Museums,

Environmental
Sustainability
and Our Future

A Call to Action from the Summit on

Sustainability Standards in Museums 2013

and the PIC Green

Professional Network
Contents

Preface and Acknowledgments..................................................................................................3

Introduction by Adrienne McGraw............................................................................................................4

The Summit Discussion by Adrienne McGraw................................................................................7

Options and Next Steps by Adrienne McGraw............................................................................... 15

Existing Sustainability Standards by Adrienne McGraw...........................................................24

Case Studies by various authors..........................................................................................................38

Moving Forward by Adrienne McGraw...............................................................................................52

Afterword by Ford Bell............................................................................................................................ 53

Appendices

A. Essential Definitions by Adrienne McGraw.......................................................................54

B. Sustainability in Museums Timeline by Adrienne McGraw....................................56

Entire report edited by Ellen Hirzy.

This report on sustainability standards was designed to be read online. Please consider the
environment before printing this document.

Westlake Reed Lesksoky

Olson Visual

2
Preface and Acknowledgments

P IC Green’s Sustainability Standards in Museums

initiative began when a number of museum profes-
sionals formed an ad hoc group to address areas in the
S ustainability with a capital S is woven through-
out the DNA of public collecting institutions.
Collections are to be maintained in perpetuity,
United States Green Building Council’s Leadership in rendering the idea of sustainability fundamental to
Energy & Environmental Design (LEED) program that institutional missions. But museums still need to
collided with museum practices or discounted alterna- encourage and share with each other their specific
tive approaches. We quickly realized how important it and often unique experiences of implementing day-
was to address other developing standards programs, to-day sustainability. Environmental sustainability
and our group began to expand its focus from LEED in within museum facilities is perhaps the largest
museums to a broader assessment of how to develop shared category of daily sustainability for museums
museum-specific guidance where current standards fall to discuss as a field. The sheer variety of metrics
short. We launched this more comprehensive initia- and methods for measuring performance suggests
tive with the Summit on Sustainability Standards in that if any standards could be promoted to the field,
Museums, a daylong gathering on May 21, 2013, during they would come about only after vigorous discus-
the American Alliance of Museums (AAM) annual meet- sion and the sharing of actual experiences.
ing in Baltimore. Therefore, we applaud our PIC Green Professional
Two individuals were particularly helpful in creating Network colleagues for organizing the first Summit
the form and momentum for this group and this summit: on Sustainability Standards in Museums. PIC Green
Roger Chang, LEED AP, principal and director of mechanical looks forward to the conversations that will result
engineering and sustainability at Westlake Reed Leskosky, from distribution of this white paper, as well as to
and Shengyin Xu, LEED AP BD+C, institutional sustain- subsequent dialogues that will occur regularly at
ability specialist at the Minnesota Historical Society. I am future annual meetings.
grateful to them for their energy, enthusiasm and scien-
Ed Malouf, Content Design Collaborative LLC
tific knowledge; they provided a balance to this undertak-
Don Meckley, Museum of Contemporary Art, Chicago
ing that it sorely needed, and they promise to be leaders Co-Chairs, PIC Green, 2013–2014
in the implementation of standards for the field.
I am also grateful to those from outside the museum Thank you to our peer reviewers for their comments on this re-
port: Don Meckley, director of production and facilities, Museum of
field who participated in this summit and who have
Contemporary Art, Chicago; Adam Meltzer, director of operations,
demonstrated a willingness to work with the field to help Arts:Earth Partnership, Los Angeles; and Patrick Kociolek, professor and
us manage this conundrum responsibly and elegantly. director, University of Colorado Museum of Natural History, Boulder.
Their thinking improved the document and spurred us to work to rally

benchmarking museum energy use as a future aspect of this type of field
Sarah Sutton, LEED AP EBOM
communication.

3
Introduction

“As a record and a call to action, this white paper is not a document to be
read and set aside. Instead, it asks you to engage.”

W ith leadership from the American Alliance of Museums, the museum field is
united around shared standards of excellence. But today, there are no shared
standards on environmental sustainability for museums. These standards have enough of
a presence in other fields that they have come to affect the museum world. Over the next
few years that presence will expand, and museums will choose—collectively or inde-
pendently—how to react. We may choose to recognize the value of shared standards, or
we may choose to leave each museum to decide among many separate standards. We may
choose to write a few standards that are specific to museums, or we may create a whole
system of our own. Or we may decide to avoid developing standards altogether. Our other
options include developing a new Museum Assessment Program category for sustainabil-
ity or simply encouraging sustainable practices and inviting museums to select cafeteria
style from existing standards. But the bottom line is, if the museum field doesn’t say
what we prefer, we will be told how to practice sustainability.
To deepen and broaden field-wide discussion of this critical issue, more than 100 pro-
fessionals from all types and sizes of museums gathered for the Summit on Sustainability
Standards in Museums at the 2013 American Alliance of Museums Annual Meeting in
Baltimore. Organized by the PIC Green Professional Network, the summit had a complex
purpose: to assess the museum field’s experience with, response to and appetite for envi-
ronmental sustainability standards. Organizers and participants aimed to:
• promote a working familiarity between museums and various sustainability
standards groups
• suggest how an assessment of the value of sustainability standards for museums
might occur
• recommend next steps in the field’s work on environmental sustainability in
museums

Regardless of the form that a set of sustainability standards could take, a deep-
er understanding of the field’s needs and expectations for such a program is needed.
This discussion must be nationwide, carried on at every type of museum, and done in

4
conjunction with colleagues in other fields who can both inform and inspire our work.
Ultimately, summit organizers seek larger ongoing outcomes for the 17,500 institutions in
the museum field in the United States, including:
• a deeper understanding of sustainability standards and metrics for designing,
building and operating museum facilities
• more informed choices for using, or not using, the metrics for museum planning
and operations
• increased comfort and efficiency in using the metrics for the benefit of museums
The summit began with presentations by building industry experts who introduced
current standards used broadly in the United States. Museum professionals then talked
about their experiences with sustainability metrics in their institutions. The day con-
cluded with a moderated discussion that yielded conclusions and suggested next steps for
the possible development of sustainability standards for museums.
With this white paper, we invite you to join in the ongoing dialogue about the most
effective ways to make our institutions’ buildings and practices more sustainable. In it
we summarize the wide-ranging but intensive summit discussion; present options for de-
veloping museum sustainability and recommend next steps; and share information about
current standards programs and different ways in which museums have applied them to
their own sustainability efforts. Two appendices offer essential definitions and a time-
line tracing the development of museums’ interest in sustainability issues. As a record
and a call to action, this white paper is not a document to be read and set aside. Instead,
it asks you to engage. We hope that you will share it with others, discover new resources
for and approaches to your work, and use it to contribute to reducing the negative envi-
ronmental impacts of museums.

5
 Related Annual Meeting Sessions

The Summit on Sustainability Standards in Museums included three sequential AAM Annual Meeting sessions
that laid the groundwork for a shared understanding of standards and metrics; placed them in the context of
real-world situations in museums; and invited a larger discussion about challenges, implications, aspirations
and next steps.

Part 1: Where Are We? Part 2: What We’ve Been Part 3: Deciding Where
Doing We Want to Go
This session focused on the
current use of common U.S. Representatives from several The third session was an
sustainability metrics, notably museums shared their open discussion, moderated
LEED (Leadership in Energy experiences in working with by Laura Roberts, to review
& Environmental Design), standards programs, including the day’s discoveries, talk
U.S. Green Building Council; the impetus for starting a about the opportunities
Living Buildings; Sustainable sustainability metrics program; and limitations of current
Sites; Green Globes; and the which standards program systems, and share hopes for
Environmental Protection they selected and why; and sustainability in the future
Agency’s Energy Star program. the lessons learned for their of museums. A culminating
Representatives discussed the institutions. The goals of question was posed: What
origin of these programs, the this session were to provide are the next steps to advance
purpose and application of examples of standards at work the field toward greater
their systems, and the benefits in museums and to show sustainability through the use
and challenges of adapting the benefits and limitations of standards and metrics? Part
their metrics to museums. of programs that were not 1 of this white paper explores
For more details, see page 24. designed with museums in this question more deeply.
mind.
For more details, see page 38.

6
The Summit Discussion

“Are we looking for a standard or a shared moral principle?”

—Sandra Vecchio, architect and summit participant

T hose who are working toward more sustainable museums give deep consideration
to the question Sandra Vecchio posed, and others: Can sustainability standards be
adopted without a basic agreement about why we want and need them? Do we share a col-
lective concern for sustainability? Do we all envision the ideal museum that is in perfect
ecological balance with its systems, bioregion and community? Do we have the leadership
to guide us through these choices and changes? Such a shared vision is unlikely, but that
may not matter as much as the journey will, as we strive to improve our practices toward
greater efficiency and use of resources.
A number of other factors motivate museums to explore sustainability standards,
including the perpetual need for cost savings. Implementing green practices requires
upfront costs but also results in saving resources and thus can make good business sense.
In addition, the shifting values of our audiences, communities and other stakeholders
compel museums to be responsive to expectations that we will operate on sustainable
principles. Internally, staff, volunteers and board members may also be asking whether

A general session at the AAM Annual Meeting and MuseumExpo. Photo by Cable Risdon.

7
operations and programming reflect sustainable values, be they environmental, econom-
ic, social or all of the above. While every institution is unique in its approach to sustain-
ability, the need for smarter operational practices is universal. But can we go so far as to
say that we are willing to set up and adhere to field-wide standards?
Summit participants spoke passionately, positively and practically. One of the great-
est advantages as a field is our deep creativity. Museums are full of educators, designers,
engineers, scientists, artists, historians, futurists and planners. If we draw upon the
energy, ingenuity and expertise of our community—and add that to what we can learn
from experts in other fields—we can define and solve any problems that may stand in
our way to a greener future.
The ultimate question posed at the summit was, What would museum sustainability stan-
dards look like? While we do not yet know the answer, it is fair to say that some level of
shared desire for measurability and accountability already exists. Summit instigator and
green museums expert Sarah Sutton stated that the gathering was just the beginning of
the conversation about a field-wide standards program, but it was also the next step in a
discussion that should be second nature by now. Nowhere during the summit or in this
white paper did we need to explain the dire consequences of ignoring the real threats to
the earth’s inhabitants, biodiversity, climate or stable future. If museums are to move
from simple awareness of issues to concrete and measurable actions, we must accept our
own power in this process.
Yet there are real challenges and barriers to implementation and success. Summit
participants expressed concern about several key issues:
• Resources: Where will the funds, time and expertise to implement a standards
program come from at both the national and the institutional levels? Will desig-
nating resources for sustainability pull funding from other functions?
• Standards and best practices: As a field, do we have the ability and the protocol
in place to agree on what best practices would look like?
• Leadership: Are leaders of our institutions and associations ready to carry sus-
tainability standards projects forward?

