Green building practices: A social study
This is the third and final part in my DIS project series
In the first portion of my DIS Thesis, I engineered a composite material by mineralizing and/or biomineralizing particles of waste plastic
With a plastic-calcium-carbonate-hydrogel composite brick, I investigated possible applications for the material in the built environment as an architectural facade
In the final portion of my DIS Thesis, conducted a sociological survey of building professionals to understand when they might adopt this technology
Summary
In spring 2023 I conducted a research project surveying architects and contractors who do work in Gallatin Country regarding their use of green building practices, how they evaluate new products coming into the market, and what it would take for them to consider using a sustainable composite material facade such as the one that I had prototyped.
My research advisor was Dr. Cody Warner.
What People Are Saying
“If you don’t talk about sustainability for half the time you’re pitching a project, then you’re not relevant anymore”
— One of the largest architecture firms in Montana
“It was hard to justify the higher costs, initially, due to client resistance to the budget, then we just started incorporating those costs as a basis.”
— Architect
Abstract
A social analysis of the incorporation of green building technologies in Gallatin County
The negative impacts of climate change are abundantly clear. In order to effect change it is thus important to not only develop sustainable technologies but also to develop a means of accelerating the adoption of new technology practices. There are significant social factors that impact the adoption of new green building technology. Existing research indicates that the high up front cost of green building technology is a primary barrier to widespread adoption. There is a building boom in progress in Gallatin County and in many places across the world, yet much of the new construction is not built with green technology. This begs the question, in an area such as Gallatin County, is it solely the cost of green building materials that stands in the way of widespread adoption or are there other significant factors that cause slow adoption? I conducted a qualitative sociological research study of architects and contractors in Gallatin County to determine what they understand to be the primary barriers to adopting green building technology here at a large scale and if they believe that simply reducing the price of green building materials would be enough to precipitate change. My research found that while clients drive the implementation of green building technology in Gallatin Valley, they are often educated by architects to value green materials and technologies. Cost is the most common barrier, though it does not seem to prevent most firms from using sustainable technology. Interestingly, lack of knowledge about green technology was a bigger issue in Gallatin County than previous research suggested it might be. To improve the adoption and use of green building technologies in Gallatin County we should improve education on the topic: educating clients about the benefits of these technologies and contractors so they are prepared to implement them. Part of my motivation is understanding how to most effectively bring a new carbon negative biomimetic building material to market. A competitive price is part of a successful product, but quality, longevity, education, marketing, and aesthetic value are paramount.
Project Partners
Funded by USP
Research credit provided by the Department of Sociology