to retrofit the wall interiors with insulation. Instead, an effective retrofit can be
achieved by adding insulation on the interior side of the walls. This can be accomplished by
s on top
Figure 33: Sample cork flooring. Source: www.homerepair.about.com, 2010.
53 | C r a w f o r d H o u s e a n d W o o d s D e m o n s t r a t i o n S i t e
of the insulation board. Another layer of rigid foam insulation board should be added between
the furring strips. This will achieve a combined R-‐value of 13.8. (See insulation technologies
section for parlor room).
If it is determined that new non load-‐bearing, non-‐
insulated interior walls are to be constructed in the
house, a sustainable form of wall construction can be
accomplished through the use of mortar and pop cans
(Figure 34). The cans offer structural support and the
mortar holds it all together. This type of construction
helps the environment by using discarded cans that
would otherwise end up in a land fill or be sent to a
recycling center. If sent to a landfill the aluminum is not available for many years if ever and
thus the energy and non-‐renewable materials used to make the cans are wasted. Recycling the
cans is preferable to sending them to a landfill, but even recycling has its drawbacks because
this process requires the use of fossil fuels to reconstitute the post consumer aluminum and
make it ready for new production. By using the cans in their post consumer form, they serve a
useful purpose and help reduce the environmental burden. This type of wall construction
offers great visual appeal because it easily allows walls to be curved and the surface can be
finished in a variety of textures. In fact, the wall itself can serve as a piece of art through the
use of painting and imprinting.
Foundation
Old foundations can actually shift over time. Large cracks or wall displacement is evidence of
this. If foundation damage has occurred, it will be necessary to have a structural engineer and
possibly a soils engineer assess the situation in order to determine the best course for
corrective action (Litchfield, 2005). Old foundations, especially those constructed of stone,
tend to leak; in fact this was encouraged in old basements in order to reduce water pressure
behind the walls. If an inspection reveals that the basement does leak, it will be important to
Figure 34: Pop can wall construction. Source: www.blogmagazine.com, 2010.
54 | C r a w f o r d H o u s e a n d W o o d s D e m o n s t r a t i o n S i t e
fix or manage the infiltration of water into the basement. It will also be important to control
the growth of mold. If visitors are taken into the basement in order to see the mechanical
systems for the house, it will be important to keep this environment as dry and healthy as
possible. There are many methods for correcting wet basement issues; the most effective is
probably the use of a sump pump coupled with perimeter drains. This method effectively
manages water by draining everything to a central low point where it is then pumped outside.
An effective means of managing the water, once outside, is to direct the water into a rain
garden or bio-‐retention feature.
Tuck Pointing of Brick and Chimney Repairs
It will be important to first assess the condition of the brick and stone exterior of the house in
order to determine the extent of the repairs needed. Over time mortar joints become loose or
fall out, thus creating a void for water to enter. It will be necessary to clear out loose and
crumbling mortar, so that repointing of new mortar can take place (Litchfield, 2005). Once all
brickwork is complete, The Green Committee will have to decide if they want to strip off the
remaining paint and
Many homeowners struggle with what to do about chimneys in old houses. Each of the
chimneys within the house should first be inspected in order to determine the extent of
damage. When chimneys fall into disrepair they often allow water to leak into the house,
whereas heated and cooled air leak out. Pests and rodents also like to find refuge in chimneys.
Once the extent of disrepair has been assessed, it must be determined which, if any, chimneys
demonstration house, chances are that none of the chimneys will be used for burning wood.
going to be used for wood burning, it is important to make them water and air tight.
55 | C r a w f o r d H o u s e a n d W o o d s D e m o n s t r a t i o n S i t e
It may be beneficial for visitors to see how to effectively manage their old chimneys through
the use of interpretive signage and displays. The vendor display area might benefit by
efficient option for homeowners who want to enjoy the benefits of a fireplace without the
higher maintenance associated with wood burning.
Building System Technologies
Corrective Measures and Necessary Upgrades
The following building system components have been listed for consideration: electrical,
plumbing, heating and air conditioning
Electrical Upgrades
Due to the age of the Crawford House, the electrical service and wiring will likely have to be
upgraded. In addition to meeting electrical code, it is recommended that a voltage guard be
installed. These units are affordable ($300-‐$400) and the average kilowatt-‐hour consumption is
reduced 8-‐15% by installing one of these devices (SEO, 2009).
Plumbing Upgrades
Because of the age of the house and the multiple retrofits
that the house has undergone, a somewhat mismatched
plumbing system may be in place. In 1835 the house had
no indoor plumbing, but in the late 19th century or early
20th, it likely was fitted with cast iron plumbing. During
out for office space, it may have received copper and polyvinyl chloride (PVC) piping upgrades.
We recommend that a licensed plumber or building inspector do a complete plumbing
inspection.
is to say when the walls have been stripped down to the studs. This will allow inspectors to
complete a more thorough inspection. Inspectors will be able to determine whether or not cast
Figure 35: PEX tubing. Source: www.360winnett.com, 2010.
56 | C r a w f o r d H o u s e a n d W o o d s D e m o n s t r a t i o n S i t e
iron lines need to be replaced and also whether there are any lead pipes or pipes containing
lead solder. If lead is found within plumbing, it advisable to have the water tested to ensure
The addition of new plumbing will be required for the kitchen area (Age of Awareness). This is
a space that will now require a water supply, drainage and venting. If solar collectors are
installed as a
also be required. Modern water supply plumbing typically consists of copper with lead free
solder. A relatively new product that is gaining in popularity is the use of cross-‐linked
polyethylene (PEX) (Figure 35) (Litchfield, 2005). This is a flexible tubing system that costs
roughly the same amount as copper. Some experts predict that this newer system will take
over copper eventually (Litchfield, 2005). Advantages of this system include: quick installation,
safe to install (no open flame required), can withstand high water temperatures, quiet
operation and is easy to repair. Disadvantages include: the use of proprietary tools and
connectors for each different brand of tubing, and that it cannot withstand open flame and
therefore cannot be directly connected to gas or oil fired water heaters and must be kept away
from flue pipes, recessed lights, and other sources of excessive heat (Litchfield, 2005).
Heating and Air-‐conditioning
A new high efficiency furnace is recommended for the Crawford house. A geothermal heating
system is among the most efficient and sustainable heating systems on the market today.
Geothermal systems are twice as efficient as conventional air-‐conditioning units and are
approximately 50 percent more efficient than the most efficient natural gas furnaces
(Alexander, 2010). These systems do not require noisy fans, thereby allowing the units to be
placed indoors. Because geothermal units are kept out of the elements, they have much
longer life spans. Some of the earliest systems were installed nearly 30 years ago and are still in
operation (Alexander, 2010).
57 | C r a w f o r d H o u s e a n d W o o d s D e m o n s t r a t i o n S i t e
Although initially more costly to install; a typical system for a 2,000 square foot house will cost
between $15,000-‐$20,000, the break even period is somewhat brief;. A study by the Air Force
Institute of Technology produced results showing a seven to eight year payback period
(Alexander, 2010). An effective distribution method for delivering heat throughout the house
would be through the use of radiant floor heat. The flexible hydronic tubing can be installed
along the underside of the floors via basement access.
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)/ Universal Accessibility
A category not classified under building system or envelope technologies, but no less important
includes accessibility. In order to make the Crawford House accessible for all visitors, it will
have to be modified to include features that will allow all visitors to experience the house.
Some of these features include but are not limited to: ramps, staircase handrails, grab bars
(bathrooms), signage, accessible parking spaces, accessible routes to the house, etc.
Conclusions
The preceding section highlighted those envelope and system components that will have to be
corrected or upgraded in order to comply with local and state building codes. These corrective
measures may or may not be presented as part of visitor tours, but are nonetheless critical for
the success of the project. Because of the age and state of disrepair that the house is in, a wide
range of components will have to be considered for upgrades. These upgrades will be critical in
order to make the house warm, safe and dry. Because many of the building recommendations
mentioned require specialized skills and knowledge, it is critical that industry professionals be
consulted. In addition, each of these recommendations should if possible, be directly tied to
the LEED points found in Appendix D.
58 | C r a w f o r d H o u s e a n d W o o d s D e m o n s t r a t i o n S i t e
Section IV
59 | C r a w f o r d H o u s e a n d W o o d s D e m o n s t r a t i o n S i t e
Community Involvement Recommendations This portion of our document is dedicated to recommendations that our team has developed in
the areas of educational outreach, local participation and resource
involvement. These areas provide mechanisms for garnering support within the local
community in order to make this project possible. It becomes apparent from the various topics
that involvement is multi-‐faceted and it is our hope that the Green Committee will continue to
further develop other applicable areas as the project unfolds.
Educational Outreach The City of Hamilton, Ohio located between the Cincinnati and Dayton metropolitan areas is
an important regional center of business, culture, industry, and government (City of Hamilton,
OH: Introduction). Since the Vision 2020 plan for Hamilton is to move the city into the 21st
century and to provide a better image, especially by improving education, the Crawford House
plans to build a demonstration center in order to supply the local community with more tools
to learn about environmental stewardship and continuous living. In the previous sections we
described the types of general education that would be provided to adult visitors. It is also
important that attention be paid to the school age children in the area. The Hamilton City
School District is comprised of three high schools, two middle schools, thirteen elementary
schools and one alternative high school. The total student population is approximately 9,000
(Hamilton City School District, 2007). (See Appendix B for a complete list of the Hamilton City
Schools).
5338 in Kindergarten Grade 6
1283 in the 3 middle schools
2463 in grades 9-‐12
60 | C r a w f o r d H o u s e a n d W o o d s D e m o n s t r a t i o n S i t e
We believe the Crawford house project will be a way to diversify school curricula since the
closest environmental program they have is a one-‐semester Ecology course at Hamilton High
School. Students will be invited to visit and do a tour at the Crawford house.
We recommend that curricula plans be prepared to incorporate the Crawford house project
into schools for appropriate grade levels to fit with the Ohio State teaching standards.
It is also important to recognize that Hamilton has a diverse population with many people of
many different ethnic backgrounds. One of the ethnicities we are focusing on is the Hispanic
population. The reason why our team is focusing on Hispanics is because it is now considered
the fastest growing minority in the United States (US Census Bureau, 2006). According to the
22.4 percent since 2000 and more than doubled since 1980. In 2008, Ohio
estimated 11,485,910, in which 250,000 were Latinos, which constitutes 2.3 percent of the
er County Ohio is about 357,888, of which
more than 4,312 are Hispanics (Furmon et al, 2006).
Given a significance presence of Hispanics in Butler County Ohio, we recommend bilingual signs
in the Crawford house. Signs could be one of the most important elements of understanding.
This will increase the number of visitors in the facility and make it more accessible to Spanish
speakers.