Resources
The topic of resource availability was discussed and demonstrated in various ways.
First, the very presence of more than 100 museum professionals at the summit spoke to
a dedication to greener institutions, whether through voluntary efforts by individuals
or organizational commitment to the green teams and sustainability staff positions that
are becoming more common in museums. The fact that museums across the nation have

8
found ways to implement green building practices, operations, programming and invest-
ing indicates a field moving in the right direction.
But for all the amazing work going on at the institutional level, a field-wide commit-
ment is needed to define standards and provide a framework for research, training, com-
pliance and recognition. Many professional associations have some form of green team
and/or a tool kit that provides valuable resources for members and others. PIC Green’s
Sustainable Operations Tool Kit (pic-green.net), for example, provides links to useful web-
sites, articles, resource lists and case studies that offer ideas and solutions.

Standards and Best Practices

The concept of a neat, fixed set of standards and best practices appears black and white
in concept, but is much messier in actual application. Museums are so diverse in terms of
mission resources, location, facilities, collections care needs, lifecycle, etc., that creating
a single set of voluntary standards and best practices is an ever-present challenge—as is
maintaining a program that effectively evaluates a museum against them. New issues and
new thinking are also continually impacting practices and standards, and we must keep
up. How sustainability standards and best practices—and related evaluation programs—
will be used also impacts decisions to be made: Will they be used to encourage museums
to improve, regulate and evaluate an organization for recognition purposes? AAM has the
experience—from almost 45 years of running accreditation and assessment programs—and
expertise in PIC Green, to take a leadership role in shaping the future of defining and mea-
suring excellence in sustainability.

Leadership
The critical need for leadership
exists at every level. We have the
attention of AAM leadership, af-
firmed Elizabeth Merritt, found-
ing director of the Center for the
Future of Museums and a summit
participant. She discussed the na-
tional association’s commitment to
and role in museum sustainability
leadership.
Individual institutions that
The Toledo Museum of Art’s Paul Bernard and Carol Bintz have spear-
have begun to reassess the impacts headed the museum’s green initiatives. Photo by Andrew Weber.

9
they have on communities, the environment and resources did so through the commitment
of leaders and engaged staff. While institutional grassroots organizing for green teams and
other initiatives are effective at bringing about change, the real change in values, plan-
ning and practice will come from the top. CEOs communicate the vision for sustainability,
COOs carry it out and CFOs track how it can become an embedded institutional framework.
Museum leadership teams are working through a new model that values resiliency and
the triple bottom line. For museums this means recovering from and weathering financial
turmoil, understanding that a valued asset is people and making sustainability mission
driven.

Concerns Unique to Museums

Standards must be developed organically from within the museum field. While we should
not re-create the wheel, we must be mindful of what is unique about museums. This is
where the challenge of common language and agreed-upon practice comes in.
All museum departments use resources, some more than others, and in ways we usu-
ally do not think about. Museums with climate-controlled storage and galleries require
more energy than those that do not have such stringent temperature and humidity
guidelines. Aquariums, botanical gardens and zoos certainly use more water than, say, a
historic house or art museum.
Building size, the number of floors, geographic location and the volume of visitors
welcomed every year are just some of the many factors that affect resource consumption.
While some of these issues cannot be resolved simply, we have to look logically and holis-
tically at how institutions are run. Any alterations to “business as usual” affect people,
take effort and time, and sometimes require financial backing.
At the deepest level, the uniqueness of museums lies in stewardship—the collection,
preservation and conservation of art, material culture, natural history collections, and
live plants and animals. Summit participants voiced their concerns about the impact of
certain sustainability measures on collections care. Threats to the stability of objects may
come from building climate controls, lighting systems, architectural design, outdoor- and
indoor-generated air pollutants, collections management supplies and procurement, and
disposal and waste management. The range of collections in our institutions’ care makes
sorting through these issues difficult. Live collections further complicate the steward-
ship and sustainability balance, with greater needs for water and energy to maintain
facilities.
For those caring for cultural collections, the greatest concerns are temperature and
relative humidity. Collection managers around the world have been engaged in this

10
 conversation for many years. The American Institute for Conservation of Historic and
Artistic Works (AIC) has established interim guidelines for relative humidity for most
types of cultural materials (45–55 percent/±5 percent daily drift) and temperature
(59–77 degrees Fahrenheit/± 4 degrees daily drift). Barbara Heller, chief conservator at
the Detroit Institute of Arts and chair of an AAM Annual Meeting session on balancing
collections needs and building energy consumption, says these parameters allow for slow
seasonal gradients, but she also cautions that we do not know whether a change from the
50 percent/70 degree standard will realize energy efficiency improvements and maintain
the integrity of collections care.
A major challenge is the multitude of variables in building types, climatic regions (13
climate zones just within the U.S.) and collection types. Cultural materials (including the
buildings that house them) require different environmental conditions based on their
composition, condition, use and treatment history. The relationship among exterior en-
vironmental factors and interior environmental conditions, humidity, temperature and
agents of deterioration must be assessed and addressed, along with additional means of
prevention and risk management.
The question remains: How can we balance good stewardship of collections, buildings
and the planet? Heller and others on the panel say this question may be easier to answer
if we acknowledge that the 50 percent/70 degree standard is not a foolproof formula for
all collections, in all conditions, at all times, but instead a simplified convention that can
be easily applied and understood by collections managers, operations staff, architects and
builders. A class of controls can be used to establish set points for collections, recogniz-
ing that some objects will require special accommodations, visitor comfort might be a
determining factor for temperature, and microclimates and other passive measures can
be used to protect sensitive collection materials.

“There is no denying that a measure of sustainability must now be incorporated

into our conservation endeavors. Given financial and time pressures, habit, and
evolving opinions regarding tolerable conditions for collections, conservators
must consider not only the interaction of materials and environment to the art
and artifacts we treat, but also the production, use, and disposal of materials
employed in our work.”
— AIC, Sustainability Resources, 2013

11
 We may not have a choice when it comes to addressing sustainability issues. The real-
ity of tighter building codes, energy efficiency rules and regulations, and the changing
nature of building and operations products will likely have profound implications for
building operations. Entire industries are changing rapidly around us, whether we know
it or not. Our choices are also limited by environmental changes in regional temperature
regimes, seasonal shifts, increasingly extreme weather events, water accessibility and sea
level rise, which are all having an impact inside and onsite. Just ask any horticulturalist
about changes in plant, animal and insect life cycles and migrations, and there can be
little doubt that climate change is occurring.
Issues of environmental justice should also be on our minds, as museums are vital
parts of local and global communities. The choices we make about how we operate and
staff our buildings can have consequences for local populations. Financial investment
choices can have impacts around the world if our money is not in socially conscious
funds. Purchasing decisions—from cleaning supplies to fair-trade coffee in the café—
have unseen implications here and abroad. Finally, while not of immediate concern in
North America, there are global security and safety threats as resources dwindle and
availability shifts. Being aware of these issues requires diligence but will become more
important as global human ecology continues to change.
But the truth is, we do have a choice. The changing context in which museums oper-
ate goes beyond the practical, regulatory and ecological realities mentioned above. As

Architects designed the new Pérez Art Museum Miami, located on the edge of Biscayne Bay, to accommodate flood risk. Photo courtesy of Herzog and
DeMeuron.

12
summit participant and green museums leader Elizabeth Wylie suggested, a conversation
about sustainability standards is also a conversation about people’s values and behaviors.
Wylie questioned whether “we are measuring practices or values. Are we measuring pro-
cesses and outcomes and/or behaviors and impacts?” From these questions, the conversa-
tion took a more philosophical turn.
Summit participants talked about how we can overcome our disconnection from na-
ture. How can we shift the emphasis from constraints and restrictions to abundance and
resiliency, such as nature itself provides? How do we move from good intentions to real
action? What can we draw on from our colleagues in environmental education, not just
for our visitors, but for ourselves?
We can take several key steps, based on the 1978 UNESCO Tbilisi Declaration on the
role, objectives and characteristics of environmental education:
• Awareness: As museum professionals we inherently know and want to know
about the world around us. The key is to avoid myopic thinking and stagnation
in our silos.
• Knowledge: Do we know what we need to know about what makes a museum
sustainable? Do we know where to obtain this information?
• Attitudes: We need to reflect on how we feel about ourselves, our jobs, our in-
stitutions and the role we play in contributing to environmental problems and
solutions. Does our attitude lean toward responsibility or apathy?

In an effort to eliminate single-use water bottles onsite, the Detroit Zoological Society installed water bottle refilling stations.
Photo courtesy of Detroit Zoological Society.

13
 • Skills: Museum professionals are good at learning, training and improving our
practice. To implement sustainability standards we need a strong support system
for research, benchmarking and communication.
• Empowerment: Without the confidence about what we know and can do, noth-
ing will happen. Leadership must step in at every level, from implementing staff
training to developing nationally recognized standards of excellence. Everyone
must feel that they are empowered and that their actions matter.
• Action: Ultimately the goal of any environmental education process will lead
to some form of action, from simple behavioral changes in our daily lives to
active participation in a field-wide effort to make museums more sustainable
institutions.

Insights and Takeaways

The summit’s final session was designed to bring the presentations and discussions
together into a summarizing conversation. Laura Roberts moderated the session and
provided these framing insights to sum up the day:
• Flexibility is key to developing museum sustainability standards.
• For standards to succeed they must be integrated into what we do.
• We can’t develop standards without shared values.
• As museums we have a stewardship obligation.
Throughout the day, summit presenters and participants spoke in both specific and
general terms. Details about existing standards and metrics and how they are already
being implemented by museums show us that a set of standards for our field is easily
within reach. More broadly, the summit points to opportunities as well as limitations.
But if we harness the energy and creativity already present among ourselves, we can
overcome the challenges.
The day set a hopeful tone for the future. By being flexible and open to experimen-
tation, innovation and even failure, we can solve short-term obstacles to finding com-
mon language and agreed-upon best practices. Like all other standards of excellence for
museums, sustainability standards must be embedded in the way we operate our institu-
tions. We already share the value of stewardship. Now we must extend this to steward-
ship of the planet’s resources and environment.

14
Options and Next Steps for Museum-Focused
Sustainability Standards

A sking museums to be more sustainable suggests that we know what more sustainable
means. Without standards, metrics, audits, baselines and targets, it is not possible
to truly gauge progress toward greener institutions. We must decide whether these stan-
dards are to be generally accepted, voluntary benchmarks or technical standards that are
vetted and adopted by the field. To continue moving the conversation forward, this sec-
tion outlines some options for adopting museum sustainability standards; recommends
elements of sustainability standards; identifies roles for museum-related associations and
funders; and recommends next steps.

