Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Adaptive mitigation : a framework for integrating climate adaptation and mitigation solutions in urban… Judah, Ilana 2020

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
24-ubc_2021_may_judah_ilana.pdf [ 6.15MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 24-1.0395287.json
JSON-LD: 24-1.0395287-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 24-1.0395287-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 24-1.0395287-rdf.json
Turtle: 24-1.0395287-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 24-1.0395287-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 24-1.0395287-source.json
Full Text
24-1.0395287-fulltext.txt
Citation
24-1.0395287.ris

Full Text

ADAPTIVE MITIGATION: A FRAMEWORK FOR INTEGRATING CLIMATE ADAPTATION AND MITIGATION SOLUTIONS IN URBAN MULTI-UNIT RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS  by  Ilana Judah  B.Arch., McGill University, 1997 B.Sc. (Architecture), McGill University, 1996  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF  MASTER OF SCIENCE in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE AND POSTDOCTORAL STUDIES (Resources, Environment and Sustainability)  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Vancouver)  December 2020   © Ilana Judah, 2020 ii  The following individuals certify that they have read, and recommend to the Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies for acceptance, a thesis entitled:  Adaptive Mitigation: A Framework for Integrating Climate Adaptation and Mitigation Solutions in Urban Multi-Unit Residential Buildings   submitted by Ilana Judah in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Resources, Environment and Sustainability  Examining Committee: Dr. Stephanie Chang, Institute for Resources, Environment & Sustainability (IRES) and  School of Community & Regional Planning (SCARP), The University of British Columbia Supervisor  Dr. Hadi Dowlatabadi, Institute for Resources, Environment & Sustainability (IRES),  The University of British Columbia Supervisory Committee Member  Dr. John Robinson, Munk School of Global Affairs and Public Policy, University of Toronto Additional Examiner     iii  Abstract Climate change mitigation/sustainability initiatives for the built environment have become well established over the past three decades. With increasing extreme weather events and climate impacts, building industry stakeholders have more recently been advancing adaptation/resilience policies and guidance. However, these initiatives have largely remained separate from mitigation/sustainability, with very limited investigation of their interrelationship. This lack of integration can result in unintended consequences such as increased greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, augmented risks, and negative health and well-being outcomes. Investigating interactions between adaptation and mitigation strategies provides an opportunity to benefit from synergies, minimize conflicts, and achieve more holistic project solutions. Many researchers have identified the need for integrated assessment methods, frameworks and user-friendly decision-support tools that capture both adaptation and mitigation. While integrated assessment methods have been created for the municipal scale, they are lacking at the scale of buildings and their immediate neighbourhoods.   As a response to this gap, this thesis aims to integrate adaptation and mitigation paradigms through the development of an integrated evaluation framework for urban multi-unit residential buildings (MURBs). The framework and associated tools were developed though an iterative process using multiple methods that included document analysis of relevant academic and industry literature, expert interviews in the U.S. and Canada, a series of stakeholder workshops, a survey to elicit feedback on draft framework documents, and case examples from the partner organization, BC Housing.   The resulting Integrated Building Adaptation and Mitigation Assessment (IBAMA) framework provides a process-oriented collaborative tool for building owners and design professionals to integrate climate adaptation and mitigation considerations and identify synergies, trade-offs and conflicts between proposed solutions. IBAMA is conceived primarily for the project planning phase, with follow-through during design, construction and project occupancy. It is implemented by means of an introductory primer, a detailed guidelines document, and an associated spreadsheet tool. The framework considers the larger neighbourhood scale, incorporates both technical and socio-economic factors, and is customizable to a project’s unique circumstances. iv  Lay Summary The green building movement has focused on mitigating climate change by improving the environmental performance of buildings. Green building organizations, policies and frameworks have been established to systematize environmental performance assessment. More recently, the building industry has begun to advance policies and practices that help buildings and communities adapt to climate change impacts. However, adaptation initiatives have primarily been developed separately from, or as add-ons to, green building systems rather than being fully integrated with them. Integrating approaches can help identify solutions that benefit both environmental performance and climate adaptation objectives, while minimizing strategies that advance one paradigm but undermine the other.  This thesis develops a system to integrate green building and climate adaptation approaches for multi-unit residential buildings. Created using multiple qualitative methods, the resulting framework provides collaborative tools for industry stakeholders to optimize project goals and solutions that improve environmental performance while better adapting to climate change.    v  Preface  This master’s thesis is an original intellectual product of the author, Ilana Judah. Design of the thesis, including the scope for investigation, selection of research methods, data analysis, framework development, and thesis writing was carried out by the author with input and feedback from Dr. Stephanie Chang and Dr. Hadi Dowlatabadi.  Research data reported in Chapters 3 and 4 was collected by the author under UBC Ethics Certificate number H19-00910 (Principal Investigator: Dr. Stephanie Chang), with the project title of “Adaptive mitigation: a framework for assessing synergies, conflicts, opportunities and trade-offs between climate change mitigation and adaptation in urban neighbourhoods".     vi  Table of Contents  Abstract ..................................................................................................................................... iii Lay Summary ............................................................................................................................ iv Preface ........................................................................................................................................ v Table of Contents ....................................................................................................................... vi List of Tables ............................................................................................................................. ix List of Figures ............................................................................................................................. x List of Abbreviations ................................................................................................................. xi Glossary .................................................................................................................................. xiii Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................xvi Dedication ..............................................................................................................................xvii Chapter 1: Introduction ............................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Problem Context ............................................................................................................................. 2 1.2 Problem Statement ......................................................................................................................... 6 1.3 Research Objectives and Questions ............................................................................................ 7 1.4 Thesis Structure ................................................................................................................................ 8 Chapter 2: Literature Review ...................................................................................................... 9 2.1 Defining Climate Mitigation and Adaptation............................................................................ 9 2.2 Differences in Goals and Approaches ..................................................................................... 14 2.3 Perspectives on the Integration of Climate Mitigation and Adaptation ............................ 18 2.4 Neighbourhood, Infrastructure and Multi-Scalar Considerations ........................................ 20 2.5 Interactions between Climate Mitigation and Adaptation ................................................... 23 2.6 Assessment Frameworks ............................................................................................................... 26 vii  2.7 Successful Implementation of Adaptation and Mitigation Strategies in Buildings ............ 34 2.8 Development of an Integrated Building Adaptation-Mitigation Assessment Framework37 Chapter 3: Methods ..................................................................................................................39 3.1 Research Model ............................................................................................................................ 39 3.2 Research Context .......................................................................................................................... 39 3.3 Research Design ............................................................................................................................ 39 3.4 Analysis Methods .......................................................................................................................... 41 3.5 Phase One – Document Analysis ................................................................................................ 41 3.6 Phase One – Semi-Structured Expert Interviews .................................................................... 48 3.7 Phase Two – Case Study Workshop ......................................................................................... 52 3.8 Phase Three – Feedback on Draft Framework Documents ................................................... 57 Chapter 4: Findings ..................................................................................................................60 4.1 Phase One – Document Analysis Findings ................................................................................ 60 4.2 Phase One – Semi-Structured Expert Interview Findings ...................................................... 77 4.3 Phase One – Draft Framework Structure and Parameter Development ........................... 95 4.4 Phase Two – Case Study Workshop Feedback ................................................................... 102 4.5 Phase Two – Development of Draft Framework Tools ....................................................... 106 4.6 Phase Three – Feedback on Draft Framework Tools .......................................................... 111 Chapter 5: Conclusions .......................................................................................................... 117 5.1 Discussion ..................................................................................................................................... 117 5.2 Research Limitations .................................................................................................................. 122 5.3 Recommendations for Future Research .................................................................................. 124 5.4 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 125 Bibliography .......................................................................................................................... 126 viii  Appendices ............................................................................................................................ 139 Appendix A – IBAMA Primer ........................................................................................................... 139 Appendix B – IBAMA Reference Guide ......................................................................................... 157 Appendix C – Papers/ Documents reviewed for Document Analysis A ................................... 301 Appendix D – Documents Reviewed for Document Analysis B................................................... 303 Appendix E – Supplementary Reference Documents................................................................... 306 Appendix F – Document Analysis Codes ........................................................................................ 