Local Participation
Demonstrating the economic benefits of working with local suppliers and professionals is an
important aspect of our proposal. It is the expressed aim of the Hamilton Green Committee,
and our design team, to include local and regional inputs whenever doing so would be viable.
By creating a node of interaction between local property owners and professionals we hope to
directly stimulate the local economic circle th
61 | C r a w f o r d H o u s e a n d W o o d s D e m o n s t r a t i o n S i t e
secondarily by providing a venue that connects local property owners and professionals for
future projects elsewhere in the community.
Many of the displays, literature, programs and infrastructural elements of the site will highlight
the input of local professionals. These devices will provide information for local and regional
businesses equipped to handle the types of building innovations demonstrated at the site, as
well as the use of vendor donations including volunteer labor and materials.
In developing our proposal we conducted sixteen telephone interviews with a cross-‐section of
contractors with Hamilton addresses. The list is included in Appendix C. In these interviews we
innovative materials and technologies, their willingness to do so in the future and their interest
in learning more about these innovations. Although the interview process did not meet the
requirements of a statistically viable survey, it did provide us with an informal but useful sense
of the current state of environmentally responsible construction practices in the Hamilton area.
Sustainable development may not currently be at the forefront of regional construction
While none of the general
contractors listed in local directories specifically advertised themselves as LEED experienced
environmental awareness, all of those interviewed acknowledged this growing niche and
the sphere of this growing
trend.
work that entailed using alternative, environmentally progressive materials or methods. While
a gap between direct experience with these practices and the seeming willingness of local
professionals to employ them is apparent, it is heartening to note the interest that the
contractors in question expressed in using them.
Other types of local participation has included and should continue to include donations of
labor from The Hamilton High School carpentry class, under Green Committee member Tim
62 | C r a w f o r d H o u s e a n d W o o d s D e m o n s t r a t i o n S i t e
Carpenter (who has expressed interest in further work at the site, as have some of the students
themselves) and other volunteer sources throughout the community. Visitor and patron
feedback is also an important aspect of the local participation component of our proposal.
More about that will be addressed in other parts of this document.
Resource Support
The team had the task of identifying resources to tap for this project. Prior to seeking funding,
the project needed to be connected with a non-‐profit organization that would foster the
donations. The Hamilton Parks and Recreation Division has a volunteer group, Friends of the
Parks, that is designated a 501 (c) (3) organization. The Green Committee selected this
organization, because the Crawford House is situated on property owned by the Parks and
Recreation Division.
Resources for this project have been divided into three areas:
1. Financial support
2. In-‐kind contributions (volunteer time)
3. Donation support
Financial Support
We indentified various funding sources for this project in the form of grants, loans, and
donations. The grants that have been identified are from all levels of government, federal,
state and local. Available loans have been identified through the federal and state
governments. The community is an important source of donations, in fact, we are able to start
with the list of donors from the 1967 reintroduction of the Crawford House.
There have been numerous partners on this project, one especially important group was Dr.
that had the assignment to write grant
proposals specific to the Crawford House and Woods Demonstration site. One example of
these proposals was:
63 | C r a w f o r d H o u s e a n d W o o d s D e m o n s t r a t i o n S i t e
Ohio EPA's Ohio Environmental Education Fund (OEEF) -‐ Grant for:
o An energy modeling software, and training of at least two employees on the
software system.
o Wages for those employees to help visitors work the software, and to create a
large pre-‐set portfolio of common home designs and common building
technologies and materials
o At least two computer stations dedicated to this purpose
o Instructional signage/literature
Our team has been able to identify a number of grants, in which proposals can be submitted for
selection. Due to the uniqueness of this project, grants can come from all levels of government,
as well as from private organizations. At the federal level the United States Department of
Health and Human Services manages the website for all federal grants and loans, Grants.gov.
State Grant Opportunities:
The State of Ohio has grant and loan programs appropriate for this project. Different
departments within the state government have been identified. Ohio Energy Office,
Department of Development, and Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) are ones that the
team has focused. Under ODNR, three grants opportunities have been presented:
NatureWorks, Clean Ohio Trails Fund and Recreational Trails Program. These grants are
focused on the exterior of the property.
Name of Grant/Organization: Ohio Environmental Education Fund
Description of grant and requirements: The Fund has two types of grants, the General Grant
Program and the Mini Grant Program. The General Grant program provides grants for
programs and organizations that enhance the awareness and understanding of environmental
issues affecting Ohio. The focus of this grant proposal can be on the environmental workshops
that will be held at the demonstration site. Workshops such as gardening, window quilts, tours
through the site for school children, etc. are all programs that will increase the environmental
64 | C r a w f o r d H o u s e a n d W o o d s D e m o n s t r a t i o n S i t e
knowledge base of the community. The Mini Grant Program provides funding for programs
requesting up to $5,000 and projects that have a 12-‐month period timeline.
Potential funding amount: General Grant Program amounts awarded up to $50,000. Mini Grant
Program amounts awarded from $500 to $5,000.
Deadline: Two cycles of applications and deadlines, January 15 and July 15.
Website for additional information: http://www.epa.ohio.gov/oeef/oeefoverview.aspx
Name of Grant/Organization: NatureWorks Grants
Description of grant and requirements: The grants are funded by the Ohio Parks and Natural
Resources Bond Issue. The goal is to provide funding for the acquisition, development and
rehabilitation of recreational areas. Provided on the grants websites is a procedural guide that
details the process of the grant, the application process and the steps for using the funding
once received by the organization. Although the local government already owns the Crawford
House and Woods property, the redevelopment of the woods would be ideal for a grant of this
type.
Potential funding amount: Butler County was awarded $55,600 in total grant monies for Round
17 of this grant.
Deadline: Application deadline is February 1.
Website for additional information:
http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/default/tabid/11089/Default.aspx
Name of Grant/Organization: Advanced Energy Fund
Description of grant and requirements: This fund provides incentives for non-‐residential and
residential sites to insult new energy efficient technologies. Depending on the status of the
Crawford House, whether the committee decides on a permanent residence or just a touring
facility will depend on the type of incentives available to the project. Solar Electric Systems,
Wind Electric Systems, and Solar Thermal Systems are the areas eligible for incentives. All
projects receiving funding have to complete in 12 months.
65 | C r a w f o r d H o u s e a n d W o o d s D e m o n s t r a t i o n S i t e
Potential funding amount: Depending on the incentive, the max amount could be $150,000 to
$200,000.
Deadline: Applications are accepted starting May 1.
Website for additional information: http://www.odod.state.oh.us/cdd/oee/elfgrant.htm
Name of Grant/Organization: Clean Ohio Fund Recreational Trails
Description of grant and requirements: Similar to the NatureWorks grant, this grant is intended
for the improvement of outdoor recreation space. Political divisions of the state and non-‐profit
organizations are eligible. All projects must be complete in 18 months.
Potential funding amount: 6.25 million dollars is available annually; 75% matching from State of
Ohio and 25% from the organization receiving the grant. The 25% matching can be land, labor,
and materials.
Deadline: Application deadline is February 1 of each year.
Website for additional information: http://clean.ohio.gov/RecreationalTrails/Default.htm
Local Grant Opportunities:
Name of Grant/Organization: Hamilton Community Foundation Capital Grants
Description of grant and requirements: The grants provided by the HCF are typically for building
construction, renovation and specialized equipment. Grant decisions are based on community
need, as well. Evaluating factors for these proposals are quality and effectiveness of the project
and level of coordination with other organizations are among some of these factors.
Potential funding amount: A recent grant awarded was for $40,000.
Deadline: The application deadline is May 1.
Website for additional information: http://www.hamiltonfoundation.org/grantsCapital.asp
Private Grant Opportunities:
Name of Grant/Organization: The Walmart Foundation State Giving Program
Description of grant and requirements: This foundation is providing grant opportunities to
projects and programs that have a focus of one of these four areas, education, job skills
66 | C r a w f o r d H o u s e a n d W o o d s D e m o n s t r a t i o n S i t e
training, health, and/or environmental sustainability. Organizations receiving the funding have
to be a 501(c)(3) with the Internal Revenue Service. The Environmental Sustainability focus
area will be the concentration for this project. This area of the grant is for programs or
initiatives designed to assist and promote individuals to become environmental stewards of the
land. Past examples have been the creation of parks, recycling programs, outdoor classrooms,
and environmental education projects.
Potential funding amount: A recent grant awarded was for $40,000.
Deadline: The application process if from February 1 August 20, 2010.
Website for additional information: http://walmartstores.com/CommunityGiving/8168.aspx
Name of Grant/Organization: Build-‐A-‐Bear Workshop Foundation
Description of grant and requirements: This foundation is providing grant opportunities
programs that have a focus in four different areas. The Crawford House and Woods
Demonstration Site project can focus in two different areas of this project: programs or
organizations providing direct support for the environment or environmental education; and
programs or organizations providing direct support for children and the environment.
Additionally, the grants are divided into two groups, Individual Project grants and Organization
Program grants. The Individual Project grants would best suite this project, as these grants are
funding for a one-‐time purchase of materials or equipment. Organizations receiving the
funding have to be a 501(c)(3) with the Internal Revenue Service.
Potential funding amount: $1,000 to $10,000. The average amount awarded is
Deadline: Applications are accepted on an ongoing basis
Website for additional information:
http://www.buildabear.com/aboutus/community/Grants/2010BABWFoundationGrantGuidelin
es.pdf
Sponsorship:
The team has identified a number of facilities similar to the plan for the Crawford House. One
in particular, and mentioned previously in this report, is Cliffs Cottage at Furman University.
67 | C r a w f o r d H o u s e a n d W o o d s D e m o n s t r a t i o n S i t e
The demonstration site in Greenville, South Carolina has a partner system, similar to what had
been proposed for the Crawford house, as a source of funding. There are also five principle
partners on the project, Southern Living magazine, Duke Energy, Furman University, The Cliffs
Communities, and Band of America.
The partnership with companies such as those listed above would provide the Crawford House
project with additional funding and increased publicity. Proposed partners could be:
Ohio Magazine
The Utilities Department and AEP Ohio
Miami University Oxford and Hamilton
A similar structure of who the partners are to the Cliffs Cottage site would be a model to follow.
In kind contributions
This funding source will be of great importance to the project. As an initial purpose of the site,
requested by the Green Committee, they wanted local vendors to have a place to display their
services and products to the community. The material contributions made by vendors to the
project would warrant appropriate signage to recognize aid. The contacts with local vendors
have been discussed within the local vendor portion of this document.
Volunteer time
No project is possible without the assistance from volunteers. This project is no different. All
parties involved have been on a volunteer basis and will continue to be. One example of the
volunteer time that has been donated was from the Hamilton High School Carpentry class. Tim
Carpenter, the Hamilton High Carpentry class teacher, was invited to a Green Committee
meeting and agreed to volunteer his time and his students time to the project, where needed.
