Psychologist Kurt Lewin once described behavior as a function of the individual and the environment. Expanding on this, individual and collective behaviors can be seen as focused on meeting individual and group needs within a given social/cultural and physical environmental context, needs which are shaped by human physiological, psychological and social/cultural factors. And behaviors that are sometimes classified as “irrational” in the narrow economic sense of the word can be quite “rational” if examined using a different set of parameters. For example, an individual’s clothing choice may seem completely “irrational” if the clothing lacks sufficient insulation to keep the individual warm in an overcooled space, particularly if a space heater (and additional energy) is subsequently used to maintain thermal comfort. But this behavior may be completely rational when considering the use of clothing to signal group identity, status, sexuality or to conform to other norms of dress. An evolutionary multi-level selection (MLS) framework may be a more useful way to frame this. Whether or not the choice of clothing is “functional,” “non-functional,” or “neutral” depends on who the subject is (the individual or a larger group), and with respect to what (individual reproductive success, group unity and longevity, etc.). Clothing choice may be functional with respect to signaling individual status but the choice combined with space heater usage may be non-functional with respect to an organization’s efficiency/longevity (via productivity and utility costs) and societal efficiency/longevity (via greenhouse gas emissions). So if behavior is a function of the individual/group and the environment, the creation of truly sustainable, productive and healthy environments requires an understanding of how the relationships among individual/group behavior, their needs and the physical/social/cultural environment play out contextually on a project by project basis. Otherwise alignment won’t be achieved between the plethora of goals and needs of the various individuals and levels of groups involved, from occupants to O&M staff to building owner to the community at large. Without alignment, building performance and occupant productivity and health suffer and do not meet design intent. The only way to achieve alignment is to a) thoroughly engage the key stakeholders involved (including the occupant) from master planning through occupancy and b) comprehensively evaluate built environment experiments after occupancy to verify what’s working, what isn’t and why, so adjustments can be made to existing facilities and their operations and organizations, as well as apply the lessons learned to future projects. In this paper I will a) examine behaviors within the built environment from an MLS perspective and b) discuss methods for comprehensively evaluating building/occupant interrelationships, drawing from multiple master planning and post occ

1. “Irrational” Vs “Rational” Behavior: Using Evolutionary
Photo Rights: robertoerosalesblog.com
Irrational Vs. Rational Behavior: Using Evolutionary
Theory & Comprehensive Evaluations to Ensure
Building Performance Meets Design Intent
2014 BECC Conference Washington DC2014 BECC Conference, Washington DC,
MARCEL HARMON, PHD, PE, LEED-AP O+M
December 9, 2014

3. SLOW FLOW OF PROGRESS IN AEC INDUSTRY
62%62%+
The 2012 global average share of non‐The 2012 global average share of non‐
green building activity.
Source: McGraw Hill Construction. 2013. World Green Building Trends: Business
Benefits Driving New and Retrofit Market Opportunities in Over 60Benefits Driving New and Retrofit Market Opportunities in Over 60
Countries. A SmartMarket Report.

4. SLOW FLOW OF PROGRESS IN AEC INDUSTRY
Life Cycle Costs of a Facility
92%
6%2%
Salaries of Occupants
Costs of O&M
Original Design & Construction
Sources: Cotts, D.G., The Facility Management Handbook, Second Edition, 1999
Sapp, D. Facilities Operations & Maintenance. Updated by the Facilities O&M
Committee. Last updated: 11‐09‐2011. http://www.wbdg.org/om/om.php.

5. SLOW FLOW OF PROGRESS IN AEC INDUSTRY
50% ‐ 80%50% ‐ 80%
The percentage of high performance
buildings with actual energy consumption
found to exceed predicted consumption.
Sources: Burman, E., D. Mumovic, and J. Kimpian. 2014. Towards measurement and verification of
f d th f k f th E di ti fenergy performance under the framework of the European directive for energy
performance of buildings. Energy: 77(1):153–163.
Carbon Trust. Closing the Gap – Lessons Learned on Realising the Potential of Low Carbon
Building Design. Carbon Trust, London.
P A C M K l k t i 2007 P t O P f f Fi L E S h l iPegg, A. C., M. Kolokotroni. 2007. Post‐Occupancy Performance of Five Low‐Energy Schools in
the UK . ASHRAE Transactions, 113 (Part 2).
Turner, C. and M. Frankel. 2008. Energy Performance of LEED® for New Construction
Buildings. Report Prepared by New Buildings Institute for the U.S. Green Building Council.