309 Appendix G – Semi-Structured Interview Schedule ..................................................................... 312 Appendix H – Semi-Structured Interview Codes .......................................................................... 313 Appendix I – Example Case Study Workshop Exercise ............................................................. 317 Appendix J – Feedback Survey on IBAMA tools .......................................................................... 324 Appendix K – IBAMA Questions for BC Housing Stakeholders ................................................. 325  ix  List of Tables  Table 3.1 Key Search terms for Academic Literature on Mitigation & Adaptation Frameworks ... 42 Table 3.2 Classification of Grey Literature for Document Analysis B .................................................. 44 Table 3.3 Classification of Supplementary Reference Documents ........................................................ 45 Table 3.4 Code Categories and Sub-categories for Document Analysis B......................................... 47 Table 3.5 Classification of Expert Interview Participants ....................................................................... 49 Table 3.6 Workshop Case Study Characteristics and Hazards ............................................................ 53 Table 4.1 Initial IBAMA Parameter Categories Derived from Document Analysis A ........................ 61 Table 4.2 Classification of Mitigation and Adaptation Documents Reviewed for Integration ........ 70 Table 4.3 Evolution of IBAMA Parameter Categories ............................................................................. 96 Table 4.4 Evaluation Criteria for Adaptation and Mitigation Strategies ........................................ 101  x  List of Figures  Figure 3.1 Diagram of the Research Process ............................................................................................ 40 Figure 3.2 Initial Conceptual Framework Used for the Research Process............................................ 46 Figure 3.3 Draft Framework Categories and Interactions ...................................................................... 54 Figure 3.4 Excerpts of Verbal Feedback from Case Study Workshop ............................................... 56 Figure 4.1 Phase One Draft Framework Categories and Interactions ................................................. 97 Figure 4.2 Updated IBAMA Process Diagram ....................................................................................... 107 Figure 4.3 Radar Chart Comparing Adaptation Strategies for a Hazard Scenario ..................... 110  xi  List of Abbreviations  ARMS  Australian Resilience Measurement Scheme for Buildings ASHRAE American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers BIM  Building Information Modeling BREEAM® Building Research Establishment’s Environmental Assessment Method BRIC  Baseline Resilience Indicators for Communities CSF  Critical Success Factor FEMA  Federal Emergency Management Agency GHG  Greenhouse Gas GHGI  Greenhouse Gas Intensity H-LCA  Hazard Lifecycle Assessment IAM  Integrated Assessment Model IBAMA  Integrated Building Adaptation & Mitigation Assessment IBHS  Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety ICC  International Code Council ICLEI  International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives IECC  International Energy Conservation Code IgCC  International Green Construction Code IPCC  Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IPD  Integrated Project Delivery LCA  Lifecycle Assessment LCCA  Lifecycle Cost Analysis LEED®  Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design xii  LENSES Living Environments in Natural, Social and Economic Systems MURB  Multi-Unit Residential Building PCIC  Pacific Climate Impacts Consortium PICS  Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions PIEVC  Public Infrastructure Engineering Vulnerability Committee RCP  Representative Concentration Pathway REDiTM  Resilience-based Earthquake Design Initiative REDI  Resilience to Emergencies and Disasters Index ROI  Return on Investment SAF  Sustainability Assessment Framework THAM  Threat/Hazard Assessment Model xiii  Glossary  Adaptation or Mitigation Co-benefit Benefits of an adaptation or mitigation strategy that contributes to additional project or community goals.  Adaptation–Mitigation Conflict Adaptation action that has negative consequences for mitigation goals, or vice-versa.   Adaptation-Mitigation Synergy Interaction between adaptation and mitigation strategies when the combined effect of the strategies is equally or more beneficial than the effects of the individual strategies.  Adaptation–Mitigation Trade-off Action that balances adaptation and mitigation goals when it is not possible to fully carry out both objectives.  Avoided Costs or Losses Hazard-related economic costs or losses that were avoided due to specific adaptation or resilience measures.   Cascading Impacts   The secondary impacts of hazards following an initial natural or climate hazard event. Examples include power outages due to wildfires, heavy rain causing landslides, reduced transportation access after flooding, and supply chain interruptions following an earthquake.   Climate Adaptation  A gradual process of maintaining points of resilience to climate change that ultimately results in a future state of being.   Climate Hazard Agent of disaster for human settlements or to the environment. Includes wildfires, tropical cyclones, thunderstorms, tornadoes, drought, flooding, rain, hail, snow, lightning, fog, wind, temperature extremes, air pollution, and climatic change.   Climate Mitigation Reduction of net greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to decrease global warming.   Climate Resilience The capacity of a building or community to absorb external climate stresses; retain function; reduce risk; and enable people, organizations, and systems to persist.     xiv  Compounding Hazards The effects of multiple natural or climate hazard events occurring concurrently or at around the same time. Examples include wildfires occurring during periods of extreme heat and drought, with ensuing poor air quality. A compounding hazard can also include the same hazard occurring multiple times within a short period, such as multiple heavy rainfalls over consecutive days.   Embodied GHG Emissions (or Embodied Carbon) The total impact of all greenhouse gases emitted by the materials and construction of a building throughout its lifespan. This includes the impacts of sourcing raw materials, manufacturing, transportation, wastage, maintenance, repairs, and disposal or recovery.   Greenhouse Gas Intensity (GHGI) In reference to buildings, the quantity of greenhouse gas emissions per unit of building area (or volume) per annum.  Hazard The potential occurrence of a natural or human-induced physical event or trend or physical impact that may cause loss of life, injury, or other health impacts, as well as damage and loss to property, infrastructure, livelihoods, service provisions, ecosystems, and environmental resources.   Hazard Lifecycle Assessment (H-LCA) Lifecycle assessment that takes into account the estimated impacts on, repairs to, and potential replacement of a structure due to a hazard event.   Hazard Mitigation Measures that aim to lessen physical damage to natural and built environments during and after hazard events, and also reduce impacts on the social and economic networks of a community.   Lifecycle Assessment (LCA) A cradle-to-grave or cradle-to-cradle analysis technique to assess environmental impacts associated with all the stages of a product's life, from raw material extraction through materials processing, manufacture, distribution, use, and recycling or disposal.  Lifecycle Cost Analysis (LCCA) A method for evaluating all relevant costs over time of a project, product, or measure. It takes into consideration all costs including first costs, such as capital investment costs, purchase, and installation costs; future costs, such as energy costs, operating costs, maintenance costs, capital replacement costs, financing costs; and any resale, salvage, or disposal cost; over the lifetime of the project or product.   Maladaptation Reducing short-term risk at the expense of long-term vulnerability, or increasing the vulnerability of other systems, sectors or social groups over any time horizon.  Multi-hazard (or Multi-hazard Approach) An approach that considers more than one hazard in a given place and the interrelations between these hazards, including their simultaneous or cumulative occurrence and their potential interactions.  xv  Net-Zero Building (or Zero Carbon) A highly energy efficient building that produces onsite, or procures, carbon-free renewable energy or high-quality carbon offsets to offset the annual carbon emissions associated with building operations, and sometimes materials.  Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) Greenhouse concentration (not emissions) trajectories adopted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Four pathways were used for climate modeling and research for the IPCC fifth Assessment Report (AR5) in 2014. The pathways describe different climate futures, all of which are considered possible depending on the volume of greenhouse gases (GHGs) emitted in the years to come. Additional RCP scenarios have been developed since AR5.   Resilience Dividend The difference in the outcomes between a scenario with a resilience approach and one with a non-resilient business-as-usual approach. It quantifies both the direct returns to the immediate resilience goal, as well as the societal and financial co-benefits.   Risk The possibility of injury, loss, damage or negative environmental impact created by a hazard. Risk is a function of the probability and severity of a hazard event, exposure to the hazard, and the vulnerability of the people or physical assets exposed.   Sustainability • Meeting present needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs.  • Increasing quality of life with respect to environmental, social and economic considerations, both in present and future generations.   Urban Heat Island (UHI) An urban area that is significantly warmer than its surroundings. This is due to the concentration of waste heat generated by buildings, transportation systems, and industry; less vegetated area, and a large percentage of hard surfaces that absorb solar radiation.  Vulnerability The degree to which a system is susceptible to, or unable to cope with, adverse effects of climate change, including climate variability and extremes.   xvi  Acknowledgements  My work at UBC was primarily carried out on the traditional, ancestral, and unceded territory of the Coast Salish peoples: the Sḵwx̱wú7mesh (Squamish), Stó:lō and Səl̓ilwətaʔ/Selilwitulh (Tsleil-Waututh), and xʷməθkʷəy̓əm (Musqueam) Nations.  I am extremely grateful for the guidance and wisdom of my advisor Dr. Stephanie Chang, who has posed thoughtful questions and provided insightful feedback throughout this process. My gratitude also extends to Dr. Hadi Dowlatabadi, who has been invaluable for providing his critical eye and practical perspective.   This work is the result of a successful partnership between UBC, BC Housing and the Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions (PICS). I would like to acknowledge PICS for funding this research under the Research Engagement Program (Proposal # OP19SC). In addition, I would like to acknowledge the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) for their funding support. This research would also not have been possible without the resources provided by BC Housing. I am indebted to BC Housing project team members Wilma Leung and Magda Szpala, who provided access to stakeholders, case studies and feedback throughout the process. Sara Muir-Owen, my PICS contact, was also incredibly supportive in managing the partnership.   My research benefitted immensely from the numerous stakeholders and colleagues in BC and New York City, who took the time to participate in interviews, workshops, comment on draft documents, or otherwise provide guidance. I am grateful to have been enriched by their perspectives.  Lastly, I would like to thank my wonderful life partner Dave, my mother Paula, as well as my other family members and dear friends for their love and moral support.  xvii  Dedication This is the Dedication.          Dedicated to Isaac, Lara, Rohan, and Sol. 1  Chapter 1: Introduction My awareness of the relationship between climate mitigation and adaptation was first raised following the New York City building industry’s response to Hurricane Sandy 0F1. While industry professionals were very familiar with climate mitigation and sustainable building frameworks such as LEED®, BREEAM®, and energy codes; there was uncertainty about how to consider climate adaptation and resilience and appropriately advise clients. Following Sandy, some adjustments were made to building codes (Urban Green Council, n.d.), zoning regulations (NYC Department of City Planning, 2019), and flood maps (NYC Department of City Planning, 2017). Many technical resources and guidelines were also available from organizations such as the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). However, unlike the LEED® rating system that focused on climate mitigation and sustainability, a consistent and accepted methodology to address climate adaptation and resilience in buildings was missing. Guidance was emerging from The Resilient Design Institute (Wilson, 2015), who created the LEED® Pilot Credits for Resilient Design  (Blackwelder, 2019), and through the RELi rating system (U.S. Green Building Council, 2018b), but at the time, these were in early development or pilot phases.  