The Green Apple Research Project

198 Pages·2014·4.5 MB·English

The Green Apple Research Project:

Health Outcomes of a
Green Housing Retrofit for
Older Adults in
Phoenix, Arizona
Final Report: August 2013

Arizona State University
with University of Florida and
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratories

Health Outcomes of a
Green Housing Retrofit for
Older Adults in
Phoenix, Arizona
i
Arizona State University Acknowledgements
The Design School HUD Office of Healthy Homes and Lead
Hazard Control
Principal Investigators:
Sherry Ahrentzen, Ph.D. / University of Florida Arizona State University
Michael Underhill / Arizona State University graduate students, undergraduate students,
faculty and staff:
Submitted to: Sharzhad Badivour, Ryan Brotman,
HUD Office of Healthy Homes and Charlotte Brown, Lisa Dwyer, James Erickson,
Lead Hazard Control Justin Holloway, Janet Holston, Jillian Ioerger,
Lisa Jackson, Don Livingston, Joshua Menigoz,
Grant Number: AZLHH0200-09 Krista Moring, Janelle Musco, Lyric Peate,
Julieta Paulsec, Lisa Peña, Angela Sinclair,
31 August 2013 Elif Tural
Authors Arizona State University, Institute of Social
Sherry Ahrentzen (PI) Science Research
John Ball
Hugo Destaillats (Co-PI) City of Phoenix Housing Department
Sarah Dwyer Ideal Energy, LLC
James Erickson Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratories
Ernesto Fonseca (Co-PI) University of Florida: Sarah Dwyer,
Matthew Fraser (Co-PI) Siva Srinivasan
t
Sarah Frey c
e
William Johnson (Co-PI) And the delightful residents of
j
Mookesh Patel (Co-PI) Sunnyslope Manor o
Kimberly Shea (Co-PI) r
P

Primary Editor h
c
Sherry Ahrentzen
r
a
Graphic Design e
s
Mookesh Patel
e
R

e
l
p
p
A

n
e
e
r
G

e
h
T
ii
t
c
e
j
o
r
P

h
c
r
a
e
s
e
R

e
l
p
p
A

n
e
e
r
G

e
h
T
Table of Contents
Executive Summary 0xi
Chapter 1:
Background 001
1.1 The Conundrum of “Green = Healthy?” 003
1:2 Research Questions 003
1.3 The Green Apple Project (GAP) 004
iii
1.4 Brief Overview of Housing and Health Issues of Seniors 004
1.5 The Research Site: Sunnyslope Menor, Phoenix, Arizona 006
Chapter 2:
Methodology 009
2.1 Research Aim and Hypotheses 011
2.2 Research Design 012
2.3 Recruitment and Description of Study Participants 012
2.4 Procedures for Data Collection 014
2.5 Intervention: Green Retrofit of Sunnyslope Manor 015
2.5.1 Systems 017
2.5.2 Kitchens 019
2.5.3. Bathroom 021
2.5.4. Bedroom/Living Room 022
2.5.5. Miscellaneous Sealants and Adhesives 022
2.5.6. ADA Units 022
2.6 Measuring Environmental Quality 024
2.7 Measuring Residential Health 026
2.8 Measuring Environmental Perceptions 027
2.9 Moderating and Mediating Factors 028
2.10 Proxy Measures 030
2.11 Measuring for Benefit Cost Analysis 031
2.12 Procedure for Development and Assessment of t
Resident Education Booklet 031 c
e
2.13 Other Meaningful Community Engagement 035
j
2.14 Quality Assurance 038 o
r
2.15 Data Management and Archiving 040 P
2.16 Data Analyses Procedures 040
h
c
Chapter 3: r
Did the Retrofit Result in Decreased Utility Consumption? a
e
Energy and Water Efficiency at Sunnyslope Manor 43
s
e
Chapter 4: R
Did Indoor Air Quality Improve after the Retrofit? 49 s
et
4.1 Particulate Matter 52 n
l
4.1.1 Short Term Effects 52 pe
4.1.2 Long-Term Effects 53 pt
An
4.1.3 Conclusions of PM Results 53 o