Option 1: Adopt an Existing Standards System

Each of the existing sustainability standards systems is shaped by different needs, out-
side forces and stakeholders (see page 24 for more about these systems). For most of the
systems, museums were not part of the development process or thought of as target users.
Yet over the years, individual museums have adopted these systems to varying degrees,
and the standards programs managers have increased their engagement with museums
and their professional organizations. By attending the summit, these representatives
showed their commitment to continuing the exchange and responding to the unique
needs of museums. It is up to us, however, to continue pushing these conversations.
Most often, LEED has provided guidelines for new building and reconstruction
projects for more than 150 museums nationwide. Hundreds of museums use the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency’s Energy Star and Portfolio Manager, with still more
adopting these tools every year. While not yet widely known in our field, Green Globes,
the Living Building Challenge and SITES are being used by more museums.
Here are some pros and cons of adopting an existing standards system for the museum
field:
Pros
• The system already exists; we don’t need to re-create the wheel.
• The system is tested; we don’t need to work out all the kinks.
• The system has experts; there are already people working on it.
• The system provides a common language.
• The system has been adapted by other industries and individual museums.

15
 • The system takes into account issues such as changing rules, regulations and
building codes.
• The system means less work for museum professionals; once it is selected, system
managers add museums to their connections.
• The financial risk for museums is low.
• This option asks the simplest question: Which standards system works the best
for museums?
Cons
• One size does not fit all; museums come in so many varieties that it may be hard
to adopt a single approach.
• The system may not be flexible; museums have unique needs, most notably
for collections care, so a balanced approach for climate control and lighting is
needed.
• The system does not yet have museum-based metrics, baseline data and specific
tools, so time and resources are needed to support this research. Who will do
this?
One example of how museums could adopt an existing system involves the Energy
Star program. Noting the difficulties of applying a general standards program to unique
functions of museums, Energy Star could be modified to embrace these differences. By
creating a museum industry partnership, EPA could provide unique resources and train-
ing to museum staff to help them better manage natural resources like energy and water.
This partnership would encourage museums to benchmark their building data online,
helping to aggregate museum data in EPA’s Portfolio Manager. These data would eventu-
ally become a baseline for museum performance. Once enough data has been gathered,
EPA would release a museum Energy Star score: a random sample of data from museums
across the United States through the distribution of a survey (with energy data submitted
via Portfolio Manager).

Option 2: Use Criteria from Multiple Standards Systems

With several sustainability standards in existence and conceivably more being developed,
it might be possible for the museum field to choose a variety of approaches to meet the
unique needs of museums and to offer flexibility. Each system provides different ways to
set standards, use metrics and seek certification. Some are more focused on the building,
while others take into account the whole site. Some offer more aspirational goals, while
others are strictly data driven. Here are some pros and cons of creating a core set of stan-
dards for museums based on standards from several systems:

16
The Indianapolis Museum of Art’s 100 Acres includes a lake, woodlands, wetlands and meadows. Photo courtesy Indianapolis Museum of Art.

Pros
• There is a lot to choose from; the systems provide a depth and breadth of criteria.
• The systems have experts; there are already people working on them.
• The systems are tested; we don’t need to work out the kinks.
• The systems take into account issues such as changing rules, regulations and
building codes.
• The unique needs of museums can be a priority—for example, lighting or collec-
tions care balanced with energy use.
Cons
• Too many options could make for an unwieldy patchwork.
• Pulling from different systems does not easily provide a common language.
• Selection of the options requires a lot of work by the museum field, and then
ongoing support will be needed to keep a museum-focused system coordinated.
• This option would require considerable financial support and other resources to
manage information and process sharing.
• It would also require good cross-system communication and collaboration.
• Competition between systems exists.

17
Option 3: Develop a New Museum-Specific Standards
System
Given the unique requirements of museums (inside and outside), especially in the areas
of collections care, developing a museum-specific set of sustainability standards may be
one approach. This option has several benefits and challenges:
Pros
• A museum-specific system can be tailored to museums’ needs.
• It can create a common language and solidarity of purpose.
• It can build on the strengths of existing systems.
• It can build on the experiences, expertise and leadership of museums already
engaged in sustainability standards.
Cons
• A museum-specific system requires an intense amount of work, oversight and
ongoing management.
• It requires considerable funding for upfront and ongoing program management
costs.
• It requires a major commitment among leadership in the museum field, disci-
pline-based associations and other key stakeholders.
• It requires a long time horizon for planning and implementation.

Option 4: Adopt Functional, Not Departmental Standards

Within museums we tend to break down processes by department: exhibitions, collec-
tions, administration and so on. Most existing standards systems and associated regula-
tions, however, approach the metrics by type of data, function and outcome, such as:
• energy efficiency
• waste reduction
• emissions reduction
• water conservation
• locally sourced materials
• fair trade practices
• sustainable investment strategies

The pros of such functional standards include:

• Data are collected institutionally.
• Data can be compared with national and other industry benchmarks.

18
 • Goals can be set institutionally, allowing for tradeoffs between departments or
sites.
• Goals can be set incrementally and in phases.
• All departments can use a common language.
• There is synergy in working together across departments to achieve institutional
goals.
In addition, this approach would allow for field-wide research, benchmarking, training
and promotion. There are many national and global initiatives that museums can partic-
ipate in if we can approach our sustainability work by outcome. A drawback, however, is
that it requires managing horizontally, which is not common across departments or sites.

Option 5: Add Sustainability Standards to the

Characteristics of Excellence for U.S. Museums
AAM has developed a set of core standards for U.S. museums that includes seven broad
categories: public trust and accountability; mission and planning; leadership and orga-
nizational structure; collections stewardship; education and interpretation; financial
stability; and facilities and risk management. Within each category are outcome-oriented
standards that are adaptable for museums of all types and sizes. At present, however,
none of the standards directly addresses environmental sustainability. The question for
the field is, Should they?
Standards, as AAM defines them, “are directly informed by the field. They are filtered
through the dialogue, debate and data generated by our excellence programs, profession-
al networks, conferences and seminars, national studies and relationships with other
museum service organizations. We recognize the great diversity of the museum field and
the importance of the ethical codes, standards and best practices developed and issued by
various discipline/interest-specific museum associations. Taken together, they work in
concert to ensure museums hold themselves accountable to their peers and their publics.”
The core standards form the basis for AAM’s Pledge of Excellence, which asks museums
to operate ethically and according to field-wide standards and practices. By adding sus-
tainability standards to the Characteristics of Excellence and Pledge of Excellence, AAM
can deepen its support of PIC Green’s Sustainability Standards in Museums Initiative,
thereby strengthening the museum field’s commitment to greening our institutions.

Option 6: Add Sustainability to the Accreditation Process

Adding sustainability standards to the museum accreditation process would deepen
museums’ responsibility and accountability for adopting best practices for greener

19
institutions. This option could be designed in two possible ways: 1) by adding standards to
the Characteristics of Excellence as discussed above, and/or 2) by adding a new element
to the core documents that are reviewed during the accreditation process.
Both options would require broad-based support from the museum field and may face
some of the challenges discussed earlier: finding common language, agreeing on best
practices, and achieving an acceptable balance between collections care issues and opera-
tional standards. These options will require intensive research by and on behalf of AAM
and the Accreditation Commission. This approach suggests a long time horizon to build
sustainability standards into the process, but time is not on our side when it comes to
solving environmental challenges. In addition, as noted at the summit, a one-size-fits-all
approach can’t work because the museum field is so diverse.
Other drawbacks to adding sustainability requirements to the accreditation process
include:
• Developing the requirements would be a time- and resource-intensive effort.
• It may be challenging for smaller museums or those with fewer resources.
• The requirements would need regular updating to reflect current building indus-
try standards, codes and technology changes.
The benefits of inserting sustainability standards into the accreditation process are
both practical and philosophical. It would make a serious statement about the museum
field’s commitment to sustainability and to society’s need to address environmental,
economic and social welfare issues. For institutions, standards would clarify and codify
best practices and metrics. Sustainability accreditation standards would be the common
language we are seeking.

Essential Elements of Museum-Focused Sustainability

Standards
Summit participants and leaders in the environmental sustainability field for museums
concluded that whatever approach is selected, museum-focused sustainability standards
program must have six characteristics:
1. Voluntary but incentive driven
Already, programs that are part of the Continuum of Excellence, including accred-
itation, are voluntary, and when museums commit to seeking recognition for their
work, the incentive is both public and peer recognition. Industry standards with
ratings systems and certificates also build in motivations that are symbolic and
public. With environmental sustainability standards, there may be additional incen-
tives, such as rebates, credits and tax breaks.

20
2. Stepped or tiered so that achievement over time is possible
Summit participant Katherine Freygang suggested a matrix that offers Good/Better/
Best stages so that institutions can start small, work to achieve goals over time or
simply acknowledge that for some standards, good will be good enough. A compa-
rable approach can be found in the STEPS program of the American Association
for State and Local History, in which each standard is tiered as Basic/Good/Better,
allowing for flexibility and phased improvements.

3. Adaptable and flexible for all types and sizes of institutions

The need for flexibility because of the wide range of museums—from a tiny one-
room historic schoolhouse to a 400,000-square-foot science center—is a topic that
came up many times during the summit. Standards must be pliable but still capable
of reaching the same goals, including energy efficiency, waste reduction, and water
conservation.

4. Institution-wide
The sustainability movement is based on a holistic approach that combines the
needs of our planet and its people as well as the economy. For museums, sustain-
ability standards would obviously include green building and operational strategies,
but they should also take into account human aspects, including the welfare of staff
and community and the local and global impact of financial decision making and
investments.

5. Rooted in science and data driven

Extensive research and approved practices already exist on nearly every aspect of
sustainability, from HVAC efficiency to waste water recovery. In collaboration with
partners in the building industry, universities, researchers and other allied fields,
museums can adopt and adapt these standards. Summit participant Shengyin Xu
from the Minnesota Historical Society offered that the data can be used in several
ways to meet short- and long-term goals as well as to influence behavior change.

6. Consistent and transparent

Jessica Rinaman from the Balboa Park Sustainability Program cautioned that as
a field and at the institutional level, there is the need for common nomenclature
about the standards. Metrics can provide a shared vocabulary for framing problem
solving and sharing experiences in a way that allows transferability. But training
will be needed in all departments of an organization.