With respect to specific strategies, post-Sandy adaptation and resilience proposals for coastal hardening (Gorman, 2020) and additional emergency back-up generator capacity (Satow, 2013) posed conflicts with GHG emissions reduction and sustainability goals. At the same time, some recommendations were synergistic, such as the use of passive design strategies, on-site co-generation (Urban Green Council, 2013), and green infrastructure for stormwater management (New York City Department of Environmental Protection, 2015). Climate mitigation and  1 The observations outlined in this introduction stem for my experiences as a Senior Architect and Director of Sustainability at a large New York City architecture firm between 2008-2018, and as co-chair of the American Institute of Architects’ Committee on the Environment, New York City Chapter, from 2010-2016. 2  sustainability advocates, while recommending these same synergistic solutions, were also promoting all-electric buildings as a GHG emissions reduction strategy, without clearly investigating risks associated with the reliability of the electricity infrastructure (Urban Green Council, 2019a).   My project experiences echoed this siloed approach between mitigating climate impacts and adapting to them. In some cases, clients had strong commitments to energy efficiency, climate mitigation and sustainable design but had yet to address adaptation and resilience beyond code requirements. In other instances, they prioritized climate resilience and had less interest in mitigation or sustainability efforts that exceeded a mandated baseline. As such, I perceived the potential of a more integrated approach to addressing climate impacts in the built environment, whereby adaptation/resilience goals could be leveraged to incorporate mitigation/sustainability strategies, or vice versa. For example, the resilience benefits of the Passive House Standard could be used to convince a client of its value even though it was conceived as a climate mitigation framework.  1.1 Problem Context 1.1.1 Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Buildings  Buildings have a significant responsibility in contributing to climate change. They account for a substantial proportion of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and therefore play an important part in the development of climate mitigation solutions. Globally, buildings (28%) and construction (11%) were responsible for 39% of energy-related C02 emissions in 2015 (UN Environment and International Energy Agency, 2017). In Canada, 17% of 2015 national GHG emissions were attributed to buildings (Senate Canada, 2018). This proportion increases in cities, where approximately 70% of emissions are building-related (Rosenzweig et al., 2018). For example, 3  buildings were responsible for 67% of New York City’s 2016 GHG emissions (The City of New York, 2017b) and 59% of Vancouver’s 2017 GHG emissions (City of Vancouver, 2019b) 1F2.   1.1.2 Climate Change Impacts on Buildings and Occupants Buildings and their occupants are also highly vulnerable to the effects of climate change, particularly in cities, where interactions between climate hazards, infrastructure systems, growing urban populations, diverse cultures, real-estate development and economic activities can exacerbate disaster impacts (Chang, Yip, & Tse, 2018; Rosenzweig et al., 2018). In British Columbia, where many residential buildings lack mechanical ventilation and air filtration, wildfires in 2018 degraded air quality to dangerous levels (Wang, 2019) and displaced over 65,000 people, many of whom came to Vancouver for shelter (City of Vancouver, 2019e). Current worst case scenario flooding damages in Vancouver are estimated to cost over $40B CAN (City of Vancouver, 2019e). In New York City, approximately 305,000 homes were damaged or destroyed by Hurricane Sandy, representing $3.2B US in flood insurance claims (“Hurricane Sandy’s Impact, By The Numbers,” 2013). Nationally, the U.S. incurred an estimated $351.2B US in insured property losses from catastrophes between 2010-2019, $111B US in 2017 alone (Insurance Information Institute, 2020).   1.1.3 Climate Change and Multi-Unit Residential Buildings Residential buildings generate more than half of the GHG emissions from buildings in the U.S. (Onat, Egilmez, & Tatari, 2014). Households also account for 42% of total U.S. C02 emissions from fossil fuel combustion, combining emissions from residential buildings (22%) and passenger travel (20%) (U.S. EPA, 2012 as cited in S. Lee & Lee, 2014). Residential buildings were  2 Government of Canada, New York City and City of Vancouver GHG reporting accounts for emissions associated with building operations, but not embodied emissions associated with building materials and construction. 4  responsible for 20% of 2014 GHG emissions in the City of Vancouver (City of Vancouver, 2015) and 32% of 2016 GHG emissions in New York City (The City of New York, 2017b).  Multi-unit residential buildings (MURBs) are a critical typology with respect to climate change impacts. Not only do they have aggregated populations that may increase the number of people  exposed to climate hazards, but can often have more vulnerable residents such as elderly and low-income populations (Glaeser, Kahn, & Rappaport, 2008). MURBs can also serve as a positive force for improving urban resilience by connecting residents to social systems and resources, which is especially important for vulnerable populations (Charoenkit & Kumar, 2014). This improves resilience both within the MURB, as well as enhancing the broader community’s capacity for resilience (Vale, Shamsuddin, Gray, & Bertumen, 2014).   1.1.4 Climate Change Policies and Frameworks for Buildings 1.1.4.1 Climate Mitigation and Sustainability  There have been over 60 frameworks or rating systems developed to focus on climate mitigation and sustainability at the building, neighbourhood and community scales; both in North America and internationally (Matthews, Sattler, & Friedland, 2014). Typically structured as a series of mandatory requirements, and often coupled with points-based optional measures, they were designed to increase the environmental performance of buildings by reducing resource use and site impacts, improving energy efficiency and GHG emissions, and by creating healthy indoor environments (Phillips, Troup, Fannon, & Eckelman, 2017).   Most of these systems were conceived to be voluntarily adopted by developers and institutions as they advanced their organizations’ sustainability goals (Dyer & Dyer, 2017). As the frameworks gained recognition, they were referenced in policies by governments when mandating or incentivizing green buildings (Retzlaff, 2009). For example, LEED® was legislated as a 5  requirement for pubic buildings by numerous US state and municipal governments (van der Heijden, 2015), as well as US federal organizations (Bonham, 2013). In Canada, the BC Energy step code echoes approaches taken in Passive House Institute certification, R-2000™, Energy Star for New Homes™, Net Zero Home™ and Net Zero Ready Home™ programs (Government of British Columbia, 2017).  In order to align mitigation and sustainability frameworks and strategies with standard building code language and regulatory formats, the International Code Council (ICC) created a model Green Construction Code (IgCC) (Meacham, 2016). Standards developed by professional organizations such as the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) have been also used as models to develop widely adopted codes such as the International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) (International Code Council, 2018).   1.1.4.2 Climate Adaptation and Resilience  Climate adaptation and resilience initiatives are being developed predominantly at the regional and municipal scales (Hunt & Watkiss, 2011), with multiple frameworks and processes for approaching adaptation at this scale advancing though the efforts of governments, as well as organizations such as ICLEI and the Rockefeller Foundation (Sharifi, 2016). Though initiatives for  neighbourhoods are emerging (City of Vancouver, 2017c; Weisbrod, 2016), there are limited examples of frameworks for adaptation and resilience at the neighbourhood scale.   At the building and infrastructure scales, there are numerous adaptation and resilience frameworks and references (Phillips et al., 2017) typically developed for a specific infrastructure typology (Hosseini, Barker, & Ramirez-Marquez, 2016) and/or hazard, with a few comprehensive frameworks such as RELi (U.S. Green Building Council, 2018b).   6  A standard means of integrating risk-based planning in the building industry is in the form of building codes. Their primary objective is to provide life-safety and collapse prevention under pre-determined design events by defining the minimum level of threat that a building must be able to tolerate (Kurth, Keenan, Sasani, & Linkov, 2019). Many countries have incorporated some resilience measures into building codes, though the interpretation of resilience varies across codes much more than sustainability, in addition to the variability with regards to which hazards are addressed (Meacham, 2016).   1.2 Problem Statement Climate change mitigation and sustainability initiatives for the built environment have been well established and formalized within the building design and construction industry. More recently with increasing extreme weather events, stakeholders have recognized that cities and buildings must also adapt to the changing climate and have been rapidly advancing applicable policies and guidance. However, investigation of the interrelationship between adaptation/resilience and mitigation/sustainability initiatives for buildings has been very limited, both with respect to the design process, and in climate policies and frameworks. Depending upon which strategies are employed and how, this may cause unintended consequences such as increased greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, augmented risks to buildings, and negative health and well-being outcomes for occupants. By investigating potential interactions between mitigation and adaptation strategies, there is an opportunity to benefit from synergies that can minimize unnecessary redundancy, reduce additional costs, as well as improve overall building performance and quality of life.   1.2.1 Integration of Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Methods The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has noted that integrating mitigation and adaptation deserves the highest priority in urban planning, urban design, and urban architecture, 7  to avoid cities locking into counterproductive infrastructure and policies. More specifically, they identify the need for integrated assessment methods and frameworks that capture both adaptation and mitigation aspects, as well as user-friendly decision-support tools that incorporate the needs of users and allow broad participation of multiple stakeholders (Rosenzweig et al., 2018). While integrated assessment methods have been developed for the municipal scale (Solecki et al., 2015; Walsh, 2013), they are lacking at the scale of buildings and their immediate neighbourhoods (Hamin & Gurran, 2009).   1.3 Research Objectives and Questions Given the absence of a thorough assessment method to support unified climate adaptation and mitigation decision-making at the building and surrounding neighbourhood scales, the primary research objective is to develop an integrated climate adaptation and mitigation process and framework that responds to this gap.   The aspiration is that this methodology will enable policy-makers, building owners, designers, contractors, and building managers to: • Minimize conflicts between climate mitigation and adaptation goals in design and construction practices; • Identify solutions that are synergistic to both climate mitigation and adaptation; • Consistently evaluate trade-offs between proposed mitigation and adaptation strategies; • Communicate and function more effectively as an integrated ownership, design, construction, and operations team when establishing climate-related goals and strategies.  The framework is targeted to urban multi-unit residential buildings due to their significant contribution to GHG emissions and the potential impacts of climate hazards on large numbers of residents, particularly those who are more vulnerable. It has been created for new construction 8  projects rather than existing facilities, as implementation is likely to first occur on new buildings. However, the framework can be adapted to accommodate building retrofits through some minor adjustments.  