Planning for urban sustainability: the geography of LEED^®–Neighborhood Development^™ (LEED^®–ND^™) projects in the United States

Abstract

Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design^®–Neighborhood Development^TM (LEED^®–ND^™) is the latest planning-related attempt to develop more sustainable urban environs in the United States. LEED^®–ND^™ builds upon the previous work of Smart Growth, New Urbanism and Green Building models to create a rating system for a variety of development types and sizes. The purpose of this article is to explore the spatial distribution and key development attributes of LEED^®–ND^™ projects within the United States. Through LEED^®–ND^™, sustainable urbanism may become a major tool in reducing suburban sprawl and help urban regeneration efforts in the United States.

Keywords:

• urban sustainability
• Smart Growth
• New Urbanism
• TND
• Green Buildings
• LEED^®
• LEED^®–ND^TM

1. Introduction

According to United Nations (UN) estimates, more than half of the roughly seven billion people inhabiting the planet lived in urban environs by the end of 2008 (UN 2008). Additional estimates forecast that by 2050 approximately six billion of the world’s nine billion people will reside in urban settings (Bos et al. 1994; UN 2011). The sheer volume of humanity that will migrate or be born into city life is enough to force one into re-examining the processes and methods that currently exist to accommodate the growth of our cities. Six billion urban dwellers bring with them challenges for housing, transportation, education, health care and a myriad of public utility-related infrastructures. Planning for the growing urban population is of the utmost importance as land, natural resources and funding become scarcer.

In the United States, sprawling development patterns that have been the mainstay of development since the 1950s have created environmental concerns ranging from air and water pollution to the loss of prime farmland (Jackson 1985; Brueckner 2000; Daniels 2001; Ewing et al. 2002). Likewise, sprawl inhibits the realisation of true economic capacity through the inefficient/underutilisation of existing infrastructure and the constant desire to consume more land at the expense of existing facilities (Brueckner 2000; Ciscel 2001; Carruthers & Ulfarsson 2003). Finally, the mixed-income and mixed-use settlements that were the hallmark of the early 1900s have given way to homogenous commercial and residential landscapes that limit interaction between peoples of different incomes, ethnicities/race and educations (Kunstler 1993, 1998; Orfield 1997). In the end, a lack of community has left us lacking in social capital (Putnam 2000).

As a result of increasing urban populations and sprawling development patterns, our ability to plan more sustainable urban environments is of ever increasing importance. Many scholars have begun to call for more focus on urban sustainability from a variety of disciplines (Lake & Hanson 2000; National Science Foundation Workshop on Urban Sustainability 2000; Wu 2010). However, defining, exploring and implementing sustainable urban development do not come without challenges. Keivani (2010) and Williams (2010) offer excellent discussions of the main challenges facing urban sustainability and the research and practical challenges surrounding the issue. Likewise, Godschalk (2004) believed that a major challenge facing the planning profession is developing standards and principles that will lead to ‘sustainable development’.

Urban planners and others have attempted to answer Godschalk’s charge by developing models and standards by which to rectify our failing communities and create more prosperous, healthy and connected places. Over the last several decades, Green Building, Smart Growth and New Urbanism have been hailed as potential planning solutions to the problems that plague many of our cities and towns. While offering alternatives to the predominant form of urban growth and development since the 1950s, these programmes did not go far enough to aid what ails our urban landscapes.

The latest attempt at developing more sustainable urban places is Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design^®–Neighborhood Development^™ (LEED^®–ND^™). Similar to BREEAM Communities in the United Kingdom and CASBEE for Urban Development in Japan, LEED^®–ND^™ is a rating system that seeks to create more sustainable urban developments. LEED^®–ND^™ builds upon the foundation laid by Green Building, Smart Growth and New Urbanism programmes, in an attempt to bring the best parts of these models together to help guide a more sustainable pattern of urban development.

The goal of this article is to explore the spatial distribution and key development characteristics of LEED^®–ND^™ projects within the United States. This effort is being undertaken to determine if any locational patterns to LEED^®–ND^™ developments exist and help understand the spatial dynamics of urban sustainability efforts in the United States. Through LEED^®–ND^™, sustainable urbanism may become a major tool in reducing suburban sprawl and help urban regeneration efforts in the United States. In the end, it is envisioned that this examination will provide important insight for planners into this new model for urban sustainability and guide future research endeavours.

2. Literature review and background

For the past several decades, the term ‘sustainability’ has become an increasingly popular way to express how development should occur. At its crux, sustainability is centred on the more efficient and fair utilisation of limited resources. These resources can be natural (e.g. air, water, land) or cultural (e.g. wealth, influence, politics). More concretely, sustainability has been focused on balancing economic, environmental and social factors related to development (Wheeler 1996). As Rogers et al. (2008) discuss in their book, An Introduction to Sustainable Development, ‘it is critical that each component be given equal attention in order to ensure a sustainable outcome’ (p. 42).

Armed with this basic understanding of sustainable development as a conceptual framework from which to build upon, let us turn our attention to understanding sustainability as it manifests itself in an urban context. Many urban scholars believe that mankind has the ability to make the greatest impact on developing a more sustainability world through practicing urban sustainability (Owen 2010; Glaeser 2011). Globally, the world cities will add an additional 2.5 billion residents to the already 3.5 billion city dwellers (Donath 2014). These populations will put tremendous strains on the economic, environmental and social capacities of the respective cities if development patterns do not change. Meanwhile, issues of rising sea levels, changing and limited financial resources all are forcing individual cities to think about urban sustainability efforts in their respective jurisdiction (Pitt 2010; United States Conference of Climate Protection Center 2014).