21
The Role of Professional Associations
Another essential element in developing museum sustainability standards is the role of
professional associations. State, regional and national organizations as well as discipline-
specific groups must agree on what their roles will be. Many of them already have made a
commitment to sustainability. Greater communication and collaboration will strengthen
these individual efforts.
For AAM, what resources can be committed to enhance the work of PIC Green and to
support field-wide research, benchmarking, training and standards implementation?
How might standards fit into AAM’s Museum Assessment and Accreditation Programs or
Heritage Preservation’s Conservation Assessment Program?
Elizabeth Merritt, founding director of the Center for the Future of Museums, suggested
that the role of AAM is also to be the consensus builder. She reminded summit participants
that AAM fosters the development of generally agreed-upon standards that represent what
all good museums should do in a way appropriate to their mission and circumstances—not
the pinnacle of what is possible. In this context, sustainability standards would need to
be broad and applicable to museums of all kinds and sizes, as well as voluntary, achievable
and flexible. Attaining a platinum level of standards adherence for every museum in every
aspect is not realistic.

The Role of Funders

Funders and sponsors have increasingly required grant and donation recipients to adopt
emerging best practices and new levels of transparency. If more funders begin to rec-
ognize the need for environmental sustainability practices, they would also help drive
the need for adopting field-wide standards, much as funder expectations for evaluation
and measurable outcomes have increased and are now the norm. In addition, funding
sources (particularly federal and state agencies) that do offer grants, rebates and other
incentives for sustainability initiatives can have an impact on the wider philanthropic
community by raising the bar for what is expected of our institutions.

22
What Can You Do?
As a call to action for museum professionals, institutions and professional associations,
here are some recommended next steps:

Who What

• Learn as much as you can about metrics.

Museum • Encourage the formation of a green team at your museum.
Professionals • Provide feedback on PIC Green’s Sustainable Operations Tool
Kit (see page 34).

• Sign the Green Museums Accord and follow its suggested

steps.
• Form a green team.
• Conduct a sustainability audit.
Institutions
• Set short-term and long-term sustainability goals.
• Train and empower staff.
• Share your story.
• Publish funding partnership examples.

• Determine what your discipline knows and doesn’t know

about metrics in your area of expertise.
Professional • Support research initiatives.
organizations
• Encourage communities of practice.
• Report back to your colleagues at PIC Green.

• Host conversations about the issues and report back to PIC

State and Green.
regional
• Partner with state energy offices.
associations
• Advocate with funders.

• Collect feedback from multiple sources.

• Partner with other associations.

National
• Advocate on the national level.
associations • Set a timeline for developing a museum sustainability stan-
dards program.
• Support the standards development process financially and
professionally.

23
Existing Sustainability Standards

A variety of standards and metrics prescribes and measures the sustainability of

buildings and sites from construction and renovation processes through operations
and maintenance; to some degree, they also relate to the interpretation of sites. The pro-
grams described here—adapted from Summit on Sustainability Standards handouts—
are used in the United States to varying degrees of popularity, adoption, adherence and
achievability. They also cover a spectrum from highly technical and practical to aspira-
tional. With the exception of the Sustainable Sites Initiative and Arts:Earth Partnership,
none were developed to suit the unique needs of cultural institutions such as museums,
yet all have been adopted over the past decade by hundreds of museums, historic sites
and other similar institutions.
This section also includes the Green Exhibit Checklist and the PIC Green Sustainable
Operations Tool Kit. The checklist focuses on a specific aspect of museum functions, but
its metrics also apply to other functions and can be seen as a model from which muse-
um sustainability standards could be developed. The tool kit provides a comprehensive
framework for the unique set of functions in museums and related institutions.
Presenters at the summit were asked to explain why and how the systems were devel-
oped and continue to evolve, share lessons learned along the way and provide illustra-
tions of the systems in practice. They were also asked what they would like to learn from
our field to enhance what they can do for museums in the future.
The following summaries are adapted from the Summit on Sustainability Standards
handouts.  

Living Building Challenge Project

living-future.org/lbc
It is time to move beyond Platinum to the level of the Living Building. Imagine build-
ings that are built to operate as elegantly and efficiently as a flower. Imagine a building
that is informed by the eco-region’s characteristics, generates all of its own energy with
renewable resources, captures and treats all of its water on site, and uses resources effi-
ciently and for maximum beauty.

24
 The Living Building Challenge is a green building certification program that defines
the most advanced measure of sustainability in the built environment possible today and
acts to diminish the gap between current limits and ideal solutions. Projects that achieve
this level of performance can claim to be the “greenest” anywhere and will serve as role
models for others that follow.

Metrics
The Living Building Challenge
project certification process
for projects pursuing Full
Certification or Petal Recognition
(Net Zero Energy Building
Certification follows a slightly
different process) is intention-
ally straightforward and fosters
an environment of support and
collaboration. A project’s path The Center for Sustainable Landscapes at the Phipps Conservatory and
Botanical Gardens is designed to generate all of its own energy while
from inspired vision to inspi- treating and reusing all water captured on-site. Photo by Paul g. Wiegman.
rational achievement consists
of three steps: Registration,
Documentation/Operation and Audit/Certification.
In the Living Building system, projects must meet 20 performance Imperatives, or
performance requirements, in the following categories:
• Site: Limits to Growth, Urban Agriculture, Habitat Exchange, Car-Free Living
• Water: Net Zero Ecological Water Flow
• Energy: Net Zero Energy
• Health: Civilized Environment, Healthy Air, Biophilia
• Materials: No Red-Listed Materials, Embodied Carbon Footprint, Responsible
Industry, Appropriate Sourcing, Conservation and Reuse
• Equity: Human Scale and Humane Places, Democracy and Social Justice, Rights
to Nature
• Beauty: Beauty and Spirit, Inspiration and Education
All of the Imperatives must be attained. For the energy and water standards, the
building must meet the performance requirements for a minimum of 12 months of con-
tinuous occupancy. Projects can achieve three types of certification: Full Certification,
Petal Recognition or Net Zero Energy Building Certification.

25
Origin
Jason McLennan, founder and CEO of the Living Building Challenge, is the mastermind
behind the standard. He believes that the evidence about the dangers of climate change
is highly compelling and that environmental problems are directly linked to human
resource use—specifically, that the building industry is responsible for damage to the
environment. Furthermore, the rate of change and the potential for catastrophic di-
sasters are imminent threats, but no group, government, community or organization
is doing enough to address or mitigate the dangers. There is some public awareness,
but McLennan feels it is not enough. Based on all these concerns, the Cascadia Green
Building Council released the Living Building Challenge to provide a signal for the green
building industry challenges ahead.

Presenter: Lorraine Tunis Doo

Ambassador, Living Building Challenge Project

Sustainable Sites Initiative

sustainablesites.org
The Sustainable Sites Initiative
(SITES) provides a comprehensive
rating system for sustainable
design, construction and main-
tenance of built landscapes. A sus-
tainable landscape gives back by
helping to clean the air and water
and by enhancing the natural
environment through valuable
ecosystem services.
Sustainable Sites products are
designed to achieve the following
results: A 4,000-square-foot lagoon at the Center for Sustainable Landscapes is
populated with native fish and turtles. Photo by Paul g. Wiegman
• Elevate the value of land-
scapes by outlining the
economic, environmental and human well-being benefits of sustainable sites.
• Connect buildings and landscapes to contribute to environmental and communi-
ty health.
• Demonstrate how the built environment mimics natural processes.

26
 • Provide performance benchmarks for site sustainability.
• Link research and practices associated with the most sustainable materials and
techniques for site development construction and maintenance.
• Provide recognition for high performance in sustainable site design, develop-
ment and maintenance.
• Encourage innovation.
Metrics
Prerequisites and Credits are organized into nine sections that follow the process of site
development and can guide an integrated design team through the project phases. The
Initiative directs project teams to review and consider all the benchmarks at the begin-
ning of the process, rather than waiting until the pertinent stage of development.
1. Site Selection
2. Pre-Design Assessment and Planning
3. Site Design: Water
4. Site Design: Soil and Vegetation
5. Site Design: Materials Selection
6. Site Design: Human Health and Well-Being
7. Construction
8. Operations and Maintenance
9. Monitoring and Innovation

There are a total of 200 points, with certification at the Platinum, Gold, Silver and
Certified levels.

Origin
The Sustainable Sites Initiative Rating System encompasses seven years of work by doz-
ens of the country’s leading sustainability experts, researchers, design professionals and
scientists, as well as public input from hundreds of individuals and dozens of organiza-
tions during two open-comment periods.
The three partners of SITES (U.S. Botanic Garden, Lady Bird Johnson Wildflower
Center and American Society of Landscape Architects) worked closely with the U.S. Green
Building Council (USGBC) to learn from their experience in developing LEED and follow
their model. Steering and technical committees that included practitioners, academics
and government scientists worked to develop the guidelines.
In 2012, after a two-year pilot phase that involved more than 150 projects, 30 experts
refined the sustainable benchmarks for soil and vegetation, water, human health and

27
 well-being, and materials selection. These subcommittees worked with the technical
foundation for the Guidelines and Performance Benchmarks.
USGBC has incorporated many guidelines and performance benchmarks into new it-
erations of the LEED Green Building Rating System, and the Green Building Certification
Institute (GBCI) will serve as the third-party certifier and credentialing organization.
SITES will open for public enrollment through GBCI in the future.

Presenter: Holly H. Shimizu

Executive Director, U.S. Botanic Garden

Energy Star and Portfolio Manager

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
energystar.gov
Energy Star is a voluntary program that helps businesses and individuals save money and
protect our climate through superior energy efficiency. Through Energy Star, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) works with owners and managers of commercial
buildings to help them strategically manage their facilities’ energy performance, cut
energy use, lower utility bills and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. An important part of
this effort is EPA’s recognition of top performance.

Metrics
EPA offers several ways to earn recognition for top performance or improvement at the
individual facility level, including the prestigious Energy Star certification. To achieve
this certification, buildings must be independently verified to perform among the top 25
percent of similar buildings nationwide. On average, Energy Star-labeled buildings use

The Toledo Museum of Art converted its first gallery to LED lighting in Octover 2013 for the temporary exhibit “Fresh Impressions: Early Japanese
Modern Prints.” Photo by Andrew Weber.

28
35 percent less energy and generate 35 percent less greenhouse gas emissions than their
peers, making them an important part of the fight against climate change.
EPA offers benchmarking tools to achieve energy efficiency goals. Portfolio Manager
is EPA’s online energy management and tracking tool, which allows you to measure and
track the energy and water performance of any building over time. Portfolio Manager
has 18 broad categories and, within those, more than 80 primary functions, including
museums, aquariums and zoos.