The research and development process was informed by input from BC Housing’s Research Group as part of their Mobilizing Building Adaptation and Resilience (MBAR) initiative (BC Housing, 2019).  The methods used to develop the framework attempt to answer the following research questions:   1. How can the design process for urban multi-unit residential buildings effectively integrate both climate mitigation and adaptation considerations? 2. How can interactions between climate mitigation and adaptation strategies for urban multi-unit housing designs be consistently evaluated to inform more integrated and synergistic decision-making?  1.4 Thesis Structure Five chapters are included in this thesis. In addition to the Introduction, Chapter 2 summarizes the relevant literature that informs the research direction. Chapter 3 describes the research design and multiple methods employed. Chapter 4 presents the research findings and how they were used in the development and testing of the framework. Chapter 5 discusses conclusions, research limitations, suggested next steps regarding application of the framework, and recommendations for future research.   9  Chapter 2: Literature Review  2.1 Defining Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Adaptation and mitigation represent two approaches in response to climate change. They both seek to avoid the potential damages of global climate change, and they both seek to support the development of present and future generations in a sustainable manner (Dang, Michaelowa, & Tuan, 2003).   2.1.1 Climate Mitigation, Sustainability, and Green Building Climate mitigation falls under the broader framework of sustainability, which is frequently defined as development that “meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987, p.16). Sustainability is focused on increasing the quality of life with respect to environmental, social and economic considerations, both in the present and for future generations (Marchese et al., 2018).   Orr makes the distinction between ‘ecological’ and ‘technological’ sustainability, considering both to be necessary. ‘Ecological’ sustainability emphasizes a bio-centric view and the importance of enabling natural systems to endure, as well as retention of their biodiversity. By contrast, ‘technological’ sustainability stresses making technical and engineering approaches more efficient (Orr, 1992 as cited in Cole, 2012).  With respect to the built environment, Cole differentiates between sustainability and green building. While he notes that ‘sustainable building’ and ‘sustainable design’ are often used interchangeably with ‘green building’, ‘green’ design and building typically fall under Orr’s ‘technological’ sustainability definition, focusing on reducing resource use and adverse 10  environmental impacts while promoting the health and comfort of building occupants (Cole, 2012); whereas sustainability is based on a bio-centric view that places humans in a larger natural context, focusing on constraints and on fundamental value and behavioural change (Robinson, 2004 as cited in Cole, 2012).  At the neighbourhood scale, Churchill and Baetz developed a set of guidelines for sustainable communities, which address a broad range of factors, including population density, alternative modes of transportation, community agriculture, water re-use, and green building techniques (Churchill & Baetz, 1999 as cited in Engel-Yan et al., 2005). LEED® for Neighbourhood Development also includes ecological factors and socio-economic considerations such as affordable housing, proximity to jobs, and community outreach and involvement (U.S. Green Building Council, 2016b).   At the building scale, the Conseil International du Bâtiment articulated seven “Principles of Sustainable Construction: reducing resource consumption, reusing resources, using recyclable resources, protecting nature, eliminating toxins, applying lifecycle costing, and focusing on quality” (Kilbert, C., 1994 as cited in Roostaie, Nawari, & Kibert, 2019, p.134). The U.S. Green Building Council classifies sustainable building according to the following LEED® categories: location and transportation, sustainable sites, water efficiency, energy and atmosphere, material and resources, indoor environmental quality, and innovation (Roostaie et al., 2019).   Climate mitigation involves reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and enhancing any processes that remove GHG emissions from the atmosphere with the goal of preventing global warming (Walsh, 2011). Mitigation efforts were first formalized at the international scale in 1992 via the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change at the Rio Earth Summit, which established non-binding targets to reduce CO2 emissions (United Nations, 1992), and have 11  continued via binding targets for developed countries in the Kyoto Protocol (United Nations, 1998) and most recently, the Paris Agreement (United Nations, 2015). Climate mitigation efforts at the building scale involve reducing GHG emissions from the production of building materials, building operations such as power, heating and cooling; and transportation to and from the building (Norman, MacLean, & Kennedy, 2006).  The emerging concept of regenerative design goes beyond traditional climate mitigation, green building or sustainability definitions. It is characterized as a whole living system approach that looks at how a building’s design, construction and use can positively influence the social, ecological and economic health of the place it is connected to (Cole, 2012).  Aspects of regenerative design may inform ways of connecting climate mitigation and sustainability to adaptation and resilience approaches.  2.1.2 Climate Adaptation and Resilience Resilience has a wide range of definitions from multiple disciplines such as ecology, global environmental change, social sciences, economics and engineering. The concept of resilience was established in the field of ecology by Holling, which he defined as “a measure of the persistence of systems and of their ability to absorb change and disturbance and still maintain the same relationships between populations or state variables”. He notes that stability “represents the ability of a system to return to an equilibrium state after a temporary disturbance; the more rapidly it returns to equilibrium and the less it fluctuates, the more stable it would be” (Holling, 1973, p.14).   This definition expanded as the concept of resilience was adopted by other fields. Adger defines ‘social resilience’ as the ability of groups or communities to cope with external stresses and disturbances due to social, political, and environmental change (Adger, 2000). Rose and Liao 12  define ‘economic resilience’ as the inherent ability and adaptive response that enables individual businesses and entire regions to avoid maximum potential losses (Rose & Liao, 2005). In contrast to ecological and social definitions, ‘engineering resilience’ is more static and can be characterized as the rapid return of a system to its original pre-disturbance state (Marchese et al., 2018) rather than capturing the adaptive or transformative aspects of resilience (Matthews et al., 2014).   Within the field of disaster resilience, multiple definitions of resilience also exist. Keating et al. note that many of these definitions recognize the importance of disaster risk management by using terms such as ‘plan’, ‘absorb’, ‘adapt to’, and ‘recover’ (Keating et al., 2017). This includes hazard mitigation, which aims to lessen the physical damage to the natural and built environment during and after hazard events, and also reduce impacts on the social and economic networks of a community (Matthews et al., 2014).  Other disaster resilience definitions include opportunities for development and transformation, incorporating phrases such as “adaptive processes that facilitate the ability of the social system to re-organize, change, and learn in response to a threat” (Cutter et al., 2008, p.599). Taking these multiple aspects into consideration, Keating et al. propose a conceptualization of disaster resilience as “the ability of a system, community or society to pursue its social, ecological and development objectives, while managing its disaster risk over time in a mutually reinforcing way” (Keating et al., 2017, p.65).  The concepts of vulnerability and risk are also critical to understanding disaster resilience. Adger defines vulnerability as “the state of susceptibility to harm from exposure to stresses associated with environmental and social change and from the absence of capacity to adapt” (Adger, 2006, p.268). Cutter et al. define vulnerability as “the pre-event, inherent characteristics or qualities of social systems that create the potential for harm”, as a function of the exposure and sensitivity of 13  a system (Cutter et al., 2008, p.599). Blaikie et al. map the development of vulnerability beginning with root causes: economic, demographic and political processes. These manifest as dynamic pressures, or activities that translate the effects of root causes into unsafe actions. This ultimately results in unsafe conditions, forms in which the vulnerability of a population is expressed in time and space with respect to a hazard. The level of risk results from the product of the degree of vulnerability and the intensity of the hazard (Blaikie, Cannon, Davis, & Wisner, 1994).  Roostaie et al. note that despite the wide application of resilience in multiple disciplines, an accepted definition of resilience has not been achieved within the architecture, engineering and construction industry. For example, urban planners think of resilience as recovery from an event or a disaster, while the insurance sector sees resilience through the lens of risk and hazard mitigation (Roostaie et al., 2019). At the neighbourhood scale, Uda and Kennedy define a neighbourhood’s resilience as its ability to deal with shocks and stresses and continue to meet the essential needs of the community (Uda & Kennedy, 2015). At the building scale, Phillips et al. define resilience as a building that resists physical damage, may be quickly and cost-effectively repaired if damaged, and maintains key building functionality either throughout a disruptive event or restores a target operation level more quickly after such an event occurs (Phillips et al., 2017). Zhao et al. expand this definition to include social and community factors, defining resilience as “the capacity of a residential structure to absorb external stresses; retain function; reduce industrial risk; and help vulnerable people, organizations, and systems persist” (Zhao, McCoy, & Smoke, 2015, p.2).   In contrast to the more static definition of engineering resilience, current interpretations of resilience in the built environment focus on adaptability and dynamic self-adjustment, what Folke refers to as “persisting with change on the current path of development” (Folke, 2016 as cited in Roostaie et al., 2019, p.136). The idea of ‘adaptive capacity’ is incorporated into several 14  conceptualizations of resilience, and can be defined as “the ability of a system to adjust to change, moderate the effects, and cope with a disturbance” (Burton et al., 2002; Brooks et al., 2005 as cited in Cutter et al., 2008, p.600). Along these lines, Meerow and Newell define urban resilience as “the ability of an urban system—and all its constituent socio-ecological and socio-technical networks across temporal and spatial scales—to maintain or rapidly return to desired functions in the face of a disturbance, to adapt to change, and to quickly transform systems that limit current or future adaptive capacity” (Meerow & Newell, 2016, p.45).  Keenan’s interpretations of adaptation and resilience in the built environment are closely aligned with the approach taken in this thesis. He describes adaptation as an expansion of resilience that takes into account transformation toward future conditions, noting that “while resilience can be thought of as a preservation of the entire operations of the status quo of a host…, adaptation is a gradual process of maintaining periodic points of resilience which ultimately results in a future state of being which is superior to its predicated state in its ability to flexibly respond and continue to be resilient to known and unknown external stimuli…”(Keenan, 2014, p.20). Resilience and adaptation are therefore closely related in that resilience is an internal process of adaptation, along with hazard mitigation and coping, but each concept differs in its future states of being and its long-term implications in response to a diversity of stimuli. Keenan posits that both a social and technical understanding of adaptation is needed for buildings, as they do not innately adapt without the intent and intervention of humans (Keenan, 2014).   