6. LACK OF PERSONAL CONTROL, FRUSTRATION
& IMPACT ON PERFORMANCE& IMPACT ON PERFORMANCE
Leaving lights on as a sign of protest & statement of
New Mexico Elementary School
personal control

7. LINK BETWEEN ENERGY & OCC. EXPERIENCE
Comparison of EUI
Ratios to Temperature
ResponsesResponses

9. KEY TAKEAWAYS
• Recognize that BEHAVIOR JUDGEMENTS are a• Recognize that BEHAVIOR JUDGEMENTS are a
matter of perspective
• Improve ALIGNMENT• Improve ALIGNMENT
• Account for PRODUCTIVITY/PERFORMANCE
and HEALTH impactsand HEALTH impacts
• Increase number of DECISION MAKERS and
GROUP UNITY

10. BEHAVIOR JUDGEMENTS
Individual
Behavior
(Including Needs
Environment
( g
Decision
Making)
Needs
Based on research spanning from:Based on research spanning from:
Kurt Lewin, 1936 Principles of Topological Psychology
to
Elliott Sober & David Sloan Wilson, 1999
Unto Others: The Evolution and Psychology of Unselfish Behavior

11. BEHAVIOR JUDGEMENTS
Clothing Variability, Thermal Comfort & Energy Consumption
Space Heater

12. BEHAVIOR JUDGEMENTS
Physiological
Psychological
Individual
Behavior
(Including Highly
Large Group Needs
Environment
( g
Decision
Making)
Interactive
Small Group Needs
Individual
Social/
Cultural
Individual
Needs
Based on research spanning from:
Physical
Based on research spanning from:
Kurt Lewin, 1936 Principles of Topological Psychology
to
Elliott Sober & David Sloan Wilson, 1999
Unto Others: The Evolution and Psychology of Unselfish Behavior© Copyright 2014 M.E. GROUP, Inc.

14. IMPROVE ALIGNMENT
EAM PROCESS: For Building & Occupant Alignment
Evaluate
Background Data
Align
Physical
Monitor
Metricsac g ou d ata
(HR & Building)
Engage Bldg Population
(Interview, Observe, & Survey)
ili l i
ys ca
(Facility, O&M Modifications)
Social
(Behavior, Organization Policy
Modifications)
et cs
(Energy and Water; Survey
Results; Productivity and
Health)
Evaluation Plan
Facility Evaluation
(Space Measurements & FPTs;
O&M Engagement)
Modifications) Evaluation Plan
(Frequency; Records and
Engagement)
Address Issues
© Copyright 2011 M.E. GROUP, Inc.

15. IMPROVE ALIGNMENT
Deep key stakeholder engagement needed to assess varying wants/
Audibility &
Noise IssuesLike Small School/
Community Feel
Like Small School/
Community Feel
Deep key stakeholder engagement needed to assess varying wants/
needs/values
21st Century
EducationTechnology
Infrastructure
Inadequacy
Thermal DiscomfortThermal Discomfort
Glare or
Brightness
Problems
Other
Lighting
Control
Issues
More Communication
Amongst Stakeholders
More Communication
Amongst Stakeholders
Concern W/ Direction Being TakenConcern W/ Direction Being Taken
Community FeelCommunity Feel
Student
Centered
Maintenance, IT & Custodial IssuesMaintenance, IT & Custodial IssuesTechnology
Collaboration & Small GroupCollaboration & Small Group
Poor Indoor Air QualityPoor Indoor Air Quality
Lack of Temp ControlLack of Temp Control
Desire/
Appreciation
for Operable
Windows
Issues
Cafeteria/
Lunch/
Nutrition
Problems
Health ConcernsHealth Concerns
Desire for Multi-
Levels of Lighting
Approval of Direction Being TakenApproval of Direction Being Taken Technology
Not Only
Answer
Improve/Maintain AestheticsImprove/Maintain Aesthetics
Improve PlaygroundImprove Playground
gy
Desire/Appreciation
f D li hti
Additional
Training
Needed
Safety &
Security
C
Space Size,
Configuration &
Flexibility
for Daylighting
Dislike Fluorescent
Lighting
Improving Athletic Fields/FacilitiesImproving Athletic Fields/Facilities
Class Size (# of Students)Class Size (# of Students)
Missouri School
District
Concerns
& Desired Changes
Plumbing
Issues
& Desired Changes
Need Additional Restrooms
Improving Traffic Flow
& Parking
Improving Traffic Flow
& Parking
Lack of StorageLack of Storage
Wayfinding Problems

16. IMPROVE ALIGNMENT
Personal Control, Occupant Inertia &
Ease of Blind Control Access
New Mexico
Elementary School

17. IMPROVE ALIGNMENT
Technology’s perspective
from a child
New Mexico
Elementary School

19. QUANTIFY PRODUCTIVITY/HEALTH IMPACTS
Direct Estimate
• Multivariate Regression
Analysis
Direct Measure
• Field Setting
Analysis
• Looking for Correlations
• Looking for Average
Impacts
• Lab Setting
Quantified Productivity/ Performance & Health ImpactsQuantified Productivity/ Performance & Health Impacts
Indirect Estimate
• Using previous research
informed by ethnography
W t d Ti• Wasted Time
• IEQ Impacts

20. QUANTIFY PRODUCTIVITY/HEALTH IMPACTS
ECM Estimated
Total
Implementation
Costs
$9 167 000$9,167,000
dECM Estimated
Annual Energy
Savings
$872,000
Conrad Duberstein U S
Simple Payback
Conrad Duberstein U.S.
Courthouse and Post Office’s
Energy Conservation
Measure (ECM) Total Cost
ECM Estimated
Annual
Productivity
Simple Payback
(Energy Only)
10.5 yrs
Simple Payback
(Energy +
and Estimated Payback
Photo Rights: Cervin Robinson, Richard McElhiney
Architects LLC
Savings
$3,570,000
(Energy +
Productivity)
2.1 yrs

21. QUANTIFY PRODUCTIVITY/HEALTH IMPACTS
Evaluation of Design Daylighting Options Using Productivity Impacts
3
‘
8
‘
11
‘
0
‘
Option 1: Frit Glazing
Option 2
3% ‐6% increase
in performance
( th & di
University of Missouri, Kansas City
Option 2: LightLouver
+ Blinds/Shades
(math & reading
tasks) over Option 1
Photo Rights: BNIM Architects

23. INCREASE NUMBER OF DECISION MAKERS
As well as GROUP UNITY
$2,000,000
Utility & Productivity Impacts
As well as GROUP UNITY
$1,682,706
$500 000
$1,000,000
$1,500,000
$283,537
‐$500,000
$0
$500,000
‐$1,603,252
‐$1,500,000
‐$1,000,000
‐$2,000,000
2011‐2012 Utility Costs
Estimated Annual Utility Savings
Estimated Annual Productivity Improvement (Dollar Equivalent)
Kansas School District

24. INCREASE NUMBER OF DECISION MAKERS
Kansas School District: addressing elementary
As well as GROUP UNITY
Kansas School District: addressing elementary
school space restrictions/lack of flexibility issues
were estimated to:
Eli i 18 400 22 400 h• Eliminate 18,400 – 22,400 person‐hours per
school‐year of wasted teacher/staff time spent
scheduling and coordinating use of space.
• Equates to approximately 2.16% ‐ 2.63% of the
total labor hours annually “spent” by the
elementary school teachers/staff.
• Translates to approximately $722,970 –
$883,630 worth of teacher/staff time.

25. INCREASE NUMBER OF DECISION MAKERS
As well as GROUP UNITYAs well as GROUP UNITY

26. • Recognize that BEHAVIOR JUDGEMENTS
tt f tiare a matter of perspective
• Improve ALIGNMENT
• Account for PRODUCTIVITY/PERFORMANCEAccount for PRODUCTIVITY/PERFORMANCE
and HEALTH impacts
• Increase number of DECISION MAKERS and
GROUP UNITY
Image Source:
http://surveyingproperty.blogspot.com/2013/03/climate-
change-and-built-environment_11.html

27. Marcel Harmon: marcel.harmon@megroup.com