Origin
The Energy Star program was established by EPA in 1992 under the authority of the Clean
Air Act, Section 103(g), which directs the EPA administrator to “conduct a basic engineer-
ing research and technology program to develop, evaluate, and demonstrate non-regu-
latory strategies and technologies for reducing air pollution.” In 2005, Congress enacted
the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, establishing “at the Department of Energy and
the Environmental Protection Agency a voluntary program to identify and promote
energy-efficient products and buildings in order to reduce energy consumption, improve
energy security, and reduce pollution through voluntary labeling of or other forms of
communication about products and buildings that meet the highest energy efficiency
standards.”
Under EPA’s leadership, American consumers, businesses and organizations have
made investments in energy efficiency that are transforming the market for efficient
products and practices, creating jobs and stimulating the economy. Now in its 20th year,
the Energy Star program has boosted the adoption of energy-efficient products, practices
and services through valuable partnerships, objective measurement tools and consumer
education.

Presenter: Andrea Schnitzer

National Program Manager, Energy Star 

29
The LEED-certified Ruth Lilly Visitors Pavilion is located on the Indianapolis Museum of Art’s 100 Acres site. Photo courtesy Indianapolis Museum of Art.

Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design (LEED)

U.S. Green Building Council
usgbc.org/leed
LEED, or Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design, is transforming the way we
think about how buildings and communities around the globe are designed, constructed,
maintained and operated. Comprehensive and flexible, LEED is a green building tool that
addresses the entire building lifecycle by recognizing best-in-class building strategies.
At its core, LEED is a program that provides third-party verification of green build-
ings. Building projects satisfy prerequisites and earn points to achieve different levels of
certification. Prerequisites and credits differ for each rating system, and teams choose
the best fit for the project. Today, more than 54,000 projects are participating in LEED,
comprising more than 10.1 billion square feet of construction space.

Metrics
Within each LEED credit category, projects must satisfy prerequisites and earn points.
The number of points the project earns determines its level of LEED certification.
Main credit categories
• Sustainable sites credits encourage strategies that minimize the impact on eco-
systems and water resources.

30
 • Water efficiency credits promote smarter use of water, inside and out, to reduce
potable water consumption.
• Energy and atmosphere credits promote better building energy performance
through innovative strategies.
• Materials and resources credits encourage using sustainable building materials
and reducing waste.
• Indoor environmental quality credits promote better indoor air quality and
access to daylight and views.
There are two bonus credit categories: Innovation in Design or Innovation in
Operations credits, which address sustainable building expertise as well as design mea-
sures not covered under the five LEED credit categories; and Regional Priority credits,
which address regional environmental priorities for buildings in different geographic
regions.
LEED rating systems generally have 100 base points plus six Innovation in Design
points and four Regional Priority points, for a total of 110 points (LEED for Homes is based
on a 125-point scale, plus 11 Innovation in Design points). Each credit is allocated points
based on the environmental impacts and human benefits of the building-related impacts
that it addresses. Projects achieve certification if they earn points according to the fol-
lowing levels:
• Certified: 40–49 points
• Silver: 50–59 points
• Gold: 60–79 points
• Platinum: 80+ points
Origin
In 1993, Rick Fedrizzi, David Gottfried and Mike Italiano established the U.S. Green
Building Council. Their mission was to promote sustainability in the building and construc-
tion industry. That April, representatives from approximately 60 firms and a few nonprofit
organizations met in the board room of the American Institute of Architects for the coun-
cil’s founding meeting. It was there that ideas were first aired for an open and balanced
coalition spanning the entire building industry and a green building rating system.
Today, the U.S. Green Building Council’s constituency includes builders and environmen-
talists, corporations and nonprofits, elected officials and concerned citizens, and teachers
and students. Since its unveiling in March 2000, the LEED green building certification
system has singled out commercial, institutional, and residential projects noteworthy for
their stellar environmental and health performance in both the United States and abroad.

31
Green Building Initiative
Green Globes
thegbi.org/green-globes/
Green Globes is a green building guidance and assessment program that offers a practi-
cal and affordable way to advance the environmental performance and sustainability
of a wide variety of building types. Designed for existing buildings, the Green Globes
Continual Improvement of Existing Buildings (CIEB) program includes:
• Comprehensive environmental assessment protocol
• Online software tools that speed and simplify assessment
• Best practices guidance for green construction and operations
• Qualified assessors with green building expertise
• Rating/certification system
Metrics
The assessment areas for this program include:
• Energy: performance, efficiency, management, CO2, transportation
• Water: performance, conservation, treatment
• Resources: waste reduction, recycling
• Emissions: boilers, water effluents, hazmat
• Indoor environment: air quality, lighting, noise
• Environmental management: EMS documentation, purchasing, environmental
awareness

Plans for Miami’s Frost Museum of Science include strategies for managing stormwater. Image courtesy Arquitectonica GEO.

32
 A total of 1,000 points are awarded in these areas. The Green Globes system pro-
vides higher levels of achievement based on the number of points a building acquires.
Buildings that achieve 35 percent or more of the 1,000 points possible are eligible for a
certification of one, two, three or four Green Globes.
A third-party assessment is required for a Green Globes rating and certification. After
meeting the eligibility requirements listed above, existing buildings may seek a Green
Globes certification and rating for their environmental sustainability and achievements.

Origin
The Green Building Initiative (GBI) is a nonprofit organization whose mission is to ac-
celerate the adoption of building practices that result in energy-efficient, healthier and
environmentally sustainable buildings by promoting credible and practical green build-
ing approaches for commercial construction.
GBI was conceived as a way to bring green building into the mainstream by help-
ing local home builder associations (HBAs) develop green building programs modeled
after the National Association of Home Builders’ (NAHB) Model Green Home Building
Guidelines. While developing a strategic partnership with the NAHB, an opportunity
emerged to bring a Web-based, interactive learning tool developed in Canada to commer-
cial builders in the United States. In late 2004, the GBI finalized an agreement to bring
the Green Globes environmental assessment and rating tool into the U.S. market.

Presenter: Erin Shaffer

Vice President, Federal Outreach, Green Building Initiative 

Green Exhibit Checklist

exhibitSEED.org
The Green Exhibit Checklist (GEC) is a tool to evaluate the environmental sustainability
of exhibits. Its goal is to inspire exhibit teams to plan exhibits with environmental con-
siderations in mind.

The Metrics
The Green Exhibit Checklist awards points in each of five key strategies for reducing the
environmental impact of exhibit production. A sixth category awards points for innova-
tion in the design and construction of the exhibit, encouraging exhibit teams to strive for
new and creative solutions to reduce environmental impacts.
1. Reduce new materials
2. Use local resources

33
 3. Reduce waste
4. Reduce energy consumption
5. Reduce toxic emissions
6. Innovation
Ratings are awarded for the total score: Platinum (20–24 points), Gold (15–19), Silver
(11–14) and Bronze (8–10).

Origin
In 2007, designers at the Oregon Museum of Science and Industry (OMSI) looked to the
LEED standards for buildings to try to create a similar scoring system for exhibits. LEED
assesses a numerical score for the environmental sustainability of building construction.
However, the LEED system has many categories that do not apply to exhibits and involves
complex calculations that seemed overly complicated for busy museum professionals. The
exhibit designers and production staff worked together to try a simpler approach. They
created the current scoring system, which is designed for easy assessment. Just by walk-
ing through the exhibition, you can instantly score it based on simple observations.
Since its creation, OMSI has used the GEC to assess past exhibit builds and to set sus-
tainability goals for future projects. The GEC is also being used by museums around the
country. OMSI offers the Green Exhibit Checklist on exhibitseed.org, along with examples
of completed GECs.
OMSI developed the exhibitSEED website with input from local and national museum
industry and design advisors as a place for exhibit and museum professionals to find
resources for developing, designing and building more sustainable exhibits. The site was
created from an interactive science museum perspective, but the museum hopes the in-
formation will be valuable to exhibit professionals specializing in all types of museums.

Presenter: Kari Jensen

Senior Exhibit Developer, Oregon Museum of Science and Industry

Sustainable Operations Tool Kit

AAM PIC Green
pic-green.net/sustainable-operations-tool-kit/introduction/
The Sustainable Operations Tool Kit is a resource in development that focuses on solu-
tions for greening day-to-day museum operations. It will be flexible and updatable,
focusing on practical tips that can be customized and easy to implement by organizations
of any size or operational model.

34
Tool Kit Worksheet
The tool kit includes a worksheet tracking system (in pilot form). Each worksheet tab cor-
responds to a specific focus area, such as Water, Energy or Materials, and offers resources
and initiatives for consideration. Each Initiative has a tracking area for a Goal Start Date
and a Goal Finish Date. These areas correspond to each action, such as Initiation, Launch,
Implementation and Culture Change. By using the Goal Start and Finish Dates, an insti-
tution can track progress in each focus area.

Tool Kit Categories

• Building and Construction
• Collections
• Energy
• Event Planning
• Exhibitions
• Facilities
• Food Service
• Gardens & Landscapes
• Graphics
• Green Museums Accord
• Green Teams
• Information Technology
• Lighting
• Paper
• Recycling
• Water
Origin
The Sustainable Operations Tool Kit was conceived to help the National Children’s
Museum become more sustainable in the operation of its new building in National
Harbor, Maryland. PIC Green is now working to enhance and develop the tool kit into
a premier resource that museums may consult for a wide range of green operations
practices.
While the Tool Kit began as a joint project between the National Children’s Museum
and PIC Green, it is evolving. Led by PIC Green board members Veronica Szalus, the muse-
um’s director of exhibits, and Stephanie Shapiro of the Smithsonian Institution Office of
Advancement, the vision for the tool kit is to become a robust industry-wide resource.
PIC Green presented the tool kit concept in a Solutions Lounge at the AAM Annual

35
Meeting in Minneapolis in 2012. Positive feedback and suggestions from attendees have
been incorporated into the current rendition. With an aim to be Web-based, simple and
accessible, PIC Green is working to make the tool kit as effective as possible and seeks
feedback from colleagues.

Green Business Certification for Cultural Institutions

Arts:Earth Partnership
artsearthpartnership.org
Arts:Earth Partnership (AEP) is an official green business certification for cultural facil-
ities, theaters, museums, dance studios, art galleries, performing arts companies, concert
venues and individual artists. Certified artists and facilities form a coalition collectively
committed to achieving environmental sustainability.
AEP works with arts organizations to expand their mission to include sustainability
and to harness the immense creativity, innovation and leadership within the cultural
sector to help solve the issues around pollution, climate change and the preservation of
our precious natural resources.