The volunteer time would be a great opportunity for his students to apply the skills they have
learned to a real world project.
68 | C r a w f o r d H o u s e a n d W o o d s D e m o n s t r a t i o n S i t e
December 4th, 2009 was designated as the Crawford House Clean Up Day. The roof of the
house was in visible disrepair. Tim Carpenter was able to acquire a tarp, large enough to cover
the majority of the roof structure, to help weather proof for the winter. He and his students
spent two hours at the clean up attaching the tarp to the roof and assisting with demolition of
an interior wall.
Tim Carpenter, Hamilton High Teacher
The project has already created great interest. The Green Committee will continue to create
these partnerships with community groups, ensuring the continued volunteer time the project
will need.
Donation Support
Donor list from 1967:
The Crawford House and Woods were reintroduced to the community in 1967. The restoration
efforts were made possible by the community donations that were given to the project. A
framed poster was found at the site that listing all of the donors from 1967.
The Green Committee and our team decided to investigate if any individuals on the list are still
living and if so, if they are still in the Hamilton area. This project was taken on by the Green
Committee during the spring of 2010. As a team, and after discussion with the Committee, we
felt it would be a task that they could begin work on without our report being complete. Ms.
Kathy Klink volunteered to author a letter to persons on that list. This effort was part of the
marketing efforts that the Committee has begun establishing.
69 | C r a w f o r d H o u s e a n d W o o d s D e m o n s t r a t i o n S i t e
Although this list may not generate monetary funds, it can generate other sources of funding
that have been identified above, in-‐kind contributions. We would recommend that the Green
Committee continue to pursue contact with the individuals from the original 1967 donor list.
Sponsorship:
The team has identified a number of facilities similar to the plan for the Crawford House. One
in particular, and mentioned previously in this report, is Cliffs Cottage at Furman University.
The demonstration site in Greenville, South Carolina has a partner system, similar to what had
been proposed for the Crawford house, as a source of funding. There are also five principle
partners on the project, Southern Living magazine, Duke Energy, Furman University, The Cliffs
Communities, and Band of America.
The partnership with companies such as those listed above would provide the Crawford House
project with additional funding and increased publicity. Partners could include:
Ohio Magazine
The Utilities Department and AEP Ohio
Miami University Oxford and Hamilton
A similar structure of who the partners are to the Cliffs Cottage site would be a model to follow.
70 | C r a w f o r d H o u s e a n d W o o d s D e m o n s t r a t i o n S i t e
Section V
71 | C r a w f o r d H o u s e a n d W o o d s D e m o n s t r a t i o n S i t e
Monitoring and Evaluation To gauge the overall educational benefits of this demonstration site it will be helpful to develop
a method of evaluating both the amount of knowledge that visitors leave the site with and the
impact that it has made on them in terms of lifestyle changes. Educational interactions that
focus on small group sizes or one on one instruction are generally known to facilitate greater
learning and behavioral changes and demonstration sites provide such interactions. Rather
than simply provide written information to the public, they showcase the knowledge in a more
direct and tangible format. Little research has been done in this area dealing specifically with
demonstration sites. One recent exception is the development of a monitoring and evaluation
survey by the Utah House in Kaysville, Utah. This site is similar to the Crawford House in that it
is a showcase for displaying alternative and sustainable building techniques and focuses on the
following primary areas: sustainable use of resources, energy and water conservation, healthy
indoor air and universal design (Dietz et al., 2009). The facility is open to the public and hosts a
myriad of educational programs, workshops and tours in addition to renting out the facility for
events. The survey work that they have done provides an excellent example of a way in which
the effectiveness of a demonstration facility can be measured. We have outlined the key
methodology steps below and have included the full text of the article in Appendix E for further
review.
The Utah House collected their survey participants through a guest list for visitors to the house.
This could easily be incorporated into the Crawford House and allow not only for survey data
collection, but also for networking and as a social tool to distribute news and events about the
house. From this list, they mailed paper surveys to the guests with reply envelopes and the
incentive of gift certificate drawings for those who replied. This method of survey
disbursement does have its advantages, namely that you are not excluding any of your target
population by using a medium that everyone has access to. Online surveys provide another
method of disbursement that should not be overlooked, however. While it does have the
possibility to skew your data to those visitors who have Internet access, it can also provide a
much simpler and more cost effective method for obtaining your data. Websites such as Survey
72 | C r a w f o r d H o u s e a n d W o o d s D e m o n s t r a t i o n S i t e
Monkey can provide online forums for conducting the surveys and would eliminate the paper
waste and monetary resources needed to distribute hard copies of the surveys via the US Postal
Service. Both methods have their separate benefits and should be examined carefully before
the survey development. Timing of the surveys will be an important area to focus on, as well.
Developing a timetable of visitors and then administering their surveys at pre-‐scheduled
intervals would be beneficial. Surveys should be conducted when enough time has passed that
the visitors have been able to implement, or not implement, any environmental actions. If
administered directly after their tour, then the data would possibly be skewed heavily towards
in the future
behavioral changes, it would be prudent to allow a specified amount of time to pass.
There were three key areas that the Utah House focused on in their research. The surveys were
divided into how the participants felt regarding the topics that were presented at the house,
the extent to which the visit changed their level of knowledge regarding the material, and any
behavioral changes that developed as a result of their visit. Aside from these primary areas of
information, basic demographic questions were also asked, including specifics regarding their
visit. Surveys could also provide an excellent tool for requesting feedback from the visitors
about their experience. In addition to acquiring knowledge regarding the take away benefits of
the demonstration site, the Crawford House would also be able to assess the general flow of
operations and abilities of the tour guides. It could provide a wealth of customer service
information in order to keep the site running smoothly and effectively.
In organizing the survey responses, Lichert-‐type scales provide nominal data that allow for
statistical computations to determine significant relationships between variables. Examples of
such scales include:
73 | C r a w f o r d H o u s e a n d W o o d s D e m o n s t r a t i o n S i t e
1 = Not important at all 1 = Poor
2 = Somewhat important 2 = Fair
3 = Important 3 = Good
4 = Very important 4 = Very good
5 = Extremely important 5 = Excellent
These formats would be beneficial for assessing perceptions and learning within the site. In
order to assess behavioral changes, the Utah House facility formatted the actions into a matrix,
before
because of what I learned in the future
2009). Figure 36 displays results from the Utah House listing the target actions that they
included in their surveys and the percentage of individuals who engaged in them.
Figure 36: Percent of respondents performing target actions, and future intention (Dietz et al., 2009)
74 | C r a w f o r d H o u s e a n d W o o d s D e m o n s t r a t i o n S i t e
Within the study, Dietz et al. discovered that the high cost items were more likely to be
implemented in the future as opposed to lower cost and easier changes that took place more
immediately, as would be expected. One of the more interesting results of the surveys was
that individuals who participated in larger group tours were less likely to engage in pro-‐
environmental behaviors after their visit. It is difficult to determine the cause of this
relationship, but it is an important characteristic to note. Smaller tours are possibly more
advantageous to affecting behavioral changes in the guests that come through the house.
Limiting group sizes and having multiple tour guides might be especially beneficial to school
groups, which tend to have much larger numbers.
The development of a monitoring and evaluation survey could be an extremely important tool
to determining the behavioral changes brought about by the Crawford House Demonstration
Site. It will assist in the development of programs and tours that are discovered to be the most
effective, which will ultimately make the house a better catalyst for the environmental
movement. Surveys certainly have their drawbacks in terms of the reliability of self-‐reported
behaviors, but they provide a much need
75 | C r a w f o r d H o u s e a n d W o o d s D e m o n s t r a t i o n S i t e
Section VI
76 | C r a w f o r d H o u s e a n d W o o d s D e m o n s t r a t i o n S i t e
Conclusion
This document is the culmination of effort and collaboration between the
Hamilton Green Committee and a team of authors who drafted this proposal as part of their
coursework in program. It creates a plan
of action and working list of ideas for the committee in their creation of a demonstration site
designed to foster environmental stewardship, bolster civic pride and connect the city and
plans for a more sustainable future.
The Crawford House team used the following three objectives to guide us in our endeavor:
provide a plan for program development of Crawford House, suggest building
recommendations specific to the Crawford House and educate the community about
environmental stewardship and continuous living. These objectives often overlap, as in the
case of structural improvement recommendations that simultaneously create educational
displays, i.e. improved wall insulation and roofing. However, each objective required different
approaches and methodologies.
The use of site visits, research into existing programs and new home technologies, as well as
local contractor interviews helped us develop a plan for a site that incorporates many elements
similar to existing sites and programs, but unique in its overall composition. One of the unique
aspects of the plan is its ability to demonstrate both investment in technological improvements
that fit the needs of home and property owners as well as low-‐cost techniques and behavioral
methods pertinent to renters and lower income communities.
The historic Crawford House on Hancock Avenue has been a working family homestead and
community meeting place, surrounded by green space, for generations. Due to years of use and
deterioration, the home had come to the point of imminent demolition. The home received a
respite when it was chosen among several historic venues to become the envisioned
demonstration site. Factors including historic relevance, imbedded energy and the chance to
77 | C r a w f o r d H o u s e a n d W o o d s D e m o n s t r a t i o n S i t e
deemed important in a community with a large proportion of aging homes and buildings.
As a team we look forward to seeing the plan implemented and have high hopes that our work
incorporate the Crawford House and Woods Demonstration site into local curricula are one of
the most important potential legacies of this endeavor. It is our belief that the individual nature
of this project and its potential for adaptability will allow it to stand out amongst similar
ventures and remain relevant well into the future.
78 | C r a w f o r d H o u s e a n d W o o d s D e m o n s t r a t i o n S i t e
References
Baker, Janeth. (2008). 2008-‐2009 School Year Report Card., 1-‐8.
Blount, Jim. Butler county place names. The Lane Libraries. http://www.lanepl.org/Blount/jbplaces/index.html (accessed 04/02, 2010).
Bouldin, John Thomas Martinez. The book of knowledge for homeowners, ed. Frances E. Kuecker.
Carter, Margaret. The history of home lighting. [cited 3/4 2010]. Available from http://www.ehow.com/about_5397793_history-‐home-‐lighting.html (accessed March 4, 2010).
Chiras, Dan. 2007. Simple energy saving strategies. The Mother Earth News. Summer.
City of hamilton, OH: Introduction. (4/21/2009). , July/22/2010, from http://www.hamilton-‐city.org/index.aspx?page=381
Dawson, Brian, and Matt Spannagle. (2009). The Complete Guide to Climate Change. Routledge, New York, NY press, 150.
Denver Urban Gardens. About denver urban gardens. www.dug.org (accessed April 20, 2010).