Creating more sustainable ways to develop our urban areas can have a profound impact on many issues affecting our cities including energy, water and land. For example, approximately 40% of energy use comes from buildings and 17% from passenger vehicle travel (Pitt 2010), both of which are impacted by land use regulations, building codes and transportation plans. By constructing more sustainable urban environs, we can create buildings that use less energy and locate them in areas served by mass transit – reducing vehicle miles travelled (Brueckner 2000; Von Paumgartten 2003; Edwards 2006; CoStar Group 2008; Eichholtz et al. 2009). Likewise, new urban development can also help reduce water consumption by implementing plans to harvest rainfall and recycle grey water (Levine & Asano 2004; Jones & Hunt 2010). Finally, land can be preserved by building developments that are located within already urban areas on brownfield sites (Wedding & Crawford-Brown 2007).

While the challenges are great, planning and planning-related professions have offered numerous ways to create developments that more efficiently utilise limited resources over the past 100 years. Howard’s (1902) Garden Cities of Tomorrow was a reaction to the ills of the industrial revolution and focused on providing open space and greenery for urban dwellers. Unwin and Parker developed Hampstead and Letchworth in the United Kingdom, while Stein and Perry designed Radburn and Sunnyside in the United States based on the Garden City ideals promulgated by Howard (Wheeler 1996). Today, these concepts are being advanced by New Urbanism and leading advocates such as Peter Calthorpe, Andres Duany and Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk. Ultimately, many of these projects created a green suburb of a city and not a more sustainable urban environment.

The City Beautiful Movement and planners’ early efforts to focus attention on health and sanitation issues can also be viewed as part of an early history of urban sustainability. Designing a better more beautiful city, which would lead to higher civic virtues, was the hallmark of the City Beautiful Movement (Szczygiel 2003). Burnham’s ‘White City’, designed for the World’s Columbian Exposition of 1898, highlighted the ideals of the movement and showed a city with modern transportation options and impressive civic structures (Jackson 1985; Wilson 1989). Additionally, work completed by planning visionaries such as Patrick Geddes, Lewis Mumford, Jane Jacobs, Ian McHarg and Kevin Lynch have all contributed to developing planning techniques to create more sustainable urban environments (Wheeler 2000).

More recently, urban planners have spent considerable time and energy exploring ways to make communities more sustainable. A 1995 special issue of the Journal of Planning Literature was focused on developing the connection between sustainability and planning. Jepson and Edwards (2010) stated that beginning with the release of Our Common Future in 1987, the terms ‘sustainability’ and ‘sustainable development’ have been ‘popular’ terms for planners to consider. According to Wheeler (1996), ‘sustainable urban development seeks to create cities and towns that improve the long-term health of the planet’s human and ecological systems’ (p. 55). Given the growth in urban populations around the world, the term ‘urban sustainability’ or ‘sustainable urban development’ seems a more appropriate vehicle for exploring issues of sustainability as it relates to cities and planning.

Three of planning’s more recent and popular attempts to develop sustainable urban communities are Green Building, Smart Growth and New Urbanism. Green Building was an early attempt to construct a more sustainable urban environment through the development of more efficient homes, businesses and facilities to mitigate the environmental impacts of new buildings especially related to energy consumption. According to the United States Department of Energy, buildings use 39% of the energy and 74% of the electricity generated in the United States (USDoE 2009). The United States Environmental Protection Agency defines Green Building as ‘the practice of creating structures and using processes that are environmentally responsible and resource-efficient throughout a building’s life-cycle from siting to design, construction, operation, maintenance, renovation and deconstruction’ (USEPA 2014a). Green Building attempts to reduce the overall impact of the built environment on both humankind and the natural environment. Hallmarks of Green Building include efficiently using energy, water and other natural resources; protecting occupant health and improving employee productivity; and reducing waste, pollution and environmental degradation (USEPA 2014a).

Begun as a response to the oil crisis of the 1970s, Green Building is currently operationalised through construction rating programmes like Energy Star and LEED^® in the United States. However, Green Building does have some flaws (Cater 2010). First, Green Building projects can be located in environmentally inappropriate areas and still be considered ‘green’. Construction of a Green Building on a steep slope, in a floodplain or in a distant exurb can result in certification by a green agency but might not be the desired spatial/locational reality desired to foster urban sustainability. Green Building has also been criticised for reducing affordability due to the costs associated with the construction of green building projects (Bartlett & Howard 2000; Eichholtz et al. 2009, 2013). Likewise, Green Building can focus too much on the ‘bells and whistles’ and miss opportunities to build more efficient, simpler structures (USA Today 2013). Finally, the scale of the solution is a major obstacle. The Green Building model is implemented one building at a time and as a result is slow to change the overall sustainability of any given location. Additionally, ‘green building by green building’ implementation does not allow for coordination and the realisation of economies of scale by potentially larger projects.