Metrics
AEP certification encompasses eight areas of operation:
1. Energy Efficiency: lighting, HVAC, plug loads
2. Water Efficiency and Urban Runoff: water usage
3. Operations and Culture
4. General Practices: recycled paper content, purchasing policies
5. Solid Waste: recycling, waste reduction strategies and implementation
6. Chemical Use and Pollution Prevention: hazardous waste disposal, green
cleaning
7. Transportation: multimodal transportation tracking, lower emissions
8. Landscaping: water conservation
AEP offers arts organizations, cultural institutions and individual artists a concise
framework for identifying and implementing practical and attainable green administra-
tive, operations and maintenance practices. AEP has recently signed a memorandum of
agreement with the City of Los Angeles to be the official green business certification for
arts and cultural organizations. The same arrangement has been made with the City of
Santa Monica, making AEP the world’s first arts and cultural green business certification.

36
Origin
Arts:Earth Partnership is a nonprofit, pro-environment organization based in Los
Angeles. Its mission is to provide cost-effective ways for the thousands of organizations
behind arts and cultural facilities to measurably enhance their energy efficiency and
decrease their environmental footprint. AEP’s certification was developed out of the need
for organizations that lack time, money and labor to go through more intense processes
to become more sustainable and still take positive steps and move in the right direction.
AEP’s cofounders are Justin Yoffe and Joel Shapiro, who used the Electric Lodge as an
incubator and a lab for teaching other institutions how to get on and stay on a path to
sustainability. Using the certification document as a guide, in language the arts sector
can understand, the assessor guides facility representatives through the process of green
certification.

Contributor: Adam Meltzer

Director of Operations, Arts:Earth Partnership
(This contributor was unable to attend the summit and submitted this information for inclu-
sion in the list of standards programs.)

37
Case Studies

Balboa Park Sustainability Program

Balboa Park Cultural Partnership
bpcp.org/program/bpsp

“As a collaborative body of 27 unique arts and cultural organizations, we are

incredibly proud of what the partnership between our facility managers, utility
company, community organizations and trade professionals has accomplished. We
believe it’s a unique model for achieving the green museum ideal and will contin-
ue to share our best practices as a coordinated effort to increase sustainability of
museums around the world.”
—Peter Comiskey, Executive Director, Balboa Park Cultural Partnership

The Balboa Park Sustainability Program’s (BPSP) purpose is to educate, measure, promote
and implement sustainability best practices in Balboa Park, a 1,200-acre urban cultural
park in San Diego. Established in 2008, the award-winning BPSP continues to advance
solutions that will help protect park resources and strengthen economic viability, while
enhancing visitor experience and enjoyment. BPSP is a collaborative effort among the
Balboa Park Cultural Partnership, the City of San Diego and San Diego Gas & Electric
(SDG&E). This collaboration is supported by an alliance of partnership members, park
stakeholders and sustainability experts.

The Trigger
Four actions laid a crucial foundation for our sustainable future:
1. Support of BPCP from the board of directors: The sustainability program
developed from existing programs with support from the board of directors
and funding from our local utility company, SDG&E.
2. Monthly meetings of facility staff: “Lunch and learns” bring together
Balboa Park facility staff and sustainability partners to share best practices
and discuss solutions.

38
 3. Energy audits: This practice created a sustainability to-do list, identified
incentives and calculated savings.
4. Funding for energy-efficiency projects: Using energy audits, we applied
for and received more than $2 million in federal funding to implement more
than 30 energy-efficiency projects in 15 member institutions.

Benchmarking and Metrics

LEED: Balboa Park’s historic landscape is home to three LEED-certified existing build-
ings. Detailed feasibility studies and audits identify the current state of our members’
buildings from the perspective of the U.S. Green Building Council’s LEED for Existing
Buildings: Operations and Maintenance rating system. We have boldly set a goal to
achieve LEED certification of 10 buildings in Balboa Park.

Energy Star Portfolio Manager: In partnership with SDG&E, we were the first to insti-
tute collective tracking of 19 cultural institutions’ energy use through Portfolio Manager.
Our building managers use this tool to compare energy use, understand trends and
identify faulty equipment. Measurement is the catalyst to understanding consumption,
which influences the priority of projects.

Capturing Carbon Footprint: We captured our office’s carbon footprint with the Climate
Registry’s Greenhouse Gas Inventory. In addition, M.B.A. students from Point Loma
Nazarene University prepared a carbon footprint baseline for 13 institutions that is bene-
ficial in sharing our story.

Lessons Learned
Share what you know and what you don’t. We found that collaboration and mentorship
go a long way on any budget and resource supply. Benchmarking metrics can seem like a
foreign language, so it’s best if you know a good sustainability translator. Partnerships
with local utility companies and vendors helped us identify project synergies and cost
savings from the experts. We share our story with community organizations and look for
unique win-win partnership opportunities.
Understand the organizational culture. It’s tough to educate an entire staff, but if you
know the right entry points, it is possible­­—and the results will show. We continue to
educate all levels of staff about green practices and explain why it makes business sense.
Meetings with department heads help us understand their needs, spread our message
and build support. With the goal to institutionalize sustainability into organizational
culture, the shift has to be convenient and simple, with ongoing monitoring through a
feedback loop.

39
Continuing the Journey
The foundation and trust we built are essential to our future success. The Balboa Park
Cultural Partnership aims to register and certify 10 buildings under the LEED rating sys-
tem, which will distinguish us as having the highest concentration of LEED-certified cul-
tural institutions in an urban park. The process will be documented through a resource
guide in the hope of extending our story into transformative steps for museums around
the world to learn from the San Diego model.

Presenter: Jessica Rinaman

Sustainability Manager, Balboa Park Cultural Partnership
 

Cooper-Hewitt, National Design Museum

National Design Triennial: Why Design Now?
cooperhewitt.org
The Cooper-Hewitt, National Design Museum’s 2011 National Design Triennial exhibition
“Why Design Now?” explored how the design world addresses human and environmental
issues.

Benchmarking and Metrics

In 2009, the Oregon Museum of Science and Industry (OMSI) created a Green Exhibit
Checklist (see page 33), adapted from LEED. Currently there is no LEED certification for
exhibitions, but the OMSI standard was a perfect opportunity to create a design that
reflected the exhibition’s message. I convinced the designers to apply the standard.
“Why Design Now?” was the first time a Smithsonian museum had integrated sustain-
ability into an exhibition. One of the biggest challenges was incorporating Smithsonian
fire safety standards into material selections. There are many sustainable materials on
the market, but we can only use those that comply with strict life safety codes.
Our solutions included the following strategies:
• Reduce and modularize: We used modular carpet tiles instead of platforms to
delineate display areas, and planar furniture with standardized heights and sim-
ple joinery to reduce the amount of material used in construction and shipping.
Portable, freestanding stanchions allowed flexible configuration. Concrete blocks
used for stanchion weights were intended to be sourced locally at travel venues,
reducing shipping weight.
• Reuse and simplify: Single sheets of Acrylite instead of cases were used for wall-
mounted projects. Projects traveled within their own frames or mounts. UltraTex

40
 panels, pocketed at top and bottom for cable mounting, were easily rolled and
lightweight for shipping. Existing hardware and equipment were used to hang
signage elements. The exhibition design can be re-created at other venues using
locally sourced materials.
• Use sustainable materials: All furniture was constructed using Medite FR,
made of 100 percent postindustrial recycled wood. Recyclable FLOR Fedora carpet
tiles, composed of 80 percent postconsumer recycled fibers, were returned to
FLOR after the exhibition. UltraTex U230 fabric, compostable and made from
100 percent organic plant fiber, was used for all printed graphics. Acrylite FF,
with up to 75 percent preconsumer reclaimed acrylic, was used for case hoods,
decks, protective covers, frames and the title sign. PlyCorr recyclable corrugated
cardboard, with over 50 percent postconsumer waste content, was used for object
labels and didactic text panels. Concrete blocks used for stanchion weights were
made locally of locally sourced materials. Finishes used on furniture were zero-
VOC. A prototype LED fixture was tested in one gallery as preparation for our
renovation project.
• Produce a sustainable exhibition catalogue: The exhibition catalogue was
printed using FSC-certified paper by an FSC chain-of-custody printer using soy-
based inks, fully recyclable shrinkwrap and recycled wood pallets to ship the
books. Carbon credits were bought to make the project carbon neutral.

The exhibition rated Silver according to the OMSI checklist. Given that global CO2
levels have topped 400 ppm for the first time since humans appeared, we need to get a
real grip on our industry’s contributions to climate change. Exhibitions have significant
environmental impacts, so we need to be much more rigorous when developing them.
LEED-rated buildings are meant to last for decades. Building exhibitions is like building
houses and then tearing them down several times a year.

Lessons Learned
• Increase industry savvy. Invite professionals to teach museums how to do this
right.
• Make sustainability an integral part of how exhibitions are conceived and
executed.
• Move sustainability from the fringes into the mainstream of all museum
operations.
• Widen the accepted range of relative humidity and temperature. The Tate

41
 Museums, the Victoria & Albert Museum and other British arts organizations are
already leading the way in this area.

Continuing the Journey

Since “Why Design Now?” our museum has committed to the following changes:
• using high-quality, reusable cases in our new gallery experience
• seeking LEED Silver certification for our renovation
• strengthening our internal practices
Presenter: Jocelyn Groom
Head of Exhibitions, Cooper-Hewitt, National Design Museum, New York

Haas-Lilienthal House
San Francisco Architectural Heritage
sfheritage.org
The Haas-Lilienthal House, a pristine 1886 Victorian mansion with most of its contents
intact, was designed by renowned Victorian architect Peter Schmidt for members of the
Haas and Lilienthal families, who were among the city’s most prominent early residents.
Listed in the National Register of Historic Places in 1973 and designated a San Francisco
Landmark in 1975, it is an exuberant example of the Queen Anne style.
Owned by San Francisco Architectural Heritage, the house recently conducted an
eco-charette and adopted a sustainability management plan with an ambitious goal of
Gold or better using LEED for Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance.