2.2 Differences in Approaches and Goals  While mitigation and adaptation both aim to reduce the risks associated with climate change, they have for the most part operated as separate paradigms. Historically, climate action planning focused primarily on mitigation, or greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reductions (Tang, 15  Dai, Fu, & Li, 2013), with the main goal of preventing climate change tipping points (Watkiss, Benzie, & Klein, 2015). Watkiss et al. note that mitigation has typically been advanced in policies that are distinct from adaptation and can be assessed using a single global metric—GHG emissions—representing a common global burden. This allows for scientific definitions of policy goals and the quantitative analysis of progress, from global to local levels. Mitigation is seen as a public good where benefits are generally experienced at the global level, primarily over long-time scales, while the associated costs are borne locally and in the shorter term. It requires international coordinated action to be effective, although it is being advanced by smaller jurisdictions such as cities, communities, and companies (Watkiss et al., 2015). Shaw et al. note that while the emission of greenhouse gases may be effectively governed at the global level, specific mitigation projects are implemented locally, having implications for community-based sustainability priorities (Shaw, Burch, Kristensen, Robinson, & Dale, 2014).  Climate mitigation goals have been established globally and nationally, but also in a substantial number of regional and local governments in the United States and Canada using tools such as municipal climate action plans (Krause, 2011; Shaw et al., 2014). GHG emissions reduction targets have also been set at institutional and real estate portfolio scales through programs such as the College and University President’s Climate Commitment (Dyer & Dyer, 2017) and the Global Real Estate Sustainability Benchmark (GRESB), an environmental, social and governance benchmark for property companies, real estate investment trusts, and developers (Christensen, Robinson, & Simons, 2018).  Adaptation and resilience are primarily concerned with impacts that are local or regional, and have a range of varied metrics to assess both impacts and adaptation responses (Christiansen, Martinez, & Naswa, 2018). Most adaptation involves actions of private entities and/or public 16  arrangements of affected communities, and more recently national policies. As compared to mitigation, adaptation initiatives tend to be short to medium term in nature, with some longer-term aspects. They involve a mix of local public good but also private adaptation involving disparate institutions and actors who may act autonomously or through planned action, either proactively or reactively (Watkiss et al., 2015). Unlike mitigation, where greenhouse gas emissions can be measured to examine the effectiveness of policy initiatives, there are no similar standardized metrics available for adaptation, which is lagging mitigation in the development of tools, methodologies, and indicators (Ford & Berrang-Ford, 2016).   Due to this lack of common metrics, adaptation and resilience goals have been more challenging to develop. Meerow and Newell establish a process for setting resilience goals at the urban scale by careful consideration of what and who the resilience approach is for, but also considering where, when, and why, thereby including a social equity lens (Meerow & Newell, 2016). For individual buildings and infrastructure, risk assessment is used as the primary mechanism for setting goals (Kurth et al., 2019). Here, resilience goals may be defined as the ability to resist physical damage, quick and cost-effective repair if damaged, maintaining key functions during a disruptive event, and rapid restoration of a target operational level after the event (Phillips et al., 2017). Uda and Kennedy propose establishing adaptation goals through the lens of meeting essential needs of a community impacted by a climate hazard. They define these as needs that must be met in order for a neighbourhood to be deemed continuing to function (Uda & Kennedy, 2015). This includes basic life support needs as drinking water and sanitation, adequate food, appropriate medical assistance, shelter through housing and clothing, and fuel for cooking and heating (International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, 2000), as well as utilities, transportation, basic appliances, and communications (Sarlo, 2011 as cited in Uda & Kennedy, 2015). Sheltering-in-place is also emerging as a disaster resilience objective (Haynes et 17  al., 2009), particularly for vulnerable populations that may have increased risks associated with evacuation (Dosa et al., 2012; Lindell, 2019).  There are several explanations as to why mitigation/sustainability and adaptation/resilience have been operating in separate domains. Wilbanks and Sathaye acknowledge the inherent difficulties of integrating mitigation and adaptation strategies due to differences in how they function, who makes and implements decisions, how they are funded, and who ultimately benefits from them (Wilbanks & Sathaye, 2007). Tol highlights the distinct types of stakeholder input required for each, and variances in temporal and spatial scales (Tol, 2005). Biebroek et al. contrast the differences in framing between mitigation, which is largely economic and technologically-oriented; and adaptation, which is more ecologically and socially oriented (Biesbroek et al., 2009 as cited in Shaw et al., 2014). Gopfert et al. note that joint institutionalization of mitigation and adaptation in local governments is lacking (Göpfert, Wamsler, & Lang, 2019). Watkiss et al. identify the differences in timing, where adaptation policies and actions have lagged behind mitigation, as another reason. In addition, the delays between costs and resultant benefits are greater for mitigation than adaptation (Watkiss et al., 2015). Fundamentally, a key distinction between sustainability (of which mitigation is a part) and resilience noted by Bocchini et al. is that sustainability assumes consistent conditions over time—tomorrow will be like today—whereas adaptation and resilience do not (Bocchini, Frangopol, Ummenhofer, & Zinke, 2014).  Separate approaches to mitigation and adaptation have been institutionalized due to initial prioritization of mitigation, differences in timing and scale, and distinct approaches to goal-setting and implementation. At the same time, local governments are responsible for a significant share of both mitigation and adaptation initiatives. As climate impacts continue to grow and adaptation 18  becomes more of a priority at the local, national and global scales, the value of integrating mitigation and adaptation efforts merits investigation.   2.3 Perspectives on the Integration of Climate Mitigation and Adaptation The appeal to integrate climate mitigation and adaptation dates to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s First Assessment Report (FAR), which called for “developing methodologies to evaluate the trade-off between limitation [i.e., mitigation] and adaptation strategies" (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change & Houghton, 1990, p.132), and continues to be reiterated by climate scientists. Grafakos et al. assert that the integration of climate change adaptation and mitigation planning and actions is critical to ensure that these are mutually reinforcing, to realise synergistic efficiencies, to maximise the impact of limited city resources and to minimise any potential conflicts that could lead either to maladaptation or malmitigation (Grafakos, Trigg, Landauer, Chelleri, & Dhakal, 2019).   Dang et al. remark that integrating mitigation and adaptation in policies and practical decision-making processes may have some important benefits (Dang et al., 2003). For example, Wilbanks et al. argue that if mitigation can be successful in keeping climate impacts at a lower level, adaptation can be successful in coping with more of the resulting impacts. Furthermore, they note that payoffs, trade-offs and complementarities between mitigation and adaptation approaches necessarily must be considered due to the limited resources available to address climate impacts (Wilbanks, Leiby, Perlack, Ensminger, & Wright, 2007).  Watkiss et al. caution that autonomous reactive adaptation is unlikely to lead to complementary mitigation–adaptation linkages on its own, and that synergistic policy will be needed to overcome barriers. However, they observe that implementation may be challenging due to differences between mitigation and adaptation paradigms (Watkiss et al., 2015). Landauer et al.’s literature 19  review also concludes that adaptation and mitigation should be considered together, but that further research is needed to develop research methodologies and practical tools to help urban actors exploit the synergies and avoid the conflicts that may arise (Landauer, Juhola, & Söderholm, 2015).  While some exploration of interactions between mitigation and adaptation is taking place at the global, national and municipal scales, investigation at the building and neighbourhood scales is limited (Hamin & Gurran, 2009). Keenan posits that adaptation and resilience at the building scale are, in theory, dependent on sustainable resource allocation and are practically benefited by the diffusion of sustainable practices, while adaptive capacity of organizations and building owners may also promote the diffusion and execution of sustainable practices (Keenan, 2016). Laukkonen et al. call for “a methodology and comparison tool to assess the most cost-effective and appropriate strategies for each community” (Laukkonen et al., 2009, p.287). This proposed tool would assist planners with prioritization of different strategies, identify complementary and contradictory strategies, and “visualize and compare all possible mechanisms in order to make choices and take decisions” (Laukkonen et al., 2009, p.291). The need for these tools at the building scale is conveyed by Matthews et al. who recommend integrating sustainability and resilience measures into a framework that could be used for planning, design, and construction projects (Matthews et al., 2014).   Not all scholars agree that climate mitigation and sustainability should be integrated with adaptation and resilience. Redman posits that the fundamental assumptions between sustainability and resilience differ and can even contradict each other. He notes that the primary objective of a sustainability scientist is to identify specific, sustainable outcomes for a system and possible pathways to achieve these conditions, whereas a resilience scientist focuses on building a system’s 20  adaptive capacity to favorably respond to shocks and stresses without predetermining or seeking to control the specific outcome of the actions. Redman argues that the tension between outcome-based sustainability and process-based resilience approaches can create conflicts. As such, he suggests careful assessment by planners and decision-makers to determine whether a distinct or integrated approach is more beneficial (Redman, 2014).   While differences in approaches to mitigation/sustainability and adaptation/resilience make integration challenging, potential benefits such as cost efficiencies, added value, reduced unintended consequences, and improvements to quality of life make it important to determine viability. Moreover, while Redman’s outcomes vs. process dichotomy between sustainability and resilience is applicable at a conceptual level or larger scale, both outcome and process paradigms are already intrinsic to building design and construction.  2.4 Neighbourhood, Infrastructure and Multi-Scalar Considerations While municipalities and buildings remain logical scales at which to implement mitigation/sustainability and adaptation/resilience , there are many advantages to carrying out initiatives at the neighbourhood scale. Engel-Yan et al. stress that incorporating sustainability principles in neighbourhood design is important because many of the problems encountered at the city scale are due to cumulative consequences of poor planning at the neighbourhood level (Engel-Yan et al., 2005). Furthermore, Palermo et al. maintain that while buildings have been an efficient scale at which to implement mitigation strategies, the wider neighbourhood context of land use, transportation and infrastructure must be considered in order to understand how to effectively mitigate GHG emissions from neighbourhoods (Palermo et al., 2018). Neighbourhoods also present a viable scale for district energy systems, which can both bolster energy efficiency, resilience (Yan et al., 2018), and support a transition to renewable energy in urban areas 21  (Bagheri et al., 2019). Sustainable neighbourhoods have been developed globally using EcoDistrict, LEED® ND, One-Planet Communities, and other similar frameworks (Holden, Li, & Molina, 2015).    While neighbourhood scale adaptation and resilience initiatives are still nascent, Kwok et al. note that local communities are seen as the frontline in preparing for and dealing with the aftermath of disasters, with informal governance through neighbourhood-based organisations and social networks demonstrating effectiveness in past disasters (Kwok et al., 2018). This is echoed by Uda and Kennedy, who emphasize that the neighbourhood scale is the suitable scale at which to form a sense of community, and where some adaptation solutions are most appropriately implemented (Uda & Kennedy, 2015). However, implementing adaptation at the neighbourhood scale can be challenging due to lack of formal governance, policies that are dictated by city or regional levels, (Kwok et al., 2018) and porous boundaries with residents moving frequently between neighbourhoods for work and leisure activities (Berkes & Ross, 2013 as cited in Kontokosta & Malik, 2018).   