4.2 Aldehydes 54 nC
4.2.1 Short-Term Effects 57 e
ef
4.2.2 Long-Term Effects 59 o
r
4.2.3 Conclusions of Aldehyde Results 60 Ge
l
eb
Chapter 5:
ha
Did Temperature, Relative Humidity and Air Exchange
TT
Improve After the Retrofit? Indoor Climate at Sunnyslope Manor 61
5.1 Temperature 63
5.1.1 Short Term Effects 63
5.1.1.1 Conclusions 65
5.1.2 Long Term Effects 66
5.1.2.1 Conclusions 67
5.2 Relative Humidity 68
5.2.1 Short Term Effects 69
5.2.2 Long Term Effects 69
5.2.3 Conclusions 69
5.3 Air Infiltration 70
5.3.1 Short and Long Term Effects 70
5.3.2 Conclusions 71
iv
Chapter 6:
Did Reported Health Conditions Change After the Retrofit? 73
6.1 A Note on Reformatting Health Questions Across Interview Panels 75
6.2 SSM Residents’ Health Compared to State and National Samples 75
6.2.1 Chronic Health Conditions and General Health 76
6.2.2 Emotional Distress 78
6.2.3 General Health and Sleep 79
6.2.4 Functional Assessment and Pain 81
6.2.5 Summary of Comparison 82
6.3 Key Health Conditions 83
6.3.1 Short Term Changes 85
6.3.2 Long Term Changes 85
6.4 Correspondence Between Changed Health and Changed IEQ 88
6.5 Summary and Explanation of Results 89
Chapter 7:
Did Resident Perceptions and Behaviors Change
After the Retrofit? 91
7.1 Liked and Disliked Features of the Renovated Apartments 93
7.2 Changed Perceptions of Environmental Quality 95
7.3 Changes in Cleaning Behaviors and Use of Cleaning Products 96
7.4 Correspondence between Resident Perceptions of and
t
c Objective IEQ Changes 97
e
7.4.1 Correspondence Between Thermal Measures and
j
o Resident Perceptions 97
r 7.4.2 Correspondence Between PM and Aldehyde Measures and
P
Resident Perceptions of Air Qualit 98

h 7.5 Conclusions 99
c
r
a Chapter 8:
e Benefit Cost Analysis 101
s
8.1 Research Design and Methodology 103
e
R 8.1.1 Perspective 103
8.1.2 Costs 104
e
8.1.3 Duration 104
l
p 8.1.4 Discount Rate 104
p 8.2 Benefits 104
A
8.2.1 Falls 105

n 8.3 Results 107
e 8.3.1 Costs 107
e 8.3.2 Potential Benefits 108
r
8.3.3 Benefit-Cost Estimates 109
G
8.4 Conclusions 110

e
h
References 111
T
Appendices 117
Table of Figures
Chapter 1:
Figure 1.1 Aerial View of the Project 006
Figure 1.2 Overall Vicinity, Site, and Building Configuration 007
Figure 1.3 View of the Project from Ruth Street 008
Figure 1.4 Typical SSM Apartment Floor Plan 008

Chapter 2:
v
Figure 2.1 Menu Card 015
Figure 2.2 Typical PTAC Unit in Resident’s Home 018
Figures 2.3a through 2.3e
Kitchen Before (a) and After (b-e) Retrofit 019
Figure 2.4 New Flooring in Kitchen (left) and Living Room (right) 021
Figure 2.5 Remodeled Bathroom 021
Figures 2.6a − 2.6d
ADA Kitchen 022
Figures 2.7a − 2.7c
ADA Bathroom 023
Figure 2.9 Test Equipment Location Plan 024
Figure 2.10 HOBO Logger for Measuring Temperature, RH 025
Figure 2.11 Resident Education Booklet for Sunnyslope Manor 032
Figures 2.12a − 2.12d
Kick-Off Event for Green Apple Project 035
Figures 2.13a − 2.13d
Final Event for Green Apple Project 036
Chapter 3:
Figure 3.1 Mean Monthly Temperature and Metered Energy Consumption 045
Figure 3.2 Mean Monthly Temperature and Metered Water Consumption 046
Figure 3.3 Mean Monthly Temperature and Metered Energy Consumption
for Four Years of Peak Summer Months July – September 047 t
Figure 3.4 Mean Monthly Temperature and Metered Water Consumption c
e
for Four Years of Peak Summer Months July – September 048
j
o
r
Chapter 4: P
Figure 4.1 Cumulative Frequency of Unit Formaldehyde Concentrations
h
for Each Panel 054
c
Figure 4.2 Cumulative Frequency of Unit Acetone Concentrations r
for Each Panel 055 a
e
Figure 4.3 Cumulative Frequency of Unit Acetaldehyde Concentrations
s
for Each Panel 056
e
R
Chapter 5:
e
Figure 5.1 Box Plot of EXCEED 81 Data in Each Panel (n = 47) 064 s
le
Figure 5.2 Change between Panels in number of temperature data p
r
p
points exceeding 81°F (n = 47) 065 u
A
Figure 5.3 Box Plot of RH Data for Units Participating in g
i
All Three Panels (n = 47) 069 nF
Figure 5.4 Air Exchange (CFM50) for Units Participating in e
ef
All Three Panels (n = 47) 070 o
r
Ge
Chapter 6: l
eb
Figure 6.1 Extent Home Environment Contributed to Fall,
ha
as Reported by Residents Who Had Fallen in
TT
Home at Panel 3 088
Chapter 7:
Figure 7.1 Word Cloud of Home Features Most Liked 094
Figure 7.2 Word Cloud of Home Features Most Disliked 094
Chapter 8:
Figure 8.1 Rate of Nonfatal, Medically Consulted Fall Injury Episodes,
by Age Group — National Health Interview Survey,
United States, 2010 106
vi
t
c
e
j
o
r
P