Dietz, Michael E., Jayne Mulford, and Kerry Case. The utah house: An effective educational tool and catalyst for behavior change? Building and Environment 44, 2009). : 1707.
Fuerbacher, Barbara., Avery Joan. (2007). Hamilton City School District Plan for English language learners., 1-‐8.
Furmon, C., Jolivette, G., & and Donald Dixon. (2006). The ohio medicaid report SFY 2006 statewide and county dataButler County, Department of Job and Family Services.
Gaylord Nelson and Earth Day. Introduction: the earth day story and gaylord nelson. www.nelsonearthday.net. (accessed March 24, 2010).
Green Living Tips. Energy saving windows. http://www.greenlivingtips.com/articles/377/1/Energy-‐saving-‐windows.html (accessed April 2, 2010).
Great Schools. Retrieved March, 2010, from http://www.greatschools.org/ohio/hamilton/Hamilton-‐City-‐School-‐District/
79 | C r a w f o r d H o u s e a n d W o o d s D e m o n s t r a t i o n S i t e
Heiser, Alta Harvey. 1957. Butler county history: Contract between john woods and john M. McKinsie concerning the hill farm on mason rd. Hamilton Journal, May 30, 1957.
Heiser, Alta Harvey. 1955. Butler county history: Issue handbills in august, 1833, informing public of plans for dividing section owned by capt. john cleves symmes into valuable farms. Hamilton Journal, March 24, 1955.
Heiser, Alta Harvey. 1938. Crop rotation followed by early farmers. Hamilton Journal, May 21, 1938.
Heiser, Alta Harvey. 1936. Much of john cleves symmes estate lies within the city limits of hamilton. Hamilton Journal, July 18, 1936.
Hucka, Judy. 2006. The History of the P-‐Patch Program-‐Part 1: 1973-‐1983-‐Picardo, Passion and People: 30 Years of P-‐Patching. Seattle, WA: Seattle Department of Neighborhoods. On-‐line. Available from internet, http://www.cityofseattle.net/neighborhoods/ppatch/history.htm, accessed March 2010.
Larry, Jeff. 2009. Passive cooling methods make a comeback at the cottage. President lincoln's cottage blog. (accessed 3/28/10).
Litchfield, Michael W. 2005. Renovation, ed. Neil Soderstrom. 3rd ed. Newtown, CT: The Taunton Press.
Metal Roof Alliance. Investment grade roofing. 2007 [cited April/3 2010]. Available from http://www.metalroofing.com/v2/content/about/faq.cfm (accessed April 3, 2010).
National Fenestration Rating Council. (2005). The Facts About Windows and Heat Loss.
Ohio County Profiles. Retrieved November, 2009, from http://www.development.ohio.gov/research/files/s0/Butler.pdf
Ohio Hispanic Americans. (2006). Retrieved November, 2009, from http://ochla.ohio.gov/ASSETS/2C5891541DC84268AA07781EE81EB1FD/Ohio%20Hispanic%20Americans%20-‐ODOD.pdf
Orange Coat. The cliffs cottage at furman: Southern living's sustainable showcase home. [cited April/3 2010]. Available from http://www.furmancliffscottage.com/ (accessed April 3, 2010).
Pearson, Chris. 2007. A brief history of heating and cooling america's homes. Sustainable dwelling.
Phillips, Derek. (2004) Daylighting: natural light in architecture. Architectural Press.
80 | C r a w f o r d H o u s e a n d W o o d s D e m o n s t r a t i o n S i t e
Reysa, Gary. 2009. 8 easy projects for instant energy savings. The Mother Earth News. Summer.
Seattle Department of Neighborhoods. P-‐patch community gardens growing communities. http://www.seattle.gov/neighborhoods/ppatch/ (accessed April 19, 2010).
SEO. Save energy ohio. 2009 [cited April 3, 2010 2010]. Available from http://www.saveenergyohio.com (accessed April 3, 2010).
Stearns, Peter. 2001. Consumerism in world history: the global transformation of desire. . Routledge, New York, NY press, 13.
Thone, Frank. 1943. Victory Gardens. Science News Letter, March 20, 1943.
United States Department of Energy. Energy efficiency and renewable energy. United States Department of Energy. http://www.eere.energy.gov/topics/homes.html (accessed February 23, 2010).
U.S. Green Building Council. 2003. LEED reference package for new construction and major renovations. Reference Manual ed. Vol. 2.1. Washington D.C.: .
USEPA, DOE. Energy star. 2010 [cited April 3, 2010 2010]. Available from http://www.energystar.gov (accessed April 3, 2010).
Whole building environmental design. 2007 [cited 12/3/09 2010]. Available from http://www.ecobalance.org (accessed 3/31/10).
Appendix A Crawford House Master Floor Plan
Appendix B Hamilton City School Listings
Hamilton City School District Elementary Schools Directory
School Name Address No. of Students
Adams Elementary School 450 S F St
Hamilton, OH 45013
(513) 887-5065
District: Hamilton City School District
512 students
Buchanan Elementary School 263 Hancock Ave
Hamilton, OH 45011
(513) 887-5070
District: Hamilton City School District
310 students
Cleveland Elementary School 900 Brookwood Ave
Hamilton, OH 45013
(513) 887-5075
District: Hamilton City School District
407 students
Fillmore Elementary School 1125 Main St
Hamilton, OH 45013
(513) 887-5085
District: Hamilton City School Distric
659 students
Grant Elementary School 415 Campbell Dr
Hamilton, OH 45011
153 students
(513) 887-5100
District: Hamilton City School District
Harrison Elementary School 250 Knightsbridge Dr
Hamilton, OH 45011
(513) 887-5105
District: Hamilton City School District
378 students
Hayes Elementary School 901 Hoadley Ave
Hamilton, OH 45015
(513) 887-5110
District: Hamilton City School District
321 students
Jefferson Elementary School 526 S 8th St
Hamilton, OH 45011
(513) 887-5120
District: Hamilton City School District
519 students
Lincoln Elementary School 701 N E St
Hamilton, OH 45013
(513) 887-5130
District: Hamilton City School District
499 students
Madison Elementary School 250 N 9th St
Hamilton, OH 45011
(513) 887-5140
District: Hamilton City School
257 students
District
Monroe Elementary School 951 Carriage Hill Ln
Hamilton, OH 45013
(513) 887-5150
District: Hamilton City School District
272 students
Pierce Elementary School 2890 Freeman Ave
Hamilton, OH 45015
(513) 887-5160
District: Hamilton City School District
414 students
Source: www.greatschools.org
Hamilton City School District Middle Schools Directory
School Name
Address No. of Students
Garfield Middle School 250 N Fair Ave
Hamilton, OH 45011
(513) 887-5035
District: Hamilton City School District
694 students
Wilson Middle School 714 Eaton Ave
Hamilton, OH 45013
(513) 887-5170
District: Hamilton City School
552 students
District
Source: www.greatschools.org
Hamilton City School District High Schools Directory
School Name Address No. of Students
Hamilton Education Center High
931 Westview Ave
Hamilton, OH 45013
(513) 887-5197
District: Hamilton City School District
270 students
Hamilton Freshman School High
2260 NW Washington Blvd.
Hamilton, OH 45013
District: Hamilton City School District
713 students
Hamilton High School 1165 Eaton Ave
Hamilton, OH 45013
(513) 868-7700
District: Hamilton City School District
1598 students
Source: www.greatschools.org
Appendix C Local Participation List
Local Contractor Contacts Calihan Custom Cabinets and Countertops 2350 Pleasant Avenue, Hamilton, Ohio/(513) 868-‐3500 Designers and manufacturers of custom cabinetry and millwork. Willing and able to use alternative materials, including low VOC adhesives. Complete Remodeling Company 7876 Bridgewater Lane, Hamilton, Ohio/(513) 868-‐3550 Bathroom, kitchen and new addition specialists. Degeorge Ceilings and Flooring Company 3675 Symmes Rd., Hamilton, Ohio/(513) 860-‐2600 Tile, metallic materials, suspended and dome ceilings, and vinyl windows. Siegel Remodeling and Design 9016 Sutton Place, Hamilton, Ohio/(513) 874-‐7636 Custom contractors specializing in bathrooms, kitchens and new additions. Also do exterior work such as decking, siding, etc. Will work with alternative materials. Design specialists. LE Scofield Window and Door Company 315 S. B Street, Hamilton, Ohio/(513) 523-‐8932 Specialists in exterior work, e.g. enclosures, aluminum roofing and columns, awnings, windows, doors and entrances. Offer alternative roofing materials, including high albedo roofing colors and material. Millcraft Drywall 3000 Nichols Rd., Hamilton, Ohio/(513) 523-‐8886 General interior remodeling. Raliegh Drywall 4012 Schroeder Dr., Hamilton, Ohio/(513) 860-‐1819 General interior remodeling. Tilford RJ 530 Millville-‐Oxford Rd., Hamilton, Ohio/(513) 863-‐6674 General home remodeling and repair; interiors and exteriors. Reeves Restoration 199 Augspurger Ave., Hamilton, Ohio/(513) 863-‐7225
Residential repair and remodeling specialists. Expert water damage repair, including mold mitigation.
A-‐1 All Phase Complete Remodeling 49 Irene Ave., Hamilton, Ohio/(513) 895-‐3325 General purpose remodeling and home repair.
Guild Properties LLC -‐
General contractors. Brockhaus Schalk Drywall LTD 5009 Cincinnati-‐Brookville Rd., Hamilton, Ohio/(513) 738-‐4252 Interior remodeling specialists. Also do windows, doors and painting. Will work with low VOC paints and water based finishes, etc. Radin Electric 1329 Pater Ave., Hamilton, Ohio/(513) 844-‐6833 General purpose electrical contracting for both residential and commercial needs. All Seasons Dry Wall 63 Whitaker Ave., Hamilton, Ohio/(513) 887-‐0282 General interior remodeling and repair.
Appendix D LEED Point Summary
LEED
Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED), is an internationally recognized
green building certification system created by the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC).
Under LEED, buildings accumulate points for things such as saving energy, having
accessible mass transit, and mitigating storm water runoff. Once the points are tallied,
the building earns a LEED rating (usgbc.org). There are four possible categories that a
green building could achieve: Certified 40 to 49 points, Silver 50 to 59 points, Gold 60 to
79 points, platinum 80 to 110 points. The higher the tally, the more sustainable a
building is.
On February 25th 2010, The Green Committee and IES graduate students from Miami
University attended to the Eco-‐Charrette for the Crawford House project led by the
Architect and Director of Sustainability, Allison E. Beer. The summary identified the LEED
criteria, which we will seek to meet in the project. The total number of points sought is
60, which, if earned, would result in a Gold LEED rating.