Benchmarking and Metrics

Many fantastic historic buildings have been certified with LEED for Existing Buildings,
such as the U.S. Treasury Building in Washington, DC (1842), the Wrigley Building in
Chicago (1920) and the Empire State Building in New York (1931). One of the more remark-
able projects currently underway is the greening of the Haas-Lilienthal House.
A guiding premise of the sustainability management plan is that the house should
meet energy and sustainability goals while preserving its historically significant fea-
tures. For this traditional structure, the project evaluation was initiated by identifying
and leveraging the original design features that contribute to the management of heat,
air and light in the building. Each recommendation was evaluated against whether it
could save energy and material resources while respecting character-defining elements.
The project began to take shape in 2010 when a new executive director came on board.
Realizing that the “house museum” that housed San Francisco Architectural Heritage’s

42
headquarters needed much work and that the mission of both were not really connected
despite the fact that Heritage owned and occupied it, the board began reconsidering the
mission during a comprehensive strategic planning process. A primary goal that came
out of this process was to green the house to improve the resource use of the site, broad-
en the audience of the organization and prove that a house museum can have continued
relevance in our culture. The board hired the architectural firm BAC/A+P to conduct
eco-charrettes and develop a sustainability management plan to test this premise. The
plan states, “While the board of Heritage has targeted LEED Gold, there is the potential
that the projects could be ‘stretched’ to reach the goals of net zero.” This is exciting news
and only the beginning of a long-term project to make the Haas-Lilienthal House a model
for exemplary sustainability practices.

Continuing the Journey

As the board raises the funds to start the rehabilitation in 2014, the team has worked
closely with USGBC to spread the story through workshops across the country in collabo-
ration with the Empire State Building, to show that both the smallest and biggest build-
ings in the country can all go green.

Presenter: Barbara A. Campagna, FAIA, LEED AP BD+C

Principal, BAC/A+P

Additional Contact: Mike Buhler

Executive Director, San Francisco Architectural Heritage 

43
 Minnesota Historical Society
mnhs.org

“The Minnesota Historical Society is committed to sustainable practices through-

out all aspects of its operation, and aims to promote sustainability in its educa-
tional and research activities. It will encourage environmental and sustainable
best practice throughout the institution and will demonstrate its commitment to
continual improvement and innovation in all aspects of environmental manage-
ment and sustainability.”
—MHS Green Team, Institutional Policy on Sustainability, March 11, 2009

The Trigger
The sustainability effort at the Minnesota Historical Society (MHS) began with a volun-
tary staff team—the Green Team—who attempted to implement sustainability strategies
in their departments and sites. The team solidified around a funding opportunity that
allowed them to hire a sustainability specialist to guide and track sustainability through-
out the organization.

Benchmarking and Metrics

One of the early challenges of the MHS Green Team was determining how to prioritize
the most effective strategies. The team struggled to identify the best use for limited
funds, paving the way for the use of sustainability metrics. A consistent system for
measuring sustainability would not only establish priorities, but be a means to monitor
progress and share common targets throughout the organization. Greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions were chosen as that metric because of the wide scope and availability of litera-
ture, consistent protocols and tools. With GHG emissions, the MHS tracks energy, waste,
water, paper and travel. In addition, there are opportunities to benchmark with other
organizations, such as those companies that report to the Global Reporting Initiative.
The GHG emissions metrics are calculated from monthly utility bills across all 26
historic sites, ranging from modern museums of 500,000 square feet to historic houses
of 2,000 square feet. By normalizing GHG figures for size and occupancy, the MHS is able
to benchmark within the organization and set priorities based on the most cost-effective
and environmentally sound strategies.
The first sustainability audit from 2010 proposed more than 75 strategies, ranging
from short-term repairs and operational changes to staff engagement projects and larger
system upgrades. The estimated savings in energy, waste and water will reduce GHG

44
emissions by 15 percent and save more than $1.8 million in utility bills in the next five
years. The metrics also reinforce the significance of sustainability on the historic pro-
gram missions, and as such, more than 80 percent of the strategies have been supported
by various departments and funding sources. Following the concept “what gets measured
gets done,” the MHS has found a means for integrating sustainability metrics into a his-
tory organization.
In hindsight, while the metrics are an important facet of accomplishing sustainability
at the MHS, other key issues also need to be addressed at the agency level to facilitate the
integration of the metrics into operational decision making. Understanding the role of
cost-accounting mechanisms can open up opportunities for capturing savings from sus-
tainability initiatives. Our sustainability program is a result of a funding opportunity;
however, that funding does not extend to funding implementation. Tying sustainability
initiatives to cost accounting will not be a means for accountability in funding, but a
means to make sustainability programs self sufficient.
In addition, the metrics ultimately require process change throughout the organiza-
tion. Without the right shepherding of process change, metrics alone will not become
part of the organizational culture. We continue our effort to truly integrate sustainabili-
ty, but it is a long process that is just beginning. We are working with other departments,
strategic priority teams and members to embed the idea that sustainability is “More for
the Mission.”

Continuing the Journey

Reducing environmental impact and increasing cost savings is a continuous process. As a
result of the first sustainability audit, the MHS will save a significant amount in utility
bills, but that is only a one-time savings. We must continue to raise the bar on sustain-
ability performance and target continual improvement, including engagement of various
stakeholders and audiences in the sustainability process through exhibits and educa-
tional programs. In addition, a commitment to sustainability means moving beyond cost
savings to developing an institution-wide policy that supports significant operational
changes. These commitments are the Green Team’s next steps to integrating sustainabil-
ity into organizational culture, and sustainability metrics plays a significant role in this
journey.

Presenter: Shengyin Xu, LEED AP BD+C

Institutional Sustainability Specialist, Minnesota Historical Society, St. Paul 

45
 Monticello
Thomas Jefferson Visitor Center and Smith Education
Center
monticello.org

“Where a new invention promises to be useful, it ought to be tried.”

—Thomas Jefferson

Thomas Jefferson valued progress and innovation. He was a tireless inventor. We also
know that Jefferson was a collector, with a great passion for books in particular. He
would have appreciated the challenge that museums face today in using innovative tech-
nologies that yield energy-efficient, sustainable buildings while ensuring that collections
are carefully preserved in controlled environments.

The Trigger
A few years ago, we took on a complex task that Jefferson would have understood:
engineering for the new Visitor Center at Monticello. We sought to create a comfortable,
sustainable environment as well as a building that would “sit lightly on the land”—
Jefferson’s pristine mountaintop setting. We used a variable air volume system and also
incorporated energy recovery ventilation with enthalpy wheels that was demand con-
trolled. But Monticello presented another opportunity for innovation. Members of the
Thomas Jefferson Foundation, which operates Monticello, were interested in geothermal
technology, an approach they felt Jefferson would have embraced. Innovative yet organ-
ic, it optimizes use of the land. Geothermal eliminated the need for a cooling tower or
condensers, which is an important consideration for a historic site that must minimize
noise and maintain sightlines.
We designed a closed-loop geothermal system, which required drilling bore holes down
through granite along the site. We were able to backfill with local river stone rather than
grout. The pipes are set in water that moves through the aquifers, providing a highly
efficient heat transfer. Although geothermal technology is unusual for a museum, it is
working very well at Monticello. It is saving water and energy, and it was a critical part
of the LEED Gold certification for the new Visitor Center.
After the Monticello project, we continued to look for energy-saving strategies and
incorporated them into the historic National Academy of Sciences in Washington, DC.
These approaches—which would also be appropriate for museums—included solar
thermal for domestic water heating; photovoltaic cells in skylights to generate electricity,

46
 improve the solar heat gain coefficient of the glazing and reduce sunlight radiation;
steam condensate heat recovery to reduce steam consumption; and a dedicated heat-
recovery chiller to reduce the work of the main chillers and limit steam consumption for
heating hot water.

Presenter: Todd Garing, Vice President

Mueller Associates, Inc., Baltimore

Natural History Museum of Utah

nhmu.utah.edu

“We aspire to lead by example demonstrating the viability of sustainable choices

in our new building and in our operations.”
—Natural History Museum of Utah Sustainability Statement

Scientists at the Natural History Museum of Utah study the past to understand pattern
and process, with the belief that this knowledge provides a basis for people to make in-
formed decisions that affect the future. The philosophy of sustainability is a fundamen-
tal framework for evaluating such choices.
The museum provides opportunities for students and visitors to better understand
their interactions with the natural world and provide a framework for individual and
community decision making.

The Trigger
With the leadership of the museum’s curators, the Natural History Museum of Utah
(NHMU) adopted sustainability as a key value and developed its sustainability statement
in the early 2000s, well before building programming or design was begun. As a result,
sustainability was a primary consideration throughout the process of building the new
museum, which opened in 2011.

Benchmarking & Metrics

When we selected our programming architect and interpretive planner in 2003, sus-
tainability was a stated goal for the project. At the time, there were very few LEED-AP
credentialed designers, so we did not require that credential. LEED-AP credentials were
a selection criterion when we chose the building architect and exhibit designer in 2005,
the building contractor in 2006 and the exhibit fabricator in 2007.

47
 The state of Utah implemented high-performance building standards (HPBS) in 2006
that required new public buildings to meet what were then called LEED Bronze stan-
dards for energy efficiency. Later the HPBS were raised to the equivalent of LEED Silver.
Although the state did not require it, we chose to work to meet LEED certification, which
goes beyond energy efficiency to include a variety of sustainable standards.
Through the design and construction phases, the owner-architect-contractor (OAC)
teams for the building and exhibits reviewed progress toward LEED quarterly. The LEED
checklist was used as the benchmarking tool. When the construction bids came in lower
than expected, the first elements we added back into the project were those that would
increase sustainability—pervious paving and recycled concrete, for example. At every
decision point during construction, sustainability was a consideration in making the
choice. Even after construction began, when new sustainable opportunities opened up—
such as funding for photovoltaics through the American Recovery and Reinvestment
Act—we pursued them.
Sustainability also was an important concept in the interpretive content. A sustain-
ability trail and an energy trail wind through the galleries connecting exhibits with
pertinent content. A kiosk shows visitors in real time how much energy the rooftop solar
panels are generating relative to the energy the building is using. An entire gallery, Utah
Futures, is dedicated to simulations that invite groups of people to make decisions to
build future communities, encouraging sustainable choices. We trained volunteers to give
architecture tours focused on sustainability.
The entire team of designers, contractors and owners (the last is a complicated group
consisting of the museum, the University of Utah and the state of Utah) were committed
from the outset to work collaboratively to maximize the sustainable features of the proj-
ect. The building and exhibits have been awarded LEED Gold certification by the USGBC.
Our greatest challenge has been balancing the high standards that museums require, par-
ticularly with respect to narrow temperature and humidity ranges, with LEED standards.