A key challenge to implementing mitigation and adaptation strategies is multi-scalar coordination. Kwok at al. emphasize that neighbourhood-based resilience assessments need to consider potential cascading effects that are beyond the control of neighbourhoods and advocate for multi-scalar assessment that links the effects of resilience initiatives at multiple societal levels while incorporating the values and needs of neighbourhood stakeholders (Kwok et al., 2018). However, Keenan notes that crossing scales often amplifies complexities and highlights tensions between a diversity of actors and interests (Keenan, 2014).  This is reinforced by Landauer et al., who examined how different scales drive interactions of adaptation and mitigation in cities and found that in particular, comparing the interactions between the jurisdictional to management (or 22  implementation) scales and institutional (or regulatory) to management scales in municipal governments revealed trade-offs and conflicts between adaptation and mitigation (Landauer, Juhola, & Klein, 2019).  For both buildings and neighbourhoods, scalar issues are perhaps most explicit with regards to infrastructure, where Kurth et al. note that restorability of key infrastructure functions is as important, if not more so, as reparability of physical components (Kurth et al., 2019). Engel-Yan et al. highlight that the performance of local infrastructure systems is influenced by interactions with the greater urban region and with other infrastructure systems, and map out examples of these multi-scalar urban infrastructure interactions, noting that achieving neighbourhood sustainability objectives is difficult without regional infrastructure systems that support the same goals (Engel-Yan et al., 2005).   Many sustainability and green building frameworks incorporate multiple scales, though with very limited or explicit multi-scalar assessment. LEED® for Neighborhood Development prerequisites and credits are organized into location, neighbourhood, building and infrastructure scales (U.S. Green Building Council, 2016b), and several green building frameworks also consider location and neighbourhood factors (Enterprise Community Partners, 2015a; International Living Future Institute, 2014; U.S. Green Building Council, 2018a, 2019). Here, a few multi-scalar interactions are implicitly addressed by allocating additional points or reducing requirements for projects that for example, are located in urban areas or have avoided development on greenfield sites. It should be noted that while most actions in these frameworks pertain to the project site and building scale, they include requirements that have impacts on multiple scales, ranging from building occupants to the global atmosphere (Retzlaff, 2008).   23  Frameworks that incorporate adaptation and resilience are typically more explicit in considering multi-scalar interactions, to varying degrees. The ENVISION Sustainable Infrastructure Framework includes credits that emphasize understanding and integrating individual infrastructure projects into system and community scales (Institute for Sustainable Infrastructure, 2018). The Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems notes the importance of assessing building and infrastructure system dependencies to minimize impacts (National Institute for Standards and Technology, 2016). The RELi rating system includes recommendations to consider the disruption of essential services, project and community infrastructure integration, nested systems, and planning for long term adaptability at multiple scales (U.S. Green Building Council, 2018b).  Based on the importance of neighbourhoods for effective implementation of mitigation and adaptation, the critical role of infrastructure, and the development of solutions at the most appropriate scale, an integrated building adaptation–mitigation assessment framework should attempt to consider multi-scalar interactions in spite of the associated challenges.  2.5 Interactions between Climate Mitigation and Adaptation  The IPCC’s 4th Assessment report (AR4) introduced four types of interactions between mitigation and adaptation: adaptation actions that have consequences for mitigation, mitigation actions that have consequences for adaptation, decisions that include trade-offs or synergies between adaptation and mitigation, and processes that have consequences for both adaptation and mitigation. Here, trade-offs are defined as the balancing of adaptation and mitigation initiatives when it is not possible to carry out both activities fully at the same time, and synergies as the interaction of adaptation and mitigation so that their combined effect is greater than the sum of their effects if implemented separately. Other relevant interactions include substitutability, or the 24  extent to which an agent can replace adaptation by mitigation, or vice versa, to produce an outcome of equal value; and complementarity, whereby the outcome of one supplements or depends upon the outcome of the other. Additional terms used by Taylor et al. include co-benefits, which is used interchangeably with synergies, and adverse side effects. (Taylor, Downing, Hassan, Denton, & Downing, 2007). However, Duguma et al. differentiate between synergy and complementarity (or co-benefits), arguing that complementarity between adaptation and mitigation is a necessary but insufficient step toward addressing synergy (Duguma, Minang, & Van Noordwijk, 2014). Though not necessarily related to climate mitigation, maladaptation is another relevant term, defined by Magnan as reducing short-term risk at the expense of long-term vulnerability or increasing the vulnerability of other systems, sectors or social groups over any time horizon (Magnan, 2014).  There are a growing number of adaptation–mitigation interaction examples and case studies. At the national and regional scales, Spencer et al. investigate co-benefits and synergies in forestry conservation, mangrove restoration, water management and soil conservation case study projects (Spencer et al., 2017). At the urban scale, Hamin & Gurran focus on interactions related to land use planning, noting key factors such as location of development, density, diversity of use, urban design elements, destination accessibility and distance to transit (Hamin & Gurran, 2009). McEvoy et al. discuss the role of density and urban form, where more compact settlements may reduce energy demand and transport emissions, but increase the urban heat island effect and stormwater-related flooding (Mcevoy, Lindley, & Handley Obe, 2006). Density trade-offs extend to other hazards in Chang et al.’s comparison of three development density scenarios with respect to earthquake and coastal flood hazards, which concludes that the most compact scenario would exacerbate disaster impacts (Chang et al., 2018). Demuzere et al. investigate the mitigation, 25  adaptation, sustainability and health benefits of green infrastructure solutions, as well as potential trade-offs such as vegetation inhibiting winter passive heating (Demuzere et al., 2014).   In addition to interactions related to site and landscape design, investigations of adaptation–mitigation interactions at the building and infrastructure scales typically fall under the scope of operational energy use and GHG emissions, renewable energy production, or embodied GHG emissions. Regarding energy and GHG emissions, Ortiz et. al anticipate substantial end-of-century increases in peak cooling energy demand in New York City (Ortiz, González, & Lin, 2018), while Davis and Gertler project a significant growth in Mexico’s residential electricity consumption due to increased need for cooling by the end of the century (Davis & Gertler, 2015). Bartos et al. model the impacts of rising temperatures on peak electricity demand and transmission capacity, noting that climate change may adversely affect electricity supply by reducing generation and transmission capacity while simultaneously increasing electricity demand (Bartos et al., 2016).   Several studies have investigated the relationship of renewable energy production and distribution to system vulnerability and resilience (Hussain, Bui, & Kim, 2019; Mutani & Todeschi, 2018; Sample, Duncan, Ferguson, & Cooksley, 2015). Brown et al. assessed 24 studies proposing 100% renewable electricity systems and concluded that none provided convincing evidence that they met the feasibility criteria for reliability, including demand reliability with resilience to extreme climate events (Brown et al., 2018). Hills et al. studied off-grid solar electricity systems in two Fiji sites and determined some resilience benefits, but noted increased fossil-fuel based energy use from backup generators (Hills, Μichalena, & Chalvatzis, 2018).    With respect to interactions associated with embodied carbon, Bocchini et al. use lifecycle assessment (LCA) to compare total primary energy of materials and construction, global warming 26  potential, lifecycle costs, and impact costs of two bridge design options with respect to an earthquake hazard (Bocchini et al., 2014). Klotz et al. use a similar approach, coining the term “hazard life cycle assessment” (H-LCA), by translating the economic impacts of catastrophe modelling to environmental burdens (Klotz et al., 2014 as citied in Phillips et al., 2017). Matthews et al. also use integrated LCA to compare two design options for a house vulnerable to coastal flooding, incorporating the embodied carbon emissions associated with hazard-related repairs in addition to those from the initial construction stage (Matthews, Friedland, & Orooji, 2016).   The growing body of knowledge on specific adaptation–mitigation interactions can help inform how an integrated building adaptation–mitigation assessment framework might be organized and which parameters are relevant to consider. The framework can also provide an overarching structure to help catalogue these more detailed investigations and point to opportunities for further exploration.    2.6 Assessment Frameworks   2.6.1 Mitigation, Green Building and Sustainability Frameworks Mitigation, green building and sustainability frameworks have evolved and proliferated since the launch of the Building Research Establishment’s Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM®) in 1990 and of the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED®) rating system in 1998 (Bocchini et al., 2014). Frameworks can generally be categorized as building standards, codes and regulations, building rating and certification systems, or building product certifications (Vierra, 2019). Mitigation and green building frameworks primarily emphasize environmental and human health and comfort considerations, whereas sustainability frameworks can also include social, cultural and economic factors (Cole, 2012).   27  Mitigation frameworks focus on a single-attribute, GHG emissions or energy, whereas green building and sustainability frameworks are typically multi-attribute (Vierra, 2019) and may include categories such as transportation, water use, materials, land use, pollution, indoor environmental quality (Doan et al., 2017), design process, social benefits and costs, and employment (Cole, 2012).  Whether mandated or voluntary, these frameworks are typically based on achieving specific prescriptive measures, performance criteria or outcomes (Vierra, 2019). The majority of certification frameworks are structured per a checklist-based approach, with a combination of mandatory and optional elements that are weighted by point values according to the subjective environmental priorities established by the frameworks’ developers (Retzlaff, 2008).   A few regenerative design frameworks are also emerging that may be helpful for integrating mitigation and adaptation at the building scale. These emphasize systems thinking, whereby the component parts of a system can be understood in the context of relationships with each other, rather than in isolation. Tools such as REGEN, Eco-BalanceTM, and Living Environments in Natural, Social and Economic Systems (LENSES) are collaborative and process-based, with a focus on interconnections, systems’ flows and lifecycle balancing (Cole, 2012).  2.6.2 Adaptation and Resilience Frameworks Frameworks for climate adaptation and resilience have typically been developed separately from mitigation and sustainability frameworks (Matthews et al., 2014; Phillips et al., 2017). Because shocks and stresses are location dependent, Uda & Kennedy emphasize that it is more appropriate to have a resilience process rather than a checklist of specific actions, which is characteristic of green building rating systems (Uda & Kennedy, 2018). Cimellaro et al. note that adaptation and resilience goals are less straightforward, often relying on processes rather than 28  specific targets (Cimellaro et al., 2016). The challenge of adaptation assessment is also exacerbated by the large degree of uncertainty involved due to the variability of climate projections and forecasts regarding the location, time and intensity of various hazards (Watkiss et al., 2015).  