LEED points possible/available for implementing new techniques in major renovation
Possible lead categories and points that are associated with the Outliving living area of
the demonstration site are:
Outdoor Living
Sustainable Sites o Credit 4.2 Alternative Transportation Bicycle Storage and Changing
Rooms-‐ Possible points 1 o Credit 4.3 Alternative Transportation Low-‐Emitting and Fuel-‐Efficient
Vehicles-‐ Possible points 3
o Credit 4.4 Alternative Transportation Parking Capacity-‐ Possible points 2 o Credit 5.1 Site Development Protect or Restore Habit-‐ Possible points 1 o Credit 5.2 Site Development Maximize Open Space-‐ Possible points 1 o Credit 6.1 Stormwater Design Quantity Control Possible points 1 o Credit 6.2 Stormwater Design Quality Control Possible points 1
Water Efficiency o Credit 1 Water Efficient Landscaping Possible points 2 to 4
o Credit 3 Water Use Reduction Possible points 2 to 4 The Green Committee set a goal of 40% reduction, which would
have an associated point value of 4.
Innovation and Design Process o Credit 1.1 Community Gardens Possible points 1
These credits are designed for the specific projects and techniques that are being used at the demonstration site. To receive points that projects/techniques would have to be approved before points would be assigned.
Regional Priority Credits o Credit 1.1 Possible points 1
Innovation and Design Process o Credit 1.1 Innovation in Design: Specific Title-‐ Possible points 1
Building Recommendations
Sustainable Sites o Credit 7.2 Heat Island Effect Roof-‐ Possible points 1
Energy and Atmosphere Prereq 1 Fundamental Commissioning of Building Energy Systems
Prereq 2 Minimum Energy Performance Prereq 3 Fundamental Refrigerant Management o Credit 1 Optimize Energy Performance-‐ Possible points 1 to 19 o Credit 2 On-‐Site Renewable Energy-‐ Possible points 1 to 7 o Credit 3 Enhanced Commissioning-‐ Possible Points 2
The credit was iden o Credit 4 Enhanced Refrigerant Management-‐ Possible points 2 o Credit 5 Measurement and Verification-‐ Possible points 3 o Credit 6 Green Power-‐ Possible points 2
Materials and Resources Prereq 1 Storage and Collection of Recycles o Credit 1.1Building Reuse Maintain Existing Walls, Floors, and Roof-‐
Possible points 1 to 3 o Credit 1.1 Building Reuse Maintain 50% of Interior Non-‐Structural
Elements-‐ Possible Points 1 o Credit 2 Construction Waste Management-‐ Possible Points 1 to 2 o Credit 3 Materials Reuse
o Credit 4 Recycled Content-‐ Possible Points 1 to 2 o Credit 5 Regional Materials-‐ Possible Points 1 to 2 o Credit 7 Certified Wood-‐ Possible Points 1
Indoor Environmental Quality Prereq 1 Minimum Indoor Air Quality Performance Prereq 2 Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) Control o Credit 1 Outdoor Air Delivery Monitoring-‐ Possible Points 1
o Credit 3.1 Construction IAQ Management Plan-‐ During Construction
Possible Points 1 o Credit 3.2 Construction IAQ Management Plan-‐Before Occupancy-‐
Possible Points 1
o Credit 4.1 Low-‐Emitting Materials-‐Adhesives and Sealants-‐ Possible Points 1
o Credit 4.2 Low-‐Emitting Materials-‐Plaints and Coatings-‐ Possible Points 1 o Credit 4.3 Low-‐Emitting Materials-‐Flooring Systems-‐ Possible Points 1
o Credit 4.4 Low-‐Emitting Materials-‐Composite Wood and Agrifiber Products-‐ Possible Points 1
o Credit 5 Indoor Chemical and Pollutants Source Control-‐ Possible Points 1
o Credit 6.1 Controllability of Systems-‐Lighting-‐ Possible Points 1 o Credit 7.1 Thermal Comfort-‐ Design-‐ Possible Points 1 o Credit 7.2 Thermal Comfort-‐ Verification-‐ Possible Points 1 o Credit 8.2 Daylight and Views-‐Views-‐ Possible Points 1
Innovation and Design Process o Credit 1.2 Innovation in Design: Specific Title-‐ Possible points 1 o Credit 1.3 Innovation in Design: Specific Title-‐ Possible points 1 o Credit 1.4 Innovation in Design: Specific Title-‐ Possible points 1 o Credit 1.5 Innovation in Design: Specific Title-‐ Possible points 1 o Credit 2 LEED Accredited Professional-‐ Possible points 1
Regional Priority Credits o Credit 1.1 Regional Priority: Specific Credit-‐ Possible points 1 o Credit 1.2 Regional Priority: Specific Credit-‐ Possible points 1 o Credit 1.3 Regional Priority: Specific Credit-‐ Possible points 1 o Credit 1.4 Regional Priority: Specific Credit-‐ Possible points 1
Total Possible Points: GOLD 60 to 79 points
If the Crawford House is able to achieve its goal of gold LEED status from the USGBC, it
would be quite an accomplishment for the project. The number of LEED certified
buildings is on the rise both locally and nationally, with higher status levels such as gold
ed
project would attract visitors from around the state. It would enhance the image of the
community and provide patrons with information that they could potentially
incorporate into their own home designs.
Appendix E Utah House Monitoring Program
The Utah House: An effective educational tool and catalyst forbehavior change?
Michael E. Dietz a,*, Jayne Mulford b, Kerry Case c
aDepartment of Environment and Society, Utah State University, 5215 Old Main Hill, Logan, UT 84322-5215, USAbCooperative Extension, Utah State University, 920 South, 50 West, Kaysville, UT 84037, USAc Environmental Center, Westminster College, 1840 South, 1300 East, Salt Lake City, UT 84105, USA
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:Received 30 September 2008Received in revised form13 November 2008Accepted 14 November 2008
Keywords:Utah HouseDemonstration housePro-environmental behavior
a b s t r a c t
The Utah House in Kaysville, UT is a demonstration facility built and operated by Utah State UniversityCooperative Extension. It is designed to showcase alternative building techniques, with a focus onsustainable use of resources, energy and water conservation, healthy indoor air, and universal design.A survey was sent to visitors of the Utah House in January 2008. Questions were asked about knowledgeof key topics, and engagement in selected pro-environmental behaviors, to determine if their visit to thehouse influenced their level of knowledge or more importantly, their behavior. Significant increases inself-reported knowledge were found for all five topic areas, indicating that the house was an effectiveeducational tool. Differences in self-reported knowledge before the visit were found for gender andeducational level, but mean ratings for all groups were essentially the same after the visit. Althoughmany visitors had already engaged in at least one pro-environmental behavior before coming to thehouse (83%), a large percentage (63%) made at least one change as a result of their visit, indicating thatthe house was a catalyst for behavior change. Although several interesting correlations were foundbetween knowledge, feelings and behavior, no strong predictor of behavior emerged.
! 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Although the environmental movement has ebbed and flowedsince the 1960s, environmental concern or the ‘‘green movement’’has crept its way into mainstream advertising, marketing andmanufacturing. Public concern for environmental issues is high, yetpeople often cling to outdated or incorrect myths about environ-mental issues [1]. Recent increases in energy and food prices havemade hybrid cars and energy-efficient homes common topics ofdiscussion in the media.
Early environmental education efforts were largely based on themodel that environmental knowledge led to increased environ-mental awareness, which then led to pro-environmental behaviors[2]. It has been noted that this linear progression is over simplified,and increases in knowledge and/or awareness do not necessarilylead to behavior changes [2,3]. However, a recent study onadolescents has shown a significant positive relationship betweenattitudes, knowledge and behavior [4]. Demographic variables suchas education level have been found to be positively, but weaklycorrelated with pro-environmental behaviors [5,6]. Age has been
found to be positively [5,7–9] and negatively [10] associated withpro-environmental behaviors. It seems that in general, women tendto engage more in pro-environmental behaviors than men [4,11–13], although this is not always the case [10]. Interestingly, althoughwomen tend to be the ones engaging in these behaviors more often,men have been found to have higher levels of knowledge onspecific environmental issues [4,11]. This anomaly highlights thefact the increased knowledge does not necessarily lead to increasedaction. Engagement in pro-environmental behavior is increasinglyseen to be a result of complex interactions between internal factorssuch as knowledge, desire to act, emotional responses, and externalfactors such as economic constraints, convenience of the activity,and social pressures [12,14–16]. Other variables, such as an internallocus of control (an individual’s perception that their actions arelikely to ‘make a difference’) have also been found to explainwhether an individual engages in pro-environmental behavior [15].
Numerous tools and techniques have been utilized to provideenvironmental education to the public. For example, in the field ofstormwater education, television, radio, and local newspapers wereamong the most effective tools for getting residents to recalla stormwater message, while brochures and handouts were amongthe least effective [17]. However, even among those techniqueswhich are effective in inducing awareness of a program or recall ofcertain facts, very few take the next step and examine the impacts
* Corresponding author. Tel.: !1 435 797 3313.E-mail addresses: [email protected] (M.E. Dietz), [email protected]
(J. Mulford), [email protected] (K. Case).
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Building and Environment
journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/bui ldenv
0360-1323/$ – see front matter ! 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2008.11.007
Building and Environment 44 (2009) 1707–1713
of the educational program on behavior changes in participants.Intensive education efforts, such as one-on-one direct interactionare often thought to be the most effective way to provide educationand induce behavior change. However, this approach is time andmoney intensive, and high success rates are not guaranteed, as wasfound in one study in Connecticut [18].
The use of a demonstration facility has been advocated as aneffective tool to bring about change in consumer choices andconstruction practices [19]. Several such buildings were con-structed in Finland in the 1990s. The Utah House (http://theutahhouse.org) is Utah State University Extension’s sustainablebuilding demonstration and education center. The Utah Houseconcept was based on that of the Florida Learning House (http://sarasota.extension.ufl.edu/FHLC/FlaHouseHome.shtml). The UtahHouse opened to the public in 2003, with a mission to demonstrate,educate, and empower the public about new ways of buildinghomes and creating landscapes that promote energy efficiency,water conservation, healthy indoor environments, the sustainableuse of all resources, and universal design principles. Universaldesign assumes that the facility should be built in such as way as toconsider the needs of the widest array of users, including people ofall ages, sizes, and abilities. Located at the Utah Botanical Center inKaysville, the Utah House is open to the public for tours, work-shops, youth groups, field trips, and event rental. More than 10,000adults and children attended educational programs at the house in2007.
The Utah House has numerous demonstrations of sustainablebuilding techniques, energy andwater conservation, healthy indoorair, and universal design:
Building materials:
! Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) lumber was used for framingmaterials.
! Engineered trusses were used to reduce waste.! During construction, the majority of waste was recycled orreused.
! Concrete for the frost walls and slab had high recycled fly-ashcontent.
! Windowsills and bathroom counters were made of a locallymade, recycled glass product.