Smart Growth is another approach to urban sustainability that has been explored by planners in the United States. According to Smart Growth America, ‘Smart Growth is a better way to build and maintain our towns and cities. Smart Growth means building urban, suburban and rural communities with housing and transportation choices near jobs, shops and schools. This approach supports local economies and protects the environment’ (2014). Similarly, the US EPA defines Smart Growth as ‘a range of development and conservation strategies that help protect our natural environment and make our communities more attractive, economically stronger, and more socially diverse’ (USEPA 2014b). Knaap and Talen (2005) state that no two organisations define Smart Growth in the same way, and Ye et al. explore 10 different organisations’ definition of Smart Growth (2005). The Smart Growth Network has developed a set of guiding principles that seem to have garnered widespread acceptance. These principles include the following:

1. Mix land uses;

2. Take advantage of compact building design;

3. Create a range of housing opportunities and choices;

4. Create walkable neighbourhoods;

5. Foster distinctive, attractive communities with a strong sense of place;

6. Preserve open space, farmland, natural beauty and critical environmental areas;

7. Strengthen and direct development towards existing communities;

8. Provide a variety of transportation choices;

9. Make development decisions predictable, fair and cost-effective and

10. Encourage community and stakeholder collaboration in development decisions.

In the end, Smart Growth hopes to allow economic prosperity for communities and at the same time mitigate congestion, environmental degradation and inefficient infrastructure (Glendening 2001).

However, Smart Growth is not without its problems. Critics often point out that Smart Growth leads to more regulations and reduces affordability (Nelson & Wachter 2003; Downs 2005). Smart Growth also can lead to more congestion due to its focus on density and infill development (Alexander & Tomalty 2002; Downs 2005). Finally, some opponents of Smart Growth believe a lack of design guidelines hampers successful implementation of Smart Growth and limits its impact on urban sustainability.

Similarly to Green Building, a major issue with Smart Growth may be the scale at which Smart Growth is implemented. Downs (2005) discussed the lack of enforcement for Smart Growth Principles and the lack of regional planning in the United States. Smart Growth ideology is best utilised in a regional context with multiple local governments working together to achieve the principles of Smart Growth. This is similar to what the State of Maryland created during the late 1990s (Daniels 2001). However, in most applications, Smart Growth is an ideology that is larger than a single city but smaller than a state in application. The political and urban geography of most of the United States does not have a suitable vehicle for the implementation of Smart Growth, and thus, it has largely languished as a set of principles that are largely unenforceable.

Around the same time that Smart Growth was becoming an alternative sustainable development programme, New Urbanism was bursting onto planners’ radar. Garde (2004) stated that, ‘New Urbanism is being promoted as a set of ideas to mitigate sprawl, to encourage sustainable growth, and to facilitate infill development’ (p. 154). According to New Urbanism.org, a leading organisation that focuses on New Urbanism, New Urbanism ‘promotes the creation and restoration of diverse, walkable, compact, vibrant, mixed-use communities composed of the same components as conventional development, but assembled in a more integrated fashion, in the form of complete communities’ (New Urbanism.org 2014).

Similar to Smart Growth’s 10 principles described earlier, New Urbanism is steeped in 10 of its own principles for development. These include the following:

1. Walkability

2. Connectivity

3. Mixed-use and density

4. Mixed housing

5. Quality architecture and urban design

6. Traditional neighbourhood structure

7. Increased density

8. Green transportation

9. Sustainability

10. Quality of life.

In general, private for-profit developers through well-known projects like Seaside, FL, Kentlands, MD, and Celebration, FL, have largely implemented New Urbanism. Interestingly, some communities around the United States have gone as far as adopting Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND) ordinances or the more recently developed SmartCode to guide future development along New Urbanism standards within their community (e.g. Davidson, NC, Miami, FL, Taos, NM).

Ellis (2002) offered a thorough review and rebuttal to many of the criticisms of New Urbanism. First, New Urbanism is criticised for taking design standards too far and regulating too much of the built environment. That rigidity has been seen as an issue for many and has led many to see New Urbanism developments as contrived (Kaliski 1996/1997; Rowe 1997). Secondly, New Urbanism (like Green Building and Smart Growth) was chastised for being unaffordable and development for the upper middle class and wealthy (Lehrer & Milgrom 1996). While some believed New Urbanism projects can help to provide a platform for quality infill development (Garde 2004), many New Urbanism projects are located in the suburb and have been ridiculed for being a more traditional looking form of sprawl (Zimmerman 2001). In the end, New Urbanism suffers from the same issue of scale that has plagued Smart Growth and Green Building models. Except for the few communities that have elected to adopt TND zoning ordinances and development standards, most of the implementation of New Urbanism ideology has been completed on a project-by-project basis.

Each of these efforts that were designed to achieve a more sustainable urban form has failed in some capacity. However, from these three efforts, a programme with new promise has taken shape, which is the LEED^®–ND^™. This programme seeks to incorporate the best of the principles of Green Building, Smart Growth and New Urbanism and was developed by the leading organisations for each model.