Some pertinent adaptation and resilience frameworks at the regional and urban scales can inform both indicators and processes for neighbourhood and building scale frameworks. Cutter et al.’s Baseline Resilience Indicators for Communities (BRIC) is a comprehensive regional resilience assessment metric that includes social, economic, housing and infrastructure, institutional, community and environmental indicators (Cutter, Ash, & Emrich, 2014). Meerow and Newell establish a three-phrase process that involves first establishing a shared definition of urban resilience as a boundary object and delineating the urban system’s linkages and flows; then elaborating questions on the who, what, when, where, and why of urban resilience; and finally testing the process in empirical contexts (Meerow & Newell, 2016). Sharifi and Yamagata synthesize the major principles of urban resilience and develop a series of criteria that can be incorporated into an urban resilience framework. These cover infrastructure, security, environment, economy, social and demographic, and institutional categories (Sharifi & Yamagata, 2014). The City Resilience Framework is defined by four dimensions: Health and Wellbeing, Economy and Society, Infrastructure and Environment, and Leadership & Strategy. These are subdivided into twelve goals and 52 indicators, and evaluated according to seven resilience qualities (ARUP & The Rockefeller Foundation, 2016; Collier et al., 2014).   Per Kontokosta and Malik’s review, most of the adaptation frameworks and conceptual models at the municipal scale lack the data at the spatial granularity needed to represent urban neighbourhoods. Those that do are specific to certain types of communities and are less 29  generalizable (Kontokosta & Malik, 2018). However, there are also a limited number of neighbourhood scale resilience frameworks. Some notable work includes Kwok et al.’s development of resilience parameters based on neighbourhood stakeholder focus groups in Wellington, NZ and San Francisco, USA (Kwok et al., 2018). These parameters include individual, social, economic, governance and infrastructure factors. Uda & Kennedy’s engineering-focused framework is based on meeting essential needs in a community. It helps identify the system(s) that normally satisfy a specific essential need and uses a risk-based assessment to develop alternative strategies to meet the identified need should the system(s) fail (Uda & Kennedy, 2015). Kontokosta and Malik’s Resilience to Emergencies and Disasters Index (REDI) is particularly relevant, and benchmarks neighbourhood resilience by developing a unified, multi-factor index of local and regional resilience capacity. This index integrates physical, natural, economic and social systems, and is operationalized through the collection and analysis of existing urban data from U.S. Census tracts, which are also used to define the urban neighbourhoods’ boundaries (Kontokosta & Malik, 2018). Cimellaro et al.’s PEOPLES iterative model is useful for mapping out a process for evaluating community resilience to a specific hazard by identifying interdependencies between critical infrastructures and sociotechnical networks, modeling various response scenarios to a hazard, and identifying gaps that can help determine potential resilience actions (Cimellaro et al., 2016).  Neighbourhood scale resilience frameworks and studies are also being advanced by governments. The City of Vancouver’s Resilient Neighbourhoods Toolkit is helpful as a model for providing step-by-step guidance to lay community members on forming a resilience team, conducting an assessment, identifying neighbourhood assets, mapping resilience, setting goals, and organizing emergency preparedness (City of Vancouver, 2019d). Though focused specifically on flood risk, New York City’s Resilient Neighbourhoods initiative provides a useful 30  narrative and graphic-based prototype for a detailed neighbourhood resilience assessment. It includes vulnerability and risk profiling that incorporates neighbourhood history, land use, infrastructure, economic, regulatory, and social factors, with a particular focus on hazard mitigation strategies for representative existing building types (Weisbrod, 2016).    At the building and infrastructure scales, much of the work that has taken place has been isolated to the first half of the definition of resilience (plan/prepare and absorb), representing activities generally assigned to risk management, which has been the dominant paradigm in planning, management and vulnerability assessment of critical infrastructures (Kurth et al., 2019).  Several building and infrastructure-scale resilience tools are useful references for the development of an integrated building adaptation and mitigation assessment framework. The PIEVC Protocol is a five-step process for analyzing the engineering vulnerability of an infrastructure system or building to current and future climate hazards. The steps include project introduction, project definition, data collection about the infrastructure components and climate considerations, risk assessment where an evaluation methodology and scoring system are outlined, and recommendations (Engineers Canada, 2016). The U.S.-based Threat/Hazard Assessment Model (THAM) and toolkit provides a similar framework for a range of both climate and non-climate threats and hazards, with specific thresholds established based on existing metrics and available government data to help determine the level of threat for each hazard (Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, n.d.). New York City’s Climate Resiliency Design Guidelines provide guidance on linking climate change projections to the lifespan of various building types and components, enabling a more cost-effective and low impact design approach (NYC Mayor’s Office of Recovery and Resiliency, 2019).  31  Keenan argues that unlike most engineering-based resilience frameworks developed for this scale, adaptation of buildings should be evaluated in the domain of the social sciences, and proposes a relevant model that acknowledges the duality of a building’s material form and the social construction of its design, use, and management (Keenan, 2014). Other frameworks have also attempted to integrate technical parameters with social, economic and other considerations. The six step process outlined in the Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure links social dimensions to built environment factors, and provides practical examples of performance goals for buildings and infrastructure within the context of a community’s social and economic needs (National Institute for Standards and Technology, 2016). The Australian Resilience Measurement Scheme for Buildings (ARMS) incorporates physical, infrastructure, environmental, economic-social, political-regulatory, and organizational dimensions. Tailored to commercial building owners, it is notable for linking buildings to infrastructure, community and governance scales, and has several useful parameters for assessing existing buildings and organizations (Burroughs, 2017).  With increasing risks of inestimable probability or the manifestation of multiple risks all at once, Park et al. note that many feel traditional risk management is no longer sufficient and that a new holistic systems way of thinking is required (Park et al., 2013 as cited in Uda & Kennedy, 2018). Uncertainly over how much to adapt to climate change based on how much we are anticipated to mitigate it has led to a shift away from optimized responses toward iterative risk frameworks and decision-making under uncertainty (Watkiss et al., 2015).  2.6.3 Integrated Mitigation and Adaptation Frameworks There is a substantial body of literature examining the difficulty of both comparing adaptation and mitigation strategies and evaluating them together under a single framework. Early 32  academic attention focused primarily on governance frameworks for overcoming this dichotomy rather than identifying and investigating adaptation–mitigation interactions in detail (Tol, 2005). Any analyses of adaptation–mitigation interactions was aimed at broadly determining the right policy mix of adaptation and mitigation actions (McKibbin & Wilcoxen, 2004), typically at larger scales (Watkiss et al., 2015).   As the research evolved, integrated adaptation–mitigation frameworks and models have been developed for the city scale (Walsh et al., 2013; Solecki et al., 2015). Methods used include integrated assessment models (IAMs), which incorporate multiple complex factors such as urban demographics, economics, land use, climate impacts, and GHG emissions within a coherent assessment framework (Walsh et al., 2011). Viguié and Hallegatte developed a quantitative evaluation model for adaptation–mitigation trade-offs and synergies using a multicriteria analysis across five policy goals to compare three urban policies in Paris: a greenbelt policy, a zoning policy to reduce flood risk, and a transportation subsidy (Viguié & Hallegatte, 2012). While  beneficial for thinking through the various factors affecting mitigation and adaptation, these types of frameworks remain highly conceptual, Walsh et al. noting that their complexity as compared to local government skills being a major barrier to incorporating the models into routine decision-making. However, they add that the IAMs start the process of developing a collective understanding amongst planners of maximizing synergies and minimizing conflicts between adaptation and mitigation (Walsh et al., 2013).  At the building and neighbourhood scales, very few integrated frameworks currently exist. Hrabovszky-Horváth et al. developed an evaluative methodology based on existing building typologies to estimate the climate mitigation potential and vulnerability of residential buildings to wind storms (Hrabovszky-Horváth, Pálvölgyi, Csoknyai, & Talamon, 2013). However, the only link 33  between mitigation measures and hazard vulnerability factors were the buildings used for the study. C40 developed the Adaptation and Mitigation Interaction Assessment (AMIA) Excel-based tool, where users can select from a database of adaptation and mitigation strategies and case studies at multiple scales to identify potential interactions (C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group, 2018). Bocchini et al.’s LCA-based assessment method compares the energy efficiency/GHG emissions and resilience of infrastructure options using the example of bridge design and earthquake hazards (Bocchini et al., 2014). Similarly, Matthews et al. generated an integrated sustainability and resilience assessment model for coastal, single-family residential building designs exposed to coastal flood hazards, using an LCA-based method that considers both GHG emissions from initial construction materials and from flood-induced repairs, though excluding operational emissions. These studies highlight the importance of methods for assessing embodied GHG emissions in adaptation–mitigation interactions, as well as the GHG emissions associated with post-hazard repairs or replacement (Matthews et al., 2016).   Although there are limited integrated frameworks at the building scale, existing sustainability assessment systems have been analyzed to determine their compatibility with adaptation. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) identified interactions between residential green building strategies outlined in the International Green Construction Code and four natural hazards (Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2010). Matthews et al. investigated the incorporation of resilience-related measures in eleven sustainability assessment frameworks (SAFs) and determined that resilience is not strongly or systematically integrated, with limited coverage of hazards and the best case framework having 18% of measures addressing resilience (Matthews et al., 2014). Uda and Kennedy’s study of LEED® for Neighbourhood Development with respect to 24 future shocks and stresses determined that sustainable neighbourhoods have many qualities that contribute to resilience, and minimal conflicts with it, but do not offer 34  comprehensive or optimal resilience (Uda & Kennedy, 2018). Champagne and Atkas compared the requirements for LEED® v4 Building Design and Construction to the criteria linked to resilient design principles and determined that there were significant gaps where LEED® v4 needed to be revised to better address resilience (Champagne & Aktas, 2016). Phillips et al. adopted the inverse approach, evaluating existing resilience frameworks with respect to environmental sustainability. They found that just 40% of resilience strategies were conducive to sustainable design, while 44% were conditional and 16% negatively impacted it (Phillips et al., 2017).   Roostaie et al. stress that an integrated framework must be tailored and customized to fit the case-by-case nature of projects, based upon the location, climate, and type of natural hazards to which the area is vulnerable. They note that one cannot simply delve into the sustainability assessment frameworks to search for indicators of resilience, because those assessment systems are not primarily designed to include resilience, making development of new systems or a thorough refinement of current frameworks seem inevitable (Roostaie et al., 2019).  