! Straw bale and Insulated Concrete Forms were used for walls inthe classroom.
! Reclaimed lumber was used for an arbor in the yard.
Energy conservation:
! Passive solar design was utilized.! 1 kW solar photovoltaic system and solar hot water heatingwere installed.
! Ground source heating/cooling system was installed in theclassroom.
! Light tubes and clerestory windows were installed throughoutthe house to increase natural light.
! Energy Star! appliances were installed, and the entire homewas Energy Star certified.
! Compact fluorescent lighting was used throughout.
Water conservation:
! Low-flow toilets, faucets and washing machine were installed.! Roof runoff is stored in a 6500-gallon cistern and is used toflush a toilet in the house.
! Point-of-use water heater was installed in the kitchen toreduce wasted water when waiting for hot water.
! Drought tolerant plants and a high efficiency irrigation systemwere used for landscaped areas.
Healthy indoor air:
! Low- or no-VOC paints were used throughout.! Durable, formaldehyde-free materials were chosen for kitchenworking surfaces.
! High-efficiency furnace filters were installed.! Recycled carpet materials were installed.
Universal design:
! An open floor plan was utilized to allow movement for peoplewith varying ability levels to move easily through the house.
! Thresholds on doors were avoided, and doors were wideenough to accommodate wheelchairs.
! Main bedroom has emergency access to the outside, spaciousclosets, smoke detector/visual strobe (for those with impairedhearing).
The use of a demonstration facility as an educational tool andcatalyst for behavior change has not been evaluated in the litera-ture. Thousands of adults and children have participated in theeducational programs at the Utah House. To date, a preliminaryonline survey of visitors indicated increases in self-reportedknowledge, and some changes in lifestyle at home. The objectivesof this survey were to perform a more comprehensive analysis todetermine if the Utah House is an effective educational tool, andalso to assess in greater detail what changes visitors have made intheir personal lives as a result of their visit to the Utah House.
2. Methods
2.1. Survey
Visitors to the Utah House have the option to leave contactinformation as they are leaving the site, so that they can be notifiedof upcoming events at the house. The key topics that are addressedduring tours at the house are overall sustainability, energy effi-ciency, water conservation, healthy indoor air, and universal design.In January 2008, a three-page survey (see supplemental informa-tion) was sent out to 1636 people who had left their contactinformation at the house in the last three years. The survey wassent with a cover letter and a business reply envelope. The coverletter explained the survey, and offered a random drawing forprizes (three $50 gift certificates) for those who returned it.
The surveywas designed to assess several areas: how people feelabout the key topics, did their visit to the Utah House change theirlevel of knowledge about each topic, and what have they actuallydone in response to their visit. Other questions were also includedsuch as what types of programs each person participated inwhile atthe house (workshop, self-guided tour, guided individual tour,K-12/youth activity, small group tour, larger group tour), how longago they visited, how often they visit, why they haven’t done thelisted actions (too busy, too expensive, need more information,don’t feel it’s that important, other), and demographic information(gender, age group, home ownership status, ethnicity, and educa-tion level). A number of other questions were included to obtaininformation for the house and the educational programs, such astheir rating of our teaching, types of workshops they would attendin the future, and other suggestions.
The questions about knowledge change and how they feel aboutthe topics were posed with the five key topic areas, and a five-pointscale. For the knowledge questions, 1 was labeled ‘‘Nothing’’, and 5was labeled ‘‘A lot’’. For the question on how important each topicis, each number had a label (1 " Not important at all,2 " Somewhat important, 3 " Important, 4 " Very important,5 " Extremely important). The rating of our teaching also had
M.E. Dietz et al. / Building and Environment 44 (2009) 1707–17131708
a label for each number (1 ! Poor, 2 ! Fair, 3 ! Good, 4 ! Verygood, 5 ! Excellent). The question about actions that they havetaken was listed in a matrix format. Actions that are highlighted inthe house were listed in rows, such as ‘‘Install compact fluorescentlighting’’, or ‘‘Install an efficient irrigation system’’, alongwith threecolumns that were labeled ‘‘I did this before visiting the UtahHouse’’, ‘‘I have done this because of what I learned at the UtahHouse’’, and ‘‘I plan to do this in the future’’.
2.2. Statistical analysis
All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS [20], version16.0.1. Survey results were entered by hand into a SPSS file. Toassess whether visitors’ knowledge of each of the key topic areasincreased, a paired t-test was used to compare their stated level ofknowledge before the visit, and their stated level of knowledgeafter the visit. An unpaired t-test was used to assess differences inknowledge before and after a visit, by gender. Analysis of variance(ANOVA) and mean separation (Bonferroni) was performed onknowledge ratings for the different levels of education groups todetermine if significant differences existed. Cross-tabulations wereperformed on several variables, and the Chi-square statistic wasused to determine if there were significant differences in thecomparisons. A significance level (p-value) of <0.05 for all statis-tical tests performed was considered significant. The remainingdata were summarized in terms of mean responses, standarddeviations, and sums.
3. Results
Of the 1636 surveys that were sent out, 5 were returned asundeliverable and 254were returned completed, for a response rateof 15.5%. A largenumberof respondentshadvisited thehousewithinthe last year (41.5%). A smaller percentage (28.5%) stated that theyhad visited 1–2 years ago, and 30.0% visited more than 2 years ago.
3.1. Demographics
In general, the survey respondents were predominantlyCaucasian (92.9%), aged 45–64 (55.1%), female (70.1%), and highlyeducated (Figs. 1 and 2). The ethnicity of this group reflects thepredominantly Caucasian (92%) population of Davis County (U.S.Census, 2000). Initially, it was not clear whether the typical visitorsto the Utah House were middle-aged women, or whether this
group was more likely to have completed the survey. A review ofvisitor logs at the Utah House indicated a slightly higher percentageof female visitors (56%) compared to male visitors (44%), but thedifference was not as great as the difference in gender of surveyrespondents. Therefore, it appears that women were more likely toput their names on our mailing list, and/or return the survey. Thevisitor logs also indicated that around 17,200 visitors (excludingchildren’s field trips) came to the house from 2005 to 2007.A statistical test of confidence can be performed on the number ofrespondents compared to visitors. Assuming 95% confidence, anda population of 17,200 visitors, a confidence interval of 6% is foundfor this study (www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm).
3.2. Knowledge change, importance, and rating of teaching
Comparisons (t-test) of self-reported knowledge on the five keytopics taught at the Utah House before and after a visit indicatedsignificant (p ! 0.001) increases in knowledge for all five topicareas (Fig. 3). In general, respondents came in with more knowl-edge (higher mean rating) in energy efficiency and water conser-vation than in the other three areas, but the differences were small.Respondents reported low levels of knowledge about universal
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 Over 75
Co
un
t
Age
Male
Female
Fig. 1. Age and gender of survey respondents.
7.9
2.8
23.2
40.6
25.6
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
High school Trade/vocational Some college/2year degree
College/4 yeardegree
Graduate school
Percen
t
Fig. 2. Highest level of education of survey respondents.
****** ***
*** ***
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
5.5
Mean
Resp
on
se
BeforeAfter
Fig. 3. Mean self-reported knowledge of key topics before and after visit to the UtahHouse. Asterisks indicate a significant difference using a t-test (***p-value!0.001).Error bars are "1SD.
M.E. Dietz et al. / Building and Environment 44 (2009) 1707–1713 1709
design before visiting the house (mean ! 2.2); however the visit tothe house increased their knowledge level to 3.8 (Fig. 3).
There were several differences found in self-reported knowl-edge of the five topic areas. Male visitors reported significantlyhigher levels of knowledge before their visit for all of the topiclevels except universal design (Fig. 4). Men have been found to havehigher levels of knowledge on specific environmental topics [4,11],although the present study does not use an actual test of knowl-edge, only self-reported knowledge. Interestingly, after the visit theonly significant difference betweenmale and female visitors was onthe topic of sustainability (Fig. 5). Differences were also found forvisitors with varying levels of education: ANOVA analysis revealedthat self-reported knowledge on sustainability and healthy indoorair was higher for college graduates than for those who did notattend college (Table 1). However, after the visit, there were nosignificant differences in self-reported knowledge for any of thetopics across education levels (Table 1). Although these ratings areonly for self-reported knowledge, and are limited as such, thesefindings show that after a visit to the facility, visitors left witha uniform level of knowledge, independent of gender or educa-tional background.
In general, survey respondents felt that energy efficiency andwater conservation were more important to them, but the differ-ences were slight (Fig. 6). Mean responses for all five key topic areaswere between 3.6 and 4.5, indicating a high level of concern for allof the topic areas.
Mean ratings of the teaching of all five key topic areas at theUtah House were above 3.5, indicating that in general respondentsfelt that the staff at the Utah House did a good to very good job ofteaching the topic areas. Teaching of energy efficiency and waterconservation were rated highest (mean responses ! 4.0). Interest-ingly, the mean response for teaching of universal designwas lowerthan the others at 3.7, yet respondents reported the greatestincrease in knowledge for this topic area (Fig. 3).
3.3. Actions before visit
The target actions from the survey are listed in Table 2. Many ofthe respondents reported doing some of these activities beforevisiting the house; 82.7% reported doing at least one of theseactions before their visit. The most common actions wereinstallation of the following: compact fluorescent lighting (52.4%),
water- efficient toilets or faucets (37.4%), more insulation in thehome (29.1%), an efficient irrigation system (24.4%), and low-waterlandscape plants (23.2%) (Table 2). One determinant of whetherpeople perform the actions seems to be how strongly they feelabout the key topic areas, or their level of environmental concern.The number of actions that people had done before visiting thehouse was significantly (p ! 0.01) correlated with the average oftheir ratings of how important each of the topic areas was to them.Although this relationship is not strong (Pearson correlation coef-ficient ! 0.175), the relationship is significant, indicating some
***
*****
**
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
Sustainability Energy efficiency
Water conservation
Healthy indoor air
Universal design
Mean
Resp
on
se
MaleFemale
Fig. 4. Mean self-reported knowledge of key topics before visit, by gender. Asterisksindicate a significant difference using a t-test (**p-value!0.01, ***p-value!0.001). Errorbars are "1SD.
*
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
Sustainability Energy efficiency
Water conservation
Healthy indoor air
Universal design
Mean
Resp
on
se
MaleFemale
Fig. 5. Mean self-reported knowledge of key topics after visit, by gender. Asterisksindicate a significant difference using a t-test (*p-value!0.05). Error bars are "1SD.
Table 1Mean self-reported knowledge of key topics before and after visit, by educationallevel. Means followed by the same letters are not significantly different from eachother at p!0.05 using Bonferroni’s mean separation test.