Scholarly work on LEED^® has focused on the spatial dynamics of projects and professionals, regulations and incentives and specific case studies. Garde (2009) provides one of the earliest examinations into LEED^®–ND^™. Garde (2009) explored the US LEED^®–ND^™ pilot projects in an attempt to gain insights into the strengths and limitations of LEED^®–ND^™. Specifically, he conducted a survey of LEED^®–ND^™ pilot projects and found that ‘the pilot version of the rating system makes it relatively easy to get well-located projects certified’ (Garde 2009, p. 435). Cidell (2009) examined the emerging geography of LEED^® buildings and professionals in an effort to understand the spatial distribution of ‘green’ buildings and professionals. Her analysis determined that ‘green buildings and green builders are not generally concentrated in the same locations’ (Cidell 2009, p. 213). Retzlaf (2009) considered the use of the LEED^® rating system in planning and development regulations and believed that the LEED^® system was being implemented as a de facto standard. Finally, Boschmann and Gabriel (2013) have completed a case study analysis of the LEED^® rating system in Denver and Boulder, CO. Their analysis concluded that ‘LEED^® rewards more light green approaches’ (p. 221), a common criticism of the LEED^® family of standards.

3. Overview of the LEED^®–ND^™

LEED^®–ND^™ was created by the US Green Building Council in partnership with the Congress for New Urbanism and the Natural Resources Defense Council. The rating system seeks to integrate the principles of Smart Growth, New Urbanism and Green Building into a national rating system for neighbourhood design (see Figure 1) (USGBC 2011c).

Figure 1. Foundations of LEED^®–ND^™.

The stated objectives of the LEED^®–ND^™ programme are to ‘revitalize existing urban areas, reduce land consumption, reduce automobile dependence, promote pedestrian activity, improve air quality, decrease polluted stormwater runoff, and build more livable, sustainable communities for people of all income levels’ (USGBC 2007, p. 1). Projects that are eligible for inclusion under the LEED^®–ND^™ umbrella include whole neighbourhoods, portions of neighbourhoods, multiple neighbourhoods and usually contain a mixture of uses. Single-use projects that complement existing neighbourhoods are also eligible for certification (USGBC 2011c). This ability to include a wide variety of project types and sizes under the LEED^®–ND^™ umbrella is a major improvement from past planning models for promoting urban sustainability.

The LEED^®–ND^™ system began in 2007 with the inclusion of 205 registered pilot projects from 39 US states. These pilot projects were reviewed against the new LEED^®–ND^™ rating system rules (i.e. Pilot Rules) for both mandatory and optional criteria to determine their qualification for recognition under LEED^®–ND^™ and potential level of certification. While LEED^®–ND^™ hopes to create more sustainable urban developments for cities and citizens, developers see LEED^®–ND^™ as a mechanism for receiving tax benefits, density bonuses, priority permitting and quicker approval of projects (USGBC 2009). As Garde (2009) stated, ‘designers and planners are trying to promote sustainability in new development projects amid growing concerns about climate change and the large carbon footprint associated with sprawl’ (p. 425), and LEED^®–ND^™ offered the latest model for attempting to achieve sustainable urban development.

The certification of a LEED^®–ND^™ project is contingent upon its evaluation along a set of pre-described ‘credit categories’. These categories include Smart Location and Linkage, Neighborhood Pattern and Design, Green Infrastructure and Buildings, Innovation and Design Process, and Regional Priority (USGBC 2011c). The Regional Priority credit was not part of the original LEED^®–ND^™ Pilot Programme rules. The connection between many of these categories and the foundational urban sustainability model (i.e. Green Building, Smart Growth, and New Urbanism) is very transparent. For example, the Neighborhood Pattern and Design, which emphasises vibrant, equitable communities that are healthy, walkable and mixed-use, is a direct descendant of New Urbanism ideology. Meanwhile, the Green Infrastructure and Buildings credit is a nod to the Green Building movement that sought to reduce the impact of buildings on the natural and human environment. Finally, the Smart Location and Linkage category is a direct descendant of and influenced by Smart Growth ideology.

Projects wishing to become certified as a LEED^®–ND^™ development must proceed through three stages of certification. These include conditionally approved plan, pre-certified plan and certified neighbourhood development. Stage 1 – conditionally approved plan may be viewed as projects/plans that have completed a public review and have the support of the local community and/or local government. Projects that are under construction may be considered part of Stage 2, the pre-certified planning stage. Finally, Stage 3 – Certified Neighborhood Development is the name given to completed projects that have formally applied for LEED^® certification and recognises that the project has achieved the requisite number of credits for certification (USGBC 2014).

After providing an overview of the evolution and the major characteristics of the programme, it is necessary to examine LEED^®–ND^™ projects that are being implemented. In Section 5, the geography and development characteristics of 224 LEED^®–ND^™ developments will be explored in an effort to gain a better understanding of this new programme for implementing sustainable urban development in the United States.

4. Research questions and methods

The major focus of this research is to explore the evolving geography and spatial distribution of LEED^®–ND^™ projects in the United States. Previous research into the spatial distribution of ‘green’ projects has revealed an uneven pattern to ‘green’ development in the United States (Cidell 2009; Garde 2009; Mason et al. 2011). Mason et al. (2011) study of ‘green’ buildings in the Pacific Northwest determined that central city location played a role in green building decisions. Likewise, Cidell (2009) determined that the spatial distribution of ‘green’ development was uneven and that a disconnect existed between projects and professionals. Finally, Garde (2009) revealed that urban locations had an apparent advantage in LEED^®–ND^™ certification as a result of the scoring which favours urban sites. This advantage could lead to a higher propensity of LEED^®–ND^™ projects being located in urban locations.