A review of the literature and of existing frameworks confirm the need for a comprehensive building-scale adaptation–mitigation framework. The plethora of mitigation, green building and sustainability metrics coupled with the growing number of adaptation and resilience frameworks can provide significant guidance on the development of an integrated approach.   2.7 Successful Implementation of Adaptation and Mitigation Strategies in Buildings Integrated implementation of mitigation and adaptation in the built environment is at a pioneering stage, with few built examples. Looking to successful policies and project delivery practices on projects with green building, sustainability and mitigation goals; as well as acknowledging causes of failures, can serve as a point of departure for creating an effective integrated adaptation–mitigation process.  35  Governance and policies are important drivers for successful implementation of green buildings. Han’s investigation of Singapore’s highly effective green building policy implementation approach notes several reasons for success, including top-down governance, empowerment of the central planning agency and building construction authority, and legal mandates (Han, 2019). Adabre and Chan’s international study on critical success factors (CSFs) in sustainable affordable housing revealed 13 key factors for sustainable affordable housing policy, of which the top six included political will, commitment to affordable housing, and formulation of sound housing policies (Adabre & Chan, 2019). Neuberger highlights that effective implementation of green building policies must also include adequate staffing and training of policy enforcement staff, and additional support services for design teams and contractors (Neuberger, 2018).    Financial and regulatory mechanisms are also noted to have significant impacts on the success of sustainable projects. These include access to low interest housing loans for developers (Adabre & Chan, 2019), financial incentives and support (Han, 2019), property tax reduction, and expedited permits (Berawi, Basten, Latief, & Crévits, 2020). Iterative lifecycle cost analysis (LCCA) and return on investment (ROI) calculations were also cited as important financial tools to be used during design and construction (Gunhan, 2019).  Knowledge and leadership were frequently cited success factors for achieving sustainable building goals. Owner commitment to sustainability goals (Korkmaz et al., 2010b as cited in Raouf & Al-Ghamdi, 2019) and support from senior management were noted to be essential drivers of project success (Venkataraman & Cheng, 2018). In addition, the level of knowledge of building developers and owners, and the availability of technical assistance can impact the ability to achieve sustainable design goals (Berawi et al., 2020). The degree of green building education, skills and capacity building of industry professionals were also perceived as significant 36  reasons for success or failure (Han, 2019; Venkataraman & Cheng, 2018), as were information flow and knowledge management strategies (Hui Liu, Rahmawati, & Amila Wan Abdullah Zawawi, 2019).  Successful green building outcomes can be defined by the degree to which a project meets specific performance metrics such as sustainability goals (Li, Song, Sang, Chen, & Liu, 2019), budget, schedule, quality, organizational relationships, stakeholder satisfaction, and public recognition (Venkataraman & Cheng, 2018). The most frequently mentioned factors for successful green building outcomes are project team integration, communication and collaboration. Li et al.’s comprehensive review of publications examining critical success factors (CSF) for green buildings identified communication and cooperation between project participants as the highest ranked CSF (Li et al., 2019).  These echo many of the findings in Venkataraman and Cheng’s survey of green building experts which found that effective collaboration, early involvement, and commitment of all participants were the three major success factors for managing green building projects (Venkataraman & Cheng, 2018).  In several studies, better construction project delivery performance is correlated with higher project team integration and greater team cohesion. Methods discussed for providing a more integrated approach to project delivery include team building activities, design charrettes, community engagement, building information modeling (BIM) (Raouf & Al-Ghamdi, 2019; Venkataraman & Cheng, 2018) and engagement of all parties in early design phases (Darko & Chan, 2017; Franz, Leicht, Molenaar, & Messner, 2017; Gunhan, 2019).   Franz et al. note that improved team integration corresponded with project delivery methods that involved the builder early in the design process, and projects with open-book contract terms and qualification-based selection had a positive and direct influence on group cohesion. Conversely, 37  delivery methods with late involvement of the builders, strictly price-based selection, and closed-book, lump-sum contracts produced both the least integrated and least cohesive teams (Franz et al., 2017). Guhan’s study on sustainable building project practices reveals that the project delivery method selected can have a significant impact on the degree of integration. His survey of green building contractors revealed that the majority found the Design Build delivery model to be the most effective for ensuring early participation of the contractor, enabling team integration and collaboration, optimizing project costs, and meeting sustainability goals (Gunhan, 2019). Ebrahimi notes that projects delivered through more collaborative project delivery methods generally outperform those using less collaborative ones, though more complex project delivery methods such as Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) can involve implementation challenges (Ebrahimi, 2018).  Lessons from implementation of green and sustainable building projects illustrate that frameworks and their associated tools are important for developing a roadmap, setting goals, identifying potential strategies and tracking progress. However, they need to be complemented by strong leadership, policies and financial incentives, adequate knowledge and expertise, and methods to ensure earlier and more robust project team integration.  2.8 Development of an Integrated Building Adaptation–Mitigation Assessment Framework  The literature reveals the need for a building-scale integrated climate adaptation–mitigation assessment framework. While some argue that integrating adaptation and mitigation is unnecessary or challenging, the growing impacts of climate change and demands on limited available resources in both domains make it a worthwhile endeavour. Though there are significant differences in approaches between adaptation and mitigation, the context of a building project, 38  which is inherently both process-oriented and outcome-based, can serve as a suitable scale for testing an integrated framework.  An integrated building adaptation–mitigation framework can draw from and build upon the structure and content of a wide range of existing resources in both domains. Per Roostaie et al., it should be customizable to the unique context of a project (Roostaie et al., 2019), and include both technical and social considerations (Keenan, 2014). In addition, it is important that it incorporate multi-scalar interactions, at minimum with respect to infrastructure and neighbourhoods. Perhaps most essential is that the framework be designed to facilitate project team integration and collaboration between a range of stakeholders, to help ensure that goals are aligned, and strategies are effectively implemented.   39  Chapter 3: Methods 3.1 Research Model The Adaptive Mitigation project was carried out using a collaborative model between: the research partner, The University of British Columbia, who carried out the research and framework development; the solution-seeking partner, the British Columbia Housing Management Commission provincial crown agency (BC Housing), who provided project case studies, stakeholder contacts, and iterative feedback; and the Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions (PICS), who provided funding and project management. The objective of this research approach was the active knowledge exchange and translation of the research to facilitate more direct contributions to climate change adaptation and mitigation (Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions, 2020). The research and resultant framework contributes to BC Housing’s Mobilizing Building Adaptation and Resilience (MBAR) initiative (BC Housing, 2019).  3.2 Research Context The research focuses on the integration of adaptation and mitigation initiatives for urban multi-unit housing in the contexts of British Columbia and New York City. These regions have been selected because of their lack of affordable housing (City of New York, n.d.; Gurstein, LaRocque, & MacDonald, 2018), because of the research team’s experience in these markets, and because they are leading-edge jurisdictions for climate policy in North America (CDP, 2019).   3.3 Research Design  In order to answer the research questions and to create a framework that could be effectively applied by industry professionals, an iterative research process that used multiple qualitative methods was designed. This involved eliciting feedback from industry stakeholders at various stages of the framework’s evolution and incorporating it into subsequent phases of development. 40  This process enabled triangulation of findings, refinement of the framework tools, and testing of the framework’s application.    The research design was organized into three phases as illustrated in Figure 3.1:   Figure 3.1 Diagram of the Research Process  Phase One involved document analysis of relevant academic and grey literature, as well as semi-structured interviews with industry experts. This was carried out to derive the initial structure and parameters of the Integrated Building Adaptation and Mitigation Assessment (IBAMA) framework. In order for the framework to build upon existing efforts, Phase One also helped establish the current context of climate mitigation and adaptation initiatives within the two regions investigated, and the degree to which mitigation and adaptation policies and practices were integrated. Details pertaining to the document analysis and interview methods are outlined in Sections 3.5 and 3.6.   In Phase Two, input on the initial IBAMA framework structure and parameters was solicited though a day-long stakeholder workshop that included case study exercises. BC Housing staff and select consultants provided additional feedback in a separate meeting following the workshop. This informed the development of a comprehensive draft of the framework and associated tools. 41  In Phase Three, the draft framework and tools were presented to industry stakeholders, who were then sent a survey with attached framework documents to provide more detailed comments. Further input was provided by key BC Housing stakeholders in a virtual workshop. This feedback was used to edit and fine-tune the final version of the IBAMA documents (Appendices A and B).   3.4 Analysis Methods Thematic analysis was employed for the document reviews, expert-interview results, stakeholder workshop feedback and survey findings. This type of analysis is defined as a qualitative method for identifying, analyzing, organizing, describing, and reporting themes found within a data set (Braun & Clarke, 2006). It is a highly flexible and useful approach for examining the perspectives of different research participants, highlighting similarities and differences, and generating unanticipated insights; as well as providing a rich and detailed, yet complex account of data (Braun & Clarke, 2006; King, 2004; as cited in Nowell, Norris, White, & Moules, 2017).  3.5 Phase One – Document Analysis Analysis was carried out on a selection of documents pertaining to climate change mitigation/sustainability and adaptation/resilience in the built environment, with a central focus on documents relevant to the leading climate policy contexts of British Columbia and New York. Documents included both academic literature and grey literature. In order to inform the development of the IBAMA framework, the objectives of the analysis were: 1. To derive key parameters and overall structure for the framework.  2. To establish the context of current climate mitigation and adaptation goals and initiatives for the built environment, and the hazards that they address.  3. To understand if and how current approaches to mitigation and adaptation for the built environment are integrated.  42  Two distinct reviews were carried out: Document Analysis A and Document Analysis B. Document Analysis A examined mainly academic literature to identify a structure and potential parameters for the IBAMA framework. Document Analysis B was carried out on grey literature to establish the context of mitigation and adaptation goals and initiatives for the built environment, as well as