Topic area Education level Meanbeforevisit
Meanaftervisit
Difference
Sustainability High school 1.8 cd 3.5 a 1.7Trade/vocational 2 abcd 3.7 a 1.7Some college/2-year degree 2.1 ac 3.9 a 1.8College/4-year degree 2.7 ab 3.8 a 1.1Graduate school 2.7 a 3.9 a 1.2
Energy efficiency High school 2.9 a 4.2 a 1.3Trade/vocational 2.6 a 4.2 a 1.6Some college/2-year degree 2.9 a 4.4 a 1.5College/4-year degree 3.3 a 4.4 a 1.1Graduate school 3.2 a 4.3 a 1.1
Water conservation High school 2.7 a 4.1 a 1.4Trade/vocational 3.3 a 4.2 a 0.9Some college/2-year degree 2.7 a 4.3 a 1.6College/4-year degree 3.1 a 4.4 a 1.3Graduate school 3 a 4.3 a 1.3
Healthy indoor air High school 2.2 abc 3.3 a 1.1Trade/vocational 2 abcd 3.3 a 1.3Some college/2-year degree 2.2 bcd 4 a 1.8College/4-year degree 2.6 a 3.8 a 1.2Graduate school 2.4 ab 3.8 a 1.4
Universal design High school 1.8 a 3.7 a 1.9Trade/vocational 2.3 a 3.7 a 1.4Some college/2-year degree 1.9 a 4.2 a 2.3College/4-year degree 2.3 a 3.8 a 1.5Graduate school 2.2 a 3.7 a 1.5
M.E. Dietz et al. / Building and Environment 44 (2009) 1707–17131710
linkage between how important the respondents believe the issuesare and the number of actions that they had implemented. This isnot surprising given other research on correlations between envi-ronmental concern and environmental behavior: a meta-analysis ofresearch on determinants of pro-environmental behavior revealedan average correlation coefficient of 0.347 ! 0.224 between atti-tudes on environmental issues and engagement in pro-environ-mental behaviors [15].
Self-reported knowledge of two of the topic areas was alsofound to be significantly correlated with specific related actions.For example, the self-reported knowledge of water conservationbefore the visit to the house was significantly correlated (p " 0.01,Pearson correlation coefficient " 0.333) with the number of waterconservation actions performed before the visit. These actionsincluded installation of water- efficient toilet or faucet, purchase ofa front-load washer, installation of an efficient irrigation system,and changing landscape plants to native or low-water demandtype. The same relationship was found for energy efficiency: self-
reported knowledge of energy efficiency before the visit wassignificantly (p " 0.01, Pearson correlation coefficient " 0.386)correlated with the number of actions related to energy efficiencyperformed before the visit. These actions included installation ofcompact fluorescent lighting, installation of light tubes, installa-tion of solar panels for electricity or hot water generation, instal-lation of a ground-source heat pump, and installation of moreinsulation in the home. In general, the positive coefficients suggestthat the more knowledge people had of a particular issue, themore likely they were to engage in activities that addressed theissue. These findings are consistent with literature values ofcorrelations between knowledge and engagement in environ-mental behaviors: an average correlation coefficient of0.299 ! 0.195 between knowledge and behavior has been reported[15]. Although the reported range in correlations is quite wide, theresults of the present study are very close to the reported meanfrom the meta-analysis.
Cross-tabulations for engagement in specified activities beforethe visit by gender and age indicated that there were no differencesfor men between expected and actual counts (Chi-square).However, a significant difference (p " 0.05) was found for women:actual counts were higher than expected for engaging in anyactivity for both the 35–44 and the 45–54 age groups. These resultsindicate that middle-aged women were significantly more likelythan other age groups to be engaging in the listed activities beforetheir visit to the house. Women were found to be more likely toengage in pro-environmental behavior in other studies [4,11–13],although the relationship was weak in general [15].
Educational level has also been found to be weakly correlated(correlation coefficient 0.185 ! 0.122) with pro-environmentalbehavior [15]. In the present study, education level was notsignificantly correlated with the number of specific environmentalactions performed before the visit to the Utah House.
3.4. Actions as a result of visit
A substantial number of people reported implementing at leastone of the actions (63.0%) as a result of their visit to the Utah House.The most common actions were installation of low-water uselandscape plants (27.6%), compact fluorescent lighting (26.4%), andwater efficient toilets or faucets (16.1%). This finding is consistentwith another study which found convenience of the activity to bepositively related to engagement [12]. Not surprisingly, actionswith high up-front costs such as installing solar panels for elec-tricity or hot water were not highly implemented, either before orafter the visit. However, these two actions were the highest ratedactions that people plan to do in the future, with a high percentageof respondents stating that they planned to install solar panels forelectricity (41.7%) or hot water (37.8%) (Table 2). Installation ofa ground-source heat pump is also an expensive up-front cost, andless than 1% of respondents had installed this before their visit, oras a result of their visit. However, nearly 21% of respondents statedthat they planned on doing this in the future.
In contrast to the cross-tabulations for engagement in activitiesby gender and age before the visit, cross-tabulations for engaging inany activity as a result of the visit indicated no significant differ-ences for women, but a significant difference (p " 0.05) for men.Fewer than expected men in the 25–34 age group made a change,and more men in the 45–54 age group made a change as a result oftheir visit to the Utah House.
A significant but weak correlation was found between increasesin self-reported knowledge after the visit to the house (the calcu-lated difference between knowledge before and knowledge afterthe visit) and the number of related actions performed as a result ofthe visit. The increase in knowledge of energy efficiency wassignificantly (p " 0.01, Pearson correlation coefficient " 0.178)
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
5.5
Sustainability Energy efficiency
Water conservation
Healthy indoorair
Universal design
Mean
Resp
on
se
Fig. 6. Mean response of how important each topic is to respondents. Error bars are!1SD.
Table 2Percent of respondents performing target actions, and future intention.
I did this beforevisiting theUtah House
I have done thisbecause of whatI learned at UtahHouse
I plan to dothis in thefuture
Install compact fluorescentlighting
52.4 26.4 13.0
Install light tubes 18.5 8.7 25.6Install a water efficient toilet
or faucet37.4 16.1 25.6
Purchase a front load washer 14.6 12.6 40.6Install a solar panel for electricity 2.0 2.0 41.7Install a solar panel for hot water 1.6 0.8 37.8Purchase green power through
power company8.7 5.5 23.2
Install an efficient irrigationsystem
24.4 11.4 29.1
Change landscape plantsto nativeor low-water demand type
23.2 27.6 29.5
Install a recycled carpet product 5.1 3.9 26.0Install a recycled counter top 1.2 2.8 28.7Install a rain barrel or cistern
for landscape irrigation3.5 3.5 34.6
Install a ground source heatpump
0.4 0.8 20.9
Install more insulation inmy home
29.1 9.4 29.9
Use low- or no-VOC paint 7.5 6.7 25.6
M.E. Dietz et al. / Building and Environment 44 (2009) 1707–1713 1711
correlated with the number of actions related to energy efficiencyperformed as a result of the visit. However, no significant correla-tions were found between increases in knowledge of waterconservation and related behaviors.
When asked why they did not do the activities listed (if they infact, had not), the most common reason was the cost (44.1%), fol-lowed by the need for more information (21.7%). Another reasonfrequently listed for not doing the actions was that people wereeither renting, or have a home that does not currently needupgrades (9.8%).
3.5. Participation in different programs at the Utah House
Cross-tabulations were performed on the participation in eachtype of activity at the Utah House by whether a person performedat least one of the actions on the list as a result of their visit. Itshould be noted that participants could participate in differenttypes of activities. Therefore, statistically, the groups of differenttypes of activities are not independent. Interestingly, the onlysignificant association was for participants in large group tours:those who participated in a large group tour were significantly(p ! 0.05) less likely to engage in at least one of the target activities.The reason for this association is unclear; however it is not likelythat participation in the large group tour caused visitors to notengage in a target activity. If smaller group or guided tour activitieshad a significant associationwith engagement in target activities, itcould be assumed that increased interaction with a guide mightinfluence behaviors at a later date. However, no such associationswere found, so the large group association is difficult to explain.
A relationship was found between the number of different typesof activities (sum) that participants engaged in at the Utah House,andwhether they performed at least one of the desired actions. Thecorrelation was weak (Pearson correlation coefficient ! 0.137), butsignificant (p ! 0.05). This relationship makes sense given thecomplex factors cited in the literature as determinants for pro-environmental behavior [15,16]; if a person engaged in varyingactivities such as individual tours where they could learn at theirownpace, guided tourswhere they could have personal interaction,and workshops where they deepen their knowledge, they wouldperhaps be more likely to engage in target behaviors.
4. Discussion
Several limitations to the Utah House survey exist. First, thelevel of knowledge measured was self-reported. It may be difficultfor people to remember what they knew before and after their visit,especially since 30% of respondents had visited the Utah Housemore than two years ago. Also, behaviors were self-reported,although the actions in the survey were ones that would be likelybe easy to recall (e.g., changing landscaping, installing a newwasher). Respondents to the survey were skewed towards highlyeducated, middle-agedwomen. Despite the limitations, the authorscontend that the findings from this study have value. The knowl-edge increases found are still a good assessment of what people feelthey learned at the facility, even if the changes in knowledge werenot specifically quantified. Also, there were enough men andyounger people who responded to perform valid statisticalcomparisons on gender and age cross-tabulations.
Although several statistically significant relationships werefound between visitors’ knowledge of issues, how important theythink the issues are, and the number of actions that they per-formed, no strong predictor of engagement in pro-environmentalbehavior emerged. This is consistent with literature findings, wherecorrelations between pro-environmental behavior and certainvariables have been found; however a linear progression fromknowledge to awareness to action has not been supported [3,7,21].
For example, the authors of the meta-analysis of research ondeterminants of pro-environmental behavior concluded thatknowledge of an issue appears to be a prerequisite to action, butother complex factors such as desire to act, economic constraints,and social pressures can interact in different ways to determinea behavior outcome [15]. Other variables, such as an internal locusof control (an individual’s perception that their actions are likely to‘‘make a difference’’) also were found to be positively correlatedwith pro-environmental behavior [15]. In a study of waste reduc-tion behaviors, numerous environmental values, situational char-acteristics, and psychological factors explained some variance inwaste reduction behavior; however the majority of the variance inbehavior was unexplained [7].
Significant increases in self-reported knowledge from before toafter visiting the Utah House were found for all of the key topicareas listed, which included sustainability, water conservation,energy efficiency, healthy indoor air, and universal design. Malevisitors reported significantly higher levels of knowledge for mostof the topics before their visit than females, and visitors with moreeducation reported higher levels of knowledge for some topicsbefore their visit; however the self-reported knowledge levels werevirtually indistinguishable for all groups after the visit.