As a result of these previous studies (Cidell 2009; Garde 2009; Mason et al. 2011), it is hypothesised that several geographic patterns will emerge from the examination into the spatial distribution of LEED^®–ND^™ projects in the United States. First, at the macro level, it is hypothesised that a majority of LEED^®–ND^™ projects will be located in states that are on the East and West coasts and that the central portion of the United States will be relatively void of LEED^®–ND^™ projects. This hypothesis is partly expected due to the bicoastal distribution of population in the United States and higher frequencies of larger metropolitan areas, which are both expected to drive demand for ‘green’ development projects. Second, a majority of LEED^®–ND^™ projects are hypothesised to be located in Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs). Specifically, Large Central Metropolitan Statistical Areas as designated by the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) Urban-Rural Classification system are expected to contain a majority if LEED-ND projects. Both Mason et al. (2011) and Garde (2009) make reference to the importance of large urban centres as magnets for ‘green’ developments. Finally, it is expected that an analysis of LEED^®–ND^™ by NCHS Urban-Rural Classification will also reveal that the ‘Large Central Metro’ designation will contain a majority of ‘green’ projects.

In addition to exploring the spatial tendencies of LEED^®–ND^™ projects, an examination into the development characteristics of LEED^®–ND^™ developments is hypothesised to yield the following results. First, a larger percentage of LEED^®–ND^™ projects being developed after the conclusion of the Pilot Programme. Second, it is expected that a majority of LEED^®–ND^™ projects will be certified at the silver or higher level of certification. It is also hypothesised that a majority of LEED^®–ND^™ projects will be proposed/developed by for-profit entities. Finally, the mean LEED^®–ND^™ project size is hypothesised to be less than 60 hectares.

To explore the geography and development characteristics of LEED^®–ND^™ projects, data were collected from the United States Green Building Council (USGBC 2014) for analysis. After collecting data on all LEED^®–ND^™ projects that are either under review or have been certified, each project was reviewed to determine its geographic location (i.e. city, state, MSA, NCHS Urban-Rural Classification) and development characteristics (i.e. acreage, owner, certification level). In sum, 239 LEED^®–ND^™ projects were retrieved from the USGBC’s database, and in the end, 224 projects were included in this analysis (15 projects were removed from consideration due to a lack of information).¹

After all LEED^®–ND^™ projects were allocated to a specific geography, the projects were mapped using ArcGIS 10.0. ArcGIS was also utilised to conduct the spatial analysis to determine locational patterns to LEED^®–ND^™ projects. Supporting documentation and background information on the LEED^®–ND^™ rating systems was collected for the USGBC and partner agencies that helped develop the rating system. Of particular help was the new Green Building Information Gateway (GBIG 2014), which is a product of the USGBC and provides information about specific green projects in a user-friendly environment.

5. Findings

5.1. The geography of LEED^®–ND^™ projects in the United States

Since its inception, the LEED^®–ND^™ rating system has had 239 projects apply for rating, 224 of which have been included within this study (15 projects were excluded from this study due to a lack of data). The overall spatial distribution of LEED^®–ND^™ projects in the United States is uneven (see Figure 2). Thirty-seven out of the 50 states and the District of Columbia had at least one LEED^®–ND^™ project within their border. California had almost one fifth of all LEED^®–ND^™ development in the nation with 44 (19.6%). New York experienced the second most LEED^®–ND^™ development activity with 13 projects, followed by Maryland (12), Colorado (11) and a tie for the fifth most projects between Illinois, Massachusetts and Ohio, all of which witnessed the development of 9 LEED^®–ND^™ projects. The majority of the states that did not see any LEED^®–ND^™ projects are located in the interior of the country (i.e. Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, North Dakota, Oklahoma, West Virginia, Wyoming) and the north-east (i.e. Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont).

Figure 2. Spatial distribution of LEED^®–ND^™ projects by core-based statistical area.

These macro results of LEED^®–ND^™ project distribution by state are not surprising. California and Colorado are ‘hot’ markets for green development and environmental issues hold more sway in these locations, and as a result, higher levels of LEED^®–ND^™ development were expected in these states. Additionally, both California and Colorado are ‘Top Ten’ states for LEED^® activity (Kriss 2014). Meanwhile, Illinois and Ohio seem to be taking advantage of using LEED^®–ND^™ to help redevelop older urban sections of their respective communities. (It is worth noting that Illinois is ranked no. 1 in per capita sq. footage of Green Building space). The states that did not witness any LEED^®–ND^™ projects were also largely expected. The one caveat is the lack of LEED^®–ND^™ development in the north-east of the United States. Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont are known for their environmentalism, and some level of development was expected in these states. However, the rural nature of these states and low population growth may limit the potential use of LEED^®–ND^™ in these places.

Exploring the geography of LEED^®–ND^™ projects by MSA provides additional insight into the evolving pattern of green neighbourhood development in the United States. Two hundred and sixteen out of the 224 LEED^®–ND^™ projects (96.4%) studied were located in a MSA (see Figure 3). Of the eight non-MSA LEED^®–ND^™ projects, four were located in a micropolitan statistical area and the remaining four have no designation. Clearly, a large urban population may be a necessary prerequisite for the successful implementation of LEED^®–ND^™ developments.