Continuing the Journey

We continue to seek ways to improve the sustainable features of the building, exhib-
its, operations and programs. A staff green team implements policies that encourage
sustainable behaviors of staff and visitors and sustainable purchasing choices. We are
conducting a large-scale exhibit evaluation that has shown, for example, that some
visitor groups use Utah Futures effectively while others find the learning curve too
steep; in summer 2013 we evaluated how well visitors are grasping sustainable concepts.
Working with the university and state, we are seeking ways to replace more coal-generated
energy with sustainably derived energy. We partner with the university’s Sustainability

48
 Center on programming for the public, and we generate programs of our own focused on
sustainability.

Presenter: Sarah George, Executive Director

Natural History Museum of Utah, Salt Lake City

Wagner Free Institute of Science of Philadelphia

wagnerfreeinstitute.org

“Preservation is inherently green. We believe that architectural preservation and

environmental conservation are two sides of the same coin.”
—Susan Glassman

The Wagner Free Institute of Science is a National Historic Landmark natural history
museum built during the Civil War. It preserves a view of 19th-century science at the mo-
ment that the theory of evolution changed our understanding of the world. We actively
teach contemporary science while using the past to shed light on important issues in the
present. No subject has as much potential to powerfully combine those two aspects of
our mission as conservation of the environment. By incorporating sustainability in our
capital projects and operations, we take our teaching about environmental issues outside
the classroom to let visitors and students learn from how we actually do things in the
museum, the questions we ask and the challenges we face—such as upgrading a histor-
ic heating system to be more energy efficient or trying to preserve butterfly wings in a
room filled with natural light.

The Trigger
In 2000 we began a multiphased restoration of the Wagner’s Victorian building. After
completing two major projects in 2004, we applied for funding to plan for the next phase
of work: replacing our 140-year-old metal roof and repairing the original skylights and
elegant iron-and-wood trusses in our exhibition hall. A planning grant from the Heritage
Investment Program (now the Heritage Philadelphia Program) funded by the Pew
Charitable Trusts brought together a team of architects, engineers and architectural con-
servators to assess the roof. The grant also supported a retreat for the project team, key
staff and board members with a LEED-certified engineer who reviewed the LEED applica-
tion process with us and analyzed the potential for LEED certification of the roof project.
After careful consideration, we decided to delay pursuing LEED certification. Concerns
about costs and the investment of staff time for recordkeeping were factors, as was the

49
need to complete the process within a five-year period. Most significant was the in-
compatibility of LEED with our commitment to the highest standards of architectural
preservation. We focused instead on crafting a sustainability strategy that incorporates
LEED goals where they mesh with our preservation priorities and that supports our effort
to maintain the exceptional integrity of the Wagner’s ensemble of historic building,
collections furniture and exhibit. Since 2006, green design and sustainability goals have
been integral elements of our strategic plan and of the long-range building restoration
program.

Benchmarking and Metrics

Although we tabled pursuit of LEED certification, the LEED retreat was instrumental in
establishing sustainability as a key institutional goal and in developing consensus among
our consultants, staff and board about how to infuse that aim into our strong preserva-
tion ethos. The LEED checklist outlined the types of activities we could undertake and
provided a framework for working toward sustainability goals. We began with simple,
low-cost, high-impact changes that have significantly affected maintenance practices.
Measures such as expanding the recycling program, replacing incandescent bulbs and
starting a storm water management program were undertaken by our site manager with
low to no start-up costs and have been embraced enthusiastically by the entire staff (who
proudly recite our recycling stats: waste is down 72 percent since June 2007!). At the same
time, sustainability has been integrated into planning for capital projects and is consid-
ered in tandem with our preservation goals.

Lessons Learned
We’re glad we made the decision to postpone certification so we can stay focused on our
preservation and operating priorities without the pressure of the certification deadline.
But we still hold LEED as a goal because it confers an official status to the program.
Moreover, we believe it is the architectural counterpart to the environmental concepts
that we teach in our building. Since we held our retreat in 2006, sustainability and
green design have made enormous strides. The National Trust for Historic Preservation
released guidelines for sustainability in historic buildings in 2011, the same year that the
Wagner received the Sustainability in Historic Preservation Award from Preservation
Pennsylvania for an energy-efficient upgrade of its historic heating system. And green
projects continue since launching the sustainability program in 2006, including:

50
 • Recycling: recycled 72 percent (26,076 pounds) of the total waste stream since
June 2007
• Lighting: replaced all incandescent bulbs with LEDs and compact fluorescents
• Windows: gasketed/weatherstripped windows throughout the building
• Storm water maintenance program: installed rain barrels and drip irrigation sys-
tems; doubled the size of street tree pits and added 1,100 square feet of permeable
lawn
• Garden: created an outdoor classroom with pollinator and native species plant-
ings fed by storm water
• Transportation: installed bike racks to facilitate bike travel
• HVAC: re-engineered the historic steam heating system to achieve environmental
sustainability while being sensitive to historic fabric
• Electric/lighting: overhauled the Wagner’s aging electrical system and improved
lighting
• Roof: restored the roof, including the arched trusses and original skylights
• Education: shared results through public lectures, site tours, programs and
publications

Presenter: Susan Glassman, Executive Director

Wagner Free Institute of Science of Philadelphia

51
Moving Forward

T he conversation at the summit was the culmination of years of work by institu-

tions and individuals who have taken large and small steps to make their museums
greener. By pooling the collective wisdom, expertise and inspired leadership of these
museums—along with the wealth of knowledge from the larger environmental com-
munity, building industry and others—we can, must and will find an agreeable path to
sustainability for our field. Sustainability standards for museums are within reach if we
want them.

52
Afterword

T he American Alliance of Museums (AAM) is proud to help bring this significant re-
port to the entire museum field. We urge all museums, regardless of type or size, to
consider the issues and questions its authors raise, as together AAM and its Professional
Networks nurture excellence and establish standards and best practices for our field.
Standards and practices must continually evolve in response to the changing environ-
ment in order to remain relevant. Sustainability is one of the issues that will now enjoy
greater visibility in our standards and excellence programs. The hard work of PIC Green
and everyone involved in the Sustainability Summit has set the stage for the next phase
of the conversation: determining the best strategy to bring this goal forward.
This report is also vital because it highlights the extensive work museums are already
doing in the areas of sustainability and the environment. From the outstanding con-
servation efforts being undertaken by our zoos, aquariums and gardens, to research on
climate change underway at natural history museums, to the creation of new models
of sustainable and energy-efficient architecture by a wide range of institutions, the
museum field is at the forefront of this effort.
But this is not surprising. Museums are uniquely positioned to take the long view, and
through scholarship, education and civic engagement, create a better world for genera-
tions to come. All of us at AAM are grateful to the members of PIC Green and we salute
their diligence in preparing this report. We look forward to supporting its important
efforts to establish environmental and sustainability standards in the years ahead.

Ford W. Bell, DVM

President, American Alliance of Museums

53
Appendix A

Essential Definitions
Museum: For the purposes of this white paper, an educational institution that contrib-
utes to the public by collecting, preserving and/or interpreting the things of this world.
Museums include every type of institution, from art museums to zoos. Museums are op-
erated by nonprofits, for-profits, colleges, universities and at every level of government,
and they come in all sizes.

Sustainable: Meeting the environmental, economic and social needs of the present with-
out compromising future generations’ ability to meet their own needs. For museums, the
term can encompass supporting larger efforts in their communities or even larger global
efforts. Operationally, it can mean building and managing facilities to minimize ecolog-
ical impacts and developing investment strategies that are environmentally and socially
conscientious.

Resilience: An ecosystem’s ability to recover from disturbance. Increasingly, it is becom-

ing clear that sustainability cannot be reached without resilience. The weaker the system
is, the harder it is for it to recover. The economy provides a corollary.

Standards: Agreed-upon criteria by which an industry measures quality and ensures

consistency. AAM further defines these as the generally accepted levels of attainment
that all museums are expected to achieve. The systems of standards described here focus
on such aspects of sustainability as building design and construction, energy use, re-
source use and waste management. Some of the standards programs highlighted here also
refer to standards that are not easily quantifiable, such as beauty. Whether the standards
are tangible or intangible, a level of agreed-upon success and attainment must be estab-
lished. Standards may be broad or technical, depending on the needs of the industry and
the desired outcomes.
Several fields, such as botanical gardens and zoos, have specialized standards, met-
rics and practices that are unique to these types of institutions. The discussion here
takes inspiration from their work and encourages broad collaboration with these allied
institutions.

54
Criteria: Individual principles or measurements on which a standard is based. In the
case of sustainability standards, the criteria are likely based on best practices in the larg-
er sustainability field.

Metrics: Measurements that allow for quantitative performance comparisons and can be
used to determine satisfaction of criteria. Metrics are data driven and supported by ex-
tensive research and available evidence such as energy bills, weather data, waste hauling
records, purchasing reports and material data sheets.

Best practices: According to the American Alliance of Museums, commendable actions

and philosophies that demonstrate an awareness of standards, solve problems and can be
replicated. Museums may choose to emulate them if appropriate to their circumstances.

Museum sustainability standards: While not yet in existence, these standards would
incorporate best practices from the green building industry and landscape management
along with best practices unique to museum functions, such as collections management
behind the scenes and in the galleries. Standards may include sustainable financial man-
agement and attention to sustainability issues related to staff, audience, the community
and the larger global population.

55
Appendix B

Sustainability in Museums Timeline

1970 The first Earth Day celebration is held.

1971 Museums and the Environment: A Handbook for Education reports on an AAM survey of
U.S. museums about their role in educating the public about human ecology. The
report contains a brief introduction to the science of ecology and major envi-
ronmental issues, suggests exhibit and programming ideas, and outlines survey
results. Of the nearly 600 museums that responded, 73 percent stated that they
were offering or planned to offer programming about environmental issues.

1972 The ICOM Conference on Museums and the Environment is held in France.

1974 Coyote Point Museum for Environmental Education (now CuriOdyssey), created
as the nation’s first museum dedicated to environmental education, opens its
new building in San Mateo, California.

1987 The Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development:

Our Common Future is published and defines sustainable development.

1990 The ICOM Conference on Museology and the Environment is held in France.

1992 The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development is held in

Brazil.

2002 The World Summit on Sustainable Development is held in South Africa.

2004 The Mark Twain House and Museum in Hartford, Connecticut, is the first muse-
um in the nation to attain LEED certification.

2005 The Association of Children’s Museums launches greenexhibits.org.

56
2006 The California Association of Museums forms its Green Museums Initiative
Committee.

2008 PIC Green Committee is formed by the American Alliance of Museums.

2009 The California Association of Museums and the American Alliance of Museums
develop the Green Museums Accord, an institution-wide pledge to be environ-
mentally responsible.

2012 PIC Green conducts a Sustainability Tracking Survey; of the 30 respondents, a

majority (64 percent) indicate that their organizations participate in a sustain-
ability program or practice.

2013 The Summit on Sustainability Standards in Museums is held in Baltimore.

57
 President
fbell@aam-us.
T 202.289.9110

1575 Eye Street NW, Suite 400 | Washington DC 20005 | T 202.289.1818 | F 202.289.6578 | www.aam-us.org