The majority of respondents (83%) reported performing at leastone of the target behaviors before their visit to the house.Respondents’ level of environmental concern was weakly corre-lated with the number of actions they had performed, indicatingthat concern was somehow involved with the decision to act. Self-reported knowledge of water conservation and energy efficiencywas also correlated with the number of related actions performedbefore the visit, indicating that knowledge also was a precursor topro-environmental behavior. Middle-aged women were morelikely than other ages or than men to report engagement in pro-environmental behaviors before their visit.
A large percentage of respondents (63%) reported engaging in atleast one target behavior as a result of their visit. Not unexpectedly,the least expensive, easiest to implement activities were the mostpopular. Convenience was a significant factor in willingness toengage in electronics recycling [12]. No differences in behaviorengagement were noted for men; however fewer men thanexpected in the 25–34 age group engaged in target behaviors.A weak correlation was found in knowledge increase for energyefficiency, and engagement in energy efficient activities. Given theweak relationship for energy efficiency topics and lack of rela-tionship for water conservation topics, this suggests that theknowledge of the topics gained at the Utah House was not theprimary driver behind the behavior changes noted. This is consis-tent with the literature in which wide ranges of correlations(average correlation 0.299 " 0.195) have been found for therelationship between knowledge and behavior [15].
In general, no strong associations were found between the typeor number of activities in which the respondents participated, andwhether they engaged in pro-environmental behaviors. Unex-pectedly, it was discovered that those who had participated ina large group tour were less likely to engage in any pro-environ-mental behavior. The cause of this association was unclear.
Although changes in targeted behaviors were found for thosewho visited the Utah House, a substantial percentage (37%) ofvisitors did nothing as a result of their visit. This may be due to thehigh percentage (83%) of visitors who had engaged in at least one ofthe actions before their visit to the house. Several statisticallysignificant correlations were found that could explain whethera person would engage in targeted pro-environmental behaviors,but no strong predictor emerged. This is consistent with theliterature in which the decision to act has been found to bea complex blending of demographics, values, intentions, situationalcharacteristics, and psychological factors.
M.E. Dietz et al. / Building and Environment 44 (2009) 1707–17131712
The Utah House has been very successful at providing educa-tional activities to the public through the demonstration site, andmoderately successful at encouraging pro-environmental behav-iors. If increases in targeted pro-environmental behaviors aredesired, it seems that other strategies may be more appropriate toencourage greater implementation. The community-based socialmarketing technique advocated by McKenzie-Mohr [21], whichmerges knowledge from psychology with social marketing, seemsto have great potential. The technique involves identification ofbarriers, selecting target behaviors, designing strategies, pilotingprograms, then evaluating the programs [21]. Behavior changes inthe general population have been recognized as necessary to ach-ieve a more sustainable future [1]. Techniques such as community-based social marketing may actually lead us in a direction wherethe desired changes can occur more readily.
A distinction has been made in the literature between pro-environmental behavior and the actual environmental impactassociated with that action [22]. The authors of one study reportedthat engagement in pro-environmental behaviors was significantlybut weakly correlated (Pearson correlation coefficient ! 0.22) withhousehold energy use [23]. This finding supports efforts to selectspecific behaviors that will have the most benefit, as suggested byMcKenzie-Mohr [21]. As a result of the present study, the managersof the Utah House intend to increase educational efforts in thehouse related to specific actions that people can do themselves, andthat will have themost environmental benefit. The house as it is hasbeen awonderful resource for people seeking to build a new house,or modify their existing house. Most people are not usually makingmajor modifications to their house at any given time. However,there are other lifestyle choices that can be targeted, such as food,transportation, and waste management choices that can be per-formed at any time. A future study is planned to measure theimpacts of these educational efforts at the Utah House.
The Utah House was found to be a successful educational tool,and a catalyst for pro-environmental behaviors. Other techniques,such as community-based social marketing, were identified toperhaps increase the influence of the programs at the Utah House,and foster greater positive environmental impact.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to acknowledge the hard work anddedication of Leona Hawks whomade the Utah House a reality, andalso the efforts of numerous volunteers and interns that havecontributed to the success of the Utah House since its inception.
References
[1] Coyle K. Environmental Literacy in America. Washington, DC: The NationalEnvironmental Education & Training Foundation; 2005.
[2] Ramsey CE, Rickson RE. Environmental knowledge and attitudes. Journal ofEnvironmental Education 1976;8(1):10–8.
[3] Hungerford HR, Volk TL. Changing learner behavior through environmentaleducation. The Journal of Environmental Education 1990;21(3):8–21.
[4] Meinhold JL, Malkus AJ. Adolescent environmental behaviors: can knowledge,attitudes, and self-efficacy make a difference? Environment and Behavior2005;37(4):511–32.
[5] Lansana FM. A comparative analysis of curbside recycling behavior in urbanand suburban communities. Professional Geographer 1993;45:169–79.
[6] Vining J, Ebreo A. What makes a recycler? A comparison of recyclers andnonrecyclers. Environment and Behavior 1990;22:55–73.
[7] Barr S. Factors influencing environmental attitudes and behaviors. Environ-ment and Behavior 2007;39(4):435–73.
[8] Derksen L, Gartrell J. The social context of recycling. American SociologicalReview 1993;58:434–42.
[9] Granzin KL, Olsen JE. Characterising participants in activities protecting theenvironment: a focus on donating, recycling, and conservation behaviours.Journal of Public Policy and Marketing 1991;10:1–27.
[10] Theodori GL, Luloff AE. Position on environmental issues and engagement inproenvironmental behaviors. Society & Natural Resources 2002;15(6):471–82.
[11] Tikka PM, Kuitunen MT, Tynys SM. Effects of educational background onstudents’ attitudes, activity levels, and knowledge concerning the environ-ment. Journal of Environmental Education 2000;31(3):12–9.
[12] Saphores J-DM, Nixon H, Ogunseitan OA, Shapiro AA. Household willingnessto recycle electronic waste: an application to California. Environment andBehavior 2006;38(2):183–208.
[13] Hunter LM, Hatch A, Johnson A. Cross-national gender variation in environ-mental behaviors. Social Science Quarterly 2004;85(3):677–94.
[14] Edgerton E, McKechnie J, Dunleavy K. Behavioral determinants of householdparticipation in a home composting scheme. Environment and Behavior 2008;in press.
[15] Hines JM, Hungerford HR, Tomera AN. Analysis and synthesis of research onresponsible environmental behavior: a meta-analysis. The Journal ofEnvironmental Education 1986;18(2):1–8.
[16] Kollmuss A, Agyeman J. Mind the gap: why do people act environmentally andwhat are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? EnvironmentalEducation Research 2002;8(3):239–60.
[17] Swann CP. A survey of nutrient behavior among residents in the ChesapeakeBay Watershed, In: National Conference on Tools for Urban Water ResourceManagement & Protection, Chicago, IL.U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,Office of Research and Development EPA/625/R-00/001; 2000.
[18] Dietz ME, Clausen JC, Filchak KF. Education and changes in residentialnonpoint pollution. Environmental Management 2004;34(5):684–90.
[19] Kua HW, Lee SE. Demonstration intelligent buildingda methodology for thepromotion of total sustainability in the built environment. Building andEnvironment 2002;37(3):231–40.
[20] SPSS for Windows. Rel. 16.0.1. Chicago: SPSS Inc; 2007.[21] McKenzie-Mohr D. Promoting sustainable behavior: an introduction to
community-based social marketing. Journal of Social Issues 2000;56(3):543–54.
[22] Stern PC. Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior.Journal of Social Issues 2000;56(3):407–24.
[23] Gatersleben B, Steg L, Vlek C. Measurement and determinants of environ-mentally significant consumer behavior. Environment and Behavior2002;34(3):335–62.
M.E. Dietz et al. / Building and Environment 44 (2009) 1707–1713 1713
Appendix F Artifacts Index
-‐1900)
Although the energy exhibits for the room will be contemporary in nature, artifacts
should communicate an age before products and consumerism when items served a
utilitarian purpose. Most if not all of these items were born out of necessity and were
(Energy Exhibit) Cutaway exposing original brick and plaster construction with
new framing and multiple types of modern insulation (closed cell spray-‐on, batt
and blown-‐in)
Vintage organ
Vintage couch
Hair wreath
Vintage circular table that was used to play parlor games. This could be a place
where visitors or students are able to sit down to fill out work sheets.
Dressy period clothing (something appropriate to wear in a parlor) hanging on a
dress stand
Rocking chair with knitting needles with in-‐progress knitting work
Fireplace set (stoker, broom, etc.)
Items showing shoe repair in progress
(1900-‐1970)
This room should communicate the notion that consumerism has brought an end to
sustainability. Because this room spans such a large range, it should contain turn of the
century products as well as modern consumer products. The idea is to show a major
transformation from an age of homesteaders to that of a society full of consumers. This
multiple (seemingly) unrelated tasks were performed together in relatively small rooms.
(Energy Exhibit) Window quilts over new efficient, double-‐hung insulated
windows (reintroduce people to the idea of natural ventilation)
(Energy Exhibit) One of the old Crawford House windows (placed on a stand or
hanging from the wall), with single pane (wavy glass) with a modern storm
window attached
(Energy Exhibit) A long table displaying three major eras of lighting (candle, oil
lamp, early electrical lamp) at the end of this progression might be a display
showing contemporary light bulb technology (CFL and LED)
Antique wash tub or early washing machine
A cot or small bed
Factory work clothes hanging on a hanger in a closet or armoire (communicates
the transition from agrarian to industrial living)
Old ironing board with antique electric iron
A desk containing vintage office products such as: adding machine, or early
calculator, old telephone, etc.
Staging of various consumer products from 1900-‐1970: starch, Scotch tape, soap,
detergent, etc.
-‐Present)
The main idea of this room is to show a rebirth of sustainability through continuous
living.
(Energy Exhibit) Progression of heating technologies
o Fireplace
o Cast iron radiators (still relevant today with hot water heat)
o Cutaway in floor showing hydronic heating tubes
Low-‐flow water fixtures
Counter tops made from recycled material (paper, glass, concrete, etc.)
Energy star appliances
Renewable flooring (cork)
Reusable grocery shopping bags
Auxiliary plumbing system which directs gray water from sink outside into the
landscape
Recycling bin
LED lighting
Sealable container for carrying organic waste from kitchen to compost bin
Vendor Display Space
High efficiency gas fireplace inserted into existing chimney
Wall mounted LCD where people can compute their carbon footprint
Information pertaining to local environmental vendors and contractors
LCD screen with historic Crawford picture loop
Outdoor Living
Rain gardens
Rain barrels
Cistern
Community gardens
Demonstration of organic gardening and lawn care practices
Landscape beds irrigated with gray water from the house
Native drought tolerant landscape plants
Compost bin
Appendix G Water Color Renderings
Appendix H Historical Documents
For the historical documents, please refer to the hard copies included with the original report.
Top Related