Figure 3. Spatial distribution of LEED^®–ND^™ projects by Metropolitan Statistical Area.

The MSA with the highest concentration of green neighbourhood development was the Washington–Arlington–Alexandria, DC–VA–MD–WV MSA with 20 projects either certified or in the development stage according to the USGBC. The San Francisco–Oakland–Fremont, CA MSA had the second most LEED^®–ND^™ projects with 17, followed by the New York–Northern New Jersey–Long Island, NY–NJ–PA MSA with 11. Two MSAs tied for fourth – Boston–Cambridge–Quincy, MA–NH MSA and the Los Angeles–Long Beach–Santa Ana, CA MSA each with nine developments. Finally, the Chicago–Joliet–Naperville, IL–IN–WI MSA and Portland–Vancouver–Hillsboro, OR–WA MSA tied for the fifth most LEED^®–ND^™ projects (seven). While results show that almost all LEED^®–ND^™ activity occurred in MSAs (96.4%), these seven MSAs alone accounted for more than one third (36%) of all LEED^®–ND^™ developments examined. This highlights the spatial concentration of LEED^®–ND^™ projects in major metropolitan markets.

Examining the geography of LEED^®–ND^™ projects by MSA revealed an interesting pattern compared to the results of the state-level analysis. The District of Columbia, which was not one of the top states for green neighbourhood development, was the highest-ranking MSA when the surrounding areas of Maryland and Virginia were included within its metropolitan borders. Not surprisingly, two California MSAs (i.e. San Francisco and Los Angeles), New York’s MSA and Boston’s MSA were all included on the list of the MSAs with the highest concentration of LEED^®–ND^™ projects and also ranked favourable on the state analysis. The remaining MSAs that scored well on the LEED^®–ND^™ development rankings were Chicago and Portland. Chicago is well known for its green initiatives, especially its green rooftops campaign and Portland is also heavily associated with green development and often ranks near the top of ‘green cities’ rankings.

A final locational analysis of LEED^®–ND^™ developments was completed based on the NCHS Urban-Rural Classification Scheme for Counties. The NCHS Classification Scheme was developed in an attempt to understand the relationship between the level of urbanisation and health. Additionally, it can provide another locational description of where LEED^®–ND^™ projects are being developed within the United States. The NCHS classification system is comprised of six levels of designation ranging from ‘large central metro’ to ‘noncore’ (CDC 2014). For the 224 LEED^®–ND^™ projects included in this analysis, approximately 57% are located in the ‘Large Central Metro’ designation (see Table 1). An almost equal number of LEED^®–ND^™ projects are located in ‘Large Fringe Metro’ and ‘Medium Metro’ areas with 36 and 35 projects, respectively. LEED^®–ND^™ developments in ‘Small Metro’ designated areas only accounted for 17 projects or 7.6% of total activity. Not surprising, ‘Micropolitan’ and ‘Noncore’ areas each only witnessed the development of four LEED^®–ND^™ projects each. These results once again highlight the role of larger populations in the implementation of green neighbourhood developments.

Table 1. LEED^®–ND^™ projects by NCHS Urban-Rural Classification.

LEED^®–ND^™ Rules	Large Central Metro	Large Fringe Metro	Medium Metro	Small Metro	Micropolitan	Noncore
Pilot Programme (n = 124)	70 (56.5%)	20 (16.1%)	20 (16.1%)	8 (6.5%)	3 (2.4%)	3 (2.4%)
Project v2009 (n = 100)	58 (58.0%)	16 (16.0%)	15 (15.0%)	9 (9.0%)	1 (1.0%)	1 (1.0%)
Total (n = 224)	128 (57.1%)	36 (16.1%)	35 (15.6%)	17 (7.6%)	4 (1.8%)	4 (1.8%)

5.2. Development characteristics of LEED^®–ND^™ projects in the United States

In addition to examining the geographic characteristics of LEED^®–ND^™, the development characteristics of projects were examined in an effort to better understand the rules by which projects were developed, certification levels attained, ownership trends and sizes of developments. Of the 224 LEED^®–ND^™ projects examined in this study, 124 (55%) of them were developed under the USGBC LEED^®–ND^™ Pilot Project regulations. The remaining 100 projects are being developed under the revised 2009 LEED^®–ND^™ rules. The original pilot programme regulations were re-examined in 2009 to address some of the perceived shortcomings of the new rating system. These new regulations require at least one LEED^®-certified green building per LEED^®–ND^™ project, a revised energy performance standard and minimum water efficiency standard in order to gain LEED^®–ND^™ certification (Garde 2009). It should be noted that the number of projects being considered for LEED^®–ND^™ recognition has declined since the original pilot programme even though the LEED^®–ND^™ standard is in its eighth year and the new 2009 rules have been in place for six years. This may be the result of the recent recession or may highlight the impact of the new regulations that raised the standard for certification.