h
c
r
a
e
s
e
R

e
l
p
p
A

n
e
e
r
G

e
h
T
Table of Tables
Chapter 2:
Table 2.1 Study Hypotheses 011
Table 2.2 Sample Sizes at Each Data Collection Panel, and
Combination of Panels 013
Table 2.3 Demographic Profile of Participating Residents,
As Measured at Panel 1 014
Table 2.4 Building Location of Residential Units at Panel 3 014
vii
Table 2.5 Renovation Specifications of Sunnyslope Manor Green Retrofit 016
Table 2.6 Moderating and Mediating Variables Used in the Analyses 028
Table 2.7 Significant Relationships Between Person/Behavior/Building
Characteristics Used as Mediating/Moderating Factors 029
Chapter 4:
Table 4.1 Particulate Matter and Aldehyde Measures Used in Analyses 051
Table 4.2 Descriptive Statistics for PM 052
Table 4.3 Descriptive Statistics for Aldehydes 056
Table 4.4 P1P2 Changes in Indoor Acetone Concentrations, and
After Controlling for Mediating Factors 057
Table 4.5 P1P2 Changes in Indoor Acetaldehyde Concentrations, and
After Controlling for Mediating Factors 058
Table 4.6 P1P3 Changes in Indoor Formaldehyde Concentrations, and
After Controlling for Mediating Factors 059
Table 4.7 P1P3 Changes in Indoor/Outdoor Ratio of Acetone, and
After Controlling for Mediating Factors 060
Chapter 5:
Table 5.1 Descriptive Statistics of Four Temperature Measures, and
P1P2 Regression 063
Table 5.2 EXCEED 81 at Panels 1 and 2 064
Table 5.3 Resident’s Length of Stay at SSM on Temperature Variables 065 t
Table 5.4 Descriptive Statistics of Four Temperature Variables, and c
e
P1P3 Regression 066
j
Table 5.5 EXCEED 81 at Panel 1 and Panel 3 067 o
r
Table 5.6 RH Descriptives for Units Participating in Panels 1 and 2 068 P
Table 5.7 RH Descriptives for Units Participating in Panels 1 and 3 068
h
c
Chapter 6: r
Table 6.1 Sample Size and Gender Counts of SSM, NHIS and a
e
BRFSS Survey Respondents 076
s
Table 6.2 Binominal Analysis of Percentage of Respondents Reporting
e
Chronic Health Conditions, Between SSM Sample and R
NHIS/BRFSS Survey Respondents for 2010 and 2011 077
e
Table 6.3 Chronic Conditions That Developed During Study and
ls
Final Percentage of SSM Residents With Condition at p
e
p
The Completion of The Study 078 l
Ab
Table 6.4 Comparison of SSM and National (NHIS) Respondents on
a
Prevalence of Feelings in Emotional Distress Subscales, n
T
for 2010 and 2011 079 e
ef
Table 6.5 Comparison of SSM and Arizona (BFRSS) Respondents on o
r
Reported General Health, 2010, 2011 080 Ge
Table 6.6 Comparison of SSM and Arizona (BFRSS) Respondents on l
eb
Prevalence of Reported Feeling Healthy and Full of
ha
Energy, 2010 and 2011 80
TT
Table 6.7 Comparison of SSM and Arizona (BFRSS) Respondents for
Satisfaction with Life, 2010 and 2011 80
Table 6.8 Comparison of SSM and Arizona (BFRSS) Respondents on
Number of Days of Poor Physical Health in Last Month,
and Number of Days of Unintentional Sleep in
Last Month, for 2010 and 2011 81
Table 6.9 Comparison of SSM and National (NHIS) Respondents on
Functional Assessments, 2010 82
Table 6.10 Binomial Analysis Comparing SSM and National (NHIS)
Samples on Reported Pain in Last 3 Months,
in 2010 and 2011 82
viii
Table 6.11 Key Health Measures Constructed from Individual
Questionnaire Items 84
Table 6.12 Descriptive Statistics of Emotional Distress, and
P1P3 Regression 86
Table 6.13 Correlations of Emotional Distress (LowLife) with Functional
Limitations and Environmental Perceptions in Panel 3 87
Table 6.14 Linear Regression of Four Perceived Lighting Items on
Resident’s Emotional Distress, at Each Panel 87
Table 6.15 Rooms Where Falls Occurred, as Reported at Panel 3 88
Table 6.16 Regression of IEQ Change on Change in Reported Health,
for P1P2 and P1P3 89
Chapter 7:
Table 7.1 Short-term (P1P2) and Long-term (P1P3) Changes in Residents’
Perceptions of Air Quality of Their Apartments 95
Table 7.2 Changes in Resident Beliefs of Effect of Air Quality on Health
Following Renovation (P2P3) 96
Table 7.3 Percentage of Residents Using Type of Products
When Cleaning Their Homes, Asked at Panel 3 97
Table 7.4 Effects of Temperature Conditions on Resident Thermal
Perceptions, at P1P2 98
Table 7.5 Effects of RH Variability on Resident Thermal Perceptions,
at P1P3 98
t
c Table 7.6 Effects of Formaldehyde Concentrations on Resident
e
Perceptions of Home Environment Contributing to
j
o Health Problems, at P1P2 99
r
P

h
c
r
a
e
s
e
R

e
l
p
p
A

n
e
e
r
G

e
h
T