Currently, 100 of the 224 projects have been officially recognised as meeting one of the four certification categories (i.e. platinum, gold, silver, certified). Six projects have received the highest certification, platinum designation (80+ points), while 36 have been designated gold (60–79 points) LEED^®–ND^™ projects. Please note that the maximum number of points that a project could have received under the Pilot Programme regulations was 106 and a project proposed under the revised 2009 regulations could achieve a maximum score of 110 due to the inclusion of a Regional Priority Credit (USGBC 2007, 2011a). Of the remaining projects, 26 are silver (50–59 points) and 32 have the lowest level of certification and are designated as certified (40–49 points) by the USGBC (2011b). The vast majority of these projects that have been recognised as meeting the LEED^®–ND^™ standard have been approved under the Pilot Programme rules (83 out of 100). This result is not surprising given that the Pilot Programmes have had longer to come to fruition.

LEED^®–ND^™ developments have been proposed by a wide variety of players including private developers, corporations, government entities, non-profits and educational establishments (see Table 2). Approximately 68% of the LEED^®–ND^™ developments have been proposed by private investor/corporate entities. The second largest owner of LEED^®–ND^™ developments were local governments who account for 37 LEED^®–ND^™ projects (16.5%). Non-profits/public–private partnership held ownership over another 31 projects. The US government and academic institutions each are responsible for the development of 2 LEED^®–ND^™ projects.

Table 2. LEED^®–ND^™ projects by owner type.

LEED^®–ND^™ Rules	Investor/corporate	Local government	Non-profit/public–private partnerships	Federal government	Higher education
Pilot Programme (n = 114)	92 (74.2%)	15 (12.1%)	16 (12.9%)	0 (0%)	1 (0.8%)
Project v2009 (n = 100)	60 (60.0%)	22 (22.0%)	15 (15.0%)	2 (2.0%)	1 (1.0%)
Totals (n = 224)	152 (67.8%)	37 (16.5%)	31 (13.8%)	2 (0.9%)	2 (0.9%)

The examination into the ownership of LEED^®–ND^™ developments provided two interesting findings. First, while declining over the period, investor/corporate-led LEED^®–ND^™ developments were the most prevalent. Second, local government ownership of LEED^®–ND^™ projects increased 46.6% and may signal a growing acceptance of LEED^®–ND^™ by local governments as a tool for promoting an alternative form of development.

Finally, according to the data collected for this analysis, LEED^®–ND^™ developments will contribute almost 37,200,000 m² of commercial/office/retail space and more than 28,000 residential units to the built landscape of the United States on 12,750 hectares of land. New Mexico, California and Hawaii are leaders in the amount of hectares under development for LEED^®–ND^™ projects (see Figure 4). New Mexico has 5182.2 hectares of land being consumed by 3 LEED^®–ND^™ projects. It should be noted that one project located in New Mexico occupies 5180 hectares of land and is the largest LEED^®–ND^™ development in the United States. California has the second most land under development by LEED^®–ND^™ standards with more than 2400 hectares, but the average size of a LEED^®–ND^™ project in California is only 54.7 hectares due to the large number of projects in California (44). Finally, Hawaii has the third most land being consumed by LEED^®–ND^™ projects in total (653.7 hectares) and the third most hectares per LEED^®–ND^™ project (217.9 hectares).

Figure 4. Total area of LEED^®–ND^™ projects by state.

The size of LEED^®–ND^™ projects can differ dramatically. As previously mentioned, the largest LEED^®–ND^™ development, Trenza at the Galisteo Basin Preserve, covers 5180 hectares. Meanwhile, the Solea Condominiums project in Washington, DC, and Decker Walk project in Baltimore, MD, are located on tracts of less than a quarter of a hectare. According to the USGBC, the rules for LEED^®–ND^™ do not have a minimum or maximum project size but believe that the standard works best when a project has at least two buildings and encompasses a maximum of 130 hectares (USGBC 2011b).

Examining LEED^®–ND^™ development patterns by the total area of all projects in a state provides an additional opportunity to uncover the unique geography to LEED^®–ND^™ (see Figure 5). Louisiana has the smallest mean area for states with at least two LEED^®–ND^™ projects at 4.7 hectares. New Mexico has the largest mean area for states with at least two LEED^®–ND^™ projects at 1727.4 hectares. In sum, the mean area for LEED^®–ND^™ projects was 57 hectares and the median is 8.1 hectares. The vast majority of projects are less than 20.2 hectares in size (73.6%). These results reveal a large range in the size of LEED^®–ND^™ projects and a telling dichotomy in LEED^®–ND^™ projects between larger new greenfield developments and smaller urban infill projects, which will be explored further in future research.

Figure 5. Mean LEED^®–ND^™ projects size by state.

6. Criticisms of LEED^®–ND^™

While LEED^®–ND^™ offers a new path to achieving urban sustainability, it is not a panacea. Knack (2010) highlighted many of the criticisms of LEED^®–ND^™ in an article for Planning, a monthly magazine of the American Planning Association. Some of the major issues that Knack (2010) highlighted included that LEED^®–ND^™ is not actually neighbourhood planning but more like planning around a specific project or site, the rating system leaves out many of the social and economic factors that would normally be included in a neighbourhood plan, and many of the criteria included in LEED^®–ND^™ are difficult to carry out within the context of existing zoning codes. Knack (2010) goes on to add that do to the density requirements, many suburban and rural areas may be left out and/or find it difficult to meet the requirements of LEED^®–ND^™, a criticism also shared by Garde (2009).

Other critics have noted that LEED^®–ND^™ does not place enough emphasis on saving energy and that certification is actually awarded prior to measuring an actual projects performance (Cater 2010). Garde (2009) added that the points systems of certification may result in developers grabbing for low hanging fruit, a criticism of many rating systems. Retzlaf (2009) offered an additional criticism of LEED^®–ND^™ when he discussed the lack of regional diversity in the rating system. He believes more flexibility is needed in the LEED^®–ND^™ standard to account for regional differences around the United States. Finally, Garde (2009) alluded to the cost of construction and cost of certification as negatives of the LEED^®–ND^™ rating systems.

As previously discussed, LEED^®–ND^™ standards do change and get updated and as a result should be viewed as a work in progress. With that said, it is important to note that LEED^®–ND^™ certification does not guarantee sustainability. Additionally, other standards that promote sustainability do exist both nationally and internationally. Likewise, individual communities can take parts of different rating systems to create a programme to promote urban sustainability that works for them.

7. Conclusion

This study provides an important beginning for understanding the geographic and development characteristics of LEED^®–ND^™ projects for planners and policymakers. As the world continues to urbanise and resources are strained, new tools will be needed to create more sustainable patterns of urban development. By combing aspects of Smart Growth, New Urbanism and Green Buildings, LEED^®–ND^™ offers urban planners, developers and public officials with a new tool in the battle for a more sustainable urban form.

The analysis revealed that the spatial distribution of LEED^®–ND^™ projects is uneven and projects tend to be concentrated in a few states with little to no activity in almost half the country. California accounted for almost 20% of all projects in the United States, while New York (13), Maryland (12) and Colorado (11) accounted for an additional 16% of all LEED^®–ND^™ activity. Meanwhile, 13 states did not witness any LEED^®–ND^™ activity and another seven states only had 1 LEED^®–ND^™ project within their borders. The examination of green neighbourhood development by MSA revealed that over 96% of all LEED^®–ND^™ projects included in this analysis were located in an MSA. Further analysis of LEED^®–ND^™ developments by NCHS Urban-Rural Classification showed that almost all of the projects were located within ‘Large Central Metros’, ‘Large Fringe Metros’ or ‘Medium Metros’. ‘Small Metropolitan Areas’, ‘Micropolitan Areas’ and ‘Noncore Areas’, as designated by NCHS classification, accounted for only 11% of all LEED^®–ND^™ activity. This pattern reveals the importance of larger populations and proximity to urban markets for the initiation of LEED^®–ND^™ projects.

An exploration of LEED^®–ND^™ development characteristics revealed that the typical LEED^®–ND^™ project would be certified at the gold level, be investor or corporate owned, and be approximately 8.1 hectares in size. Interestingly, a more detailed examination of LEED^®–ND^™ pilot projects compared with newer LEED^®–ND^™ projects developed under the new 2009 rules shows the growing importance in local government use of the standard. Since the initial Pilot Programme, projects organised by local governments have increased almost 50% and the Federal government has also proposed two LEED^®–ND^™ projects. This finding may suggest the acceptance of LEED^®–ND^™ as a new standard for urban sustainability in the United States.

The implications of these findings are that a clear dichotomy has developed between places (i.e. Coastal States and Large Metros) that are benefiting from urban sustainability efforts and those geographies (i.e. Interior of the Country and Small/Micro Metros) that are devoid of urban sustainability projects that can enhance the quality of life concerns for residents. Additionally, this dichotomy seems to reinforce the inequalities that currently exist in our society. Better populated places in the United States that are experiencing population growth and economic growth are attracting sustainable urban developments that will only add to their already higher quality of life. Finally, the growing influence of government in the development of LEED^®–ND^™M projects might signal a lack of confidence on the private sectors part related to the profitability of sustainable urban development. Interestingly, a great deal of private sector interest was associated with the release of the LEED^®–ND^™ Pilot Programme. However, in recent years, for-profit interest in LEED^®–ND^™ projects has waned.

Policymakers and planners would be wise to explore how urban sustainability may be fostered in their locale. LEED^®–ND^™ may be a form of urban sustainable development that will slowly diffuse to smaller geographies. Or it may take concerted effort on local officials to implement incentives to see the creation of the desire form of development. State lawmakers and local government officials in states and cities that have had little to no LEED^®–ND^™ activity may follow the lead of several states (e.g. Illinois’s Green Neighborhood Award Act) and incentivise this type of urban development. Similarly, urban planners could be proactive and draft policies and legislation that actively encourage LEED^®–ND^™ development within their jurisdiction (e.g. Seattle, Portland, San Francisco all require LEED certification of public sector buildings). Examples of this can range from providing quicker review times and lower permitting fees, to adopting ordinances that require LEED certification as part of new developments.

In conclusion, our ability to develop sustainable urban environs will help to decide the quality of life for millions of people in the United States. Urban planners are in the unique position to help impact how and where people live, work and play. Developing more sustainable urban options can help reduce energy consumption, protect natural resources, reduce pollution and raise the social capital of our cities. Future research related to LEED^®–ND^™ should focus on the locational attributes of projects, specifically the role of the locational criteria in promoting infill and redevelopment as opposed to just creating a ‘better’ form of sprawl. Additional research could examine the incentives and regulations communities are utilising to promote urban sustainability in their community. The future is urban and how we develop it will be of critical importance in the coming years.

Notes

1. The data presented in this analysis was current as of February 2014 and new projects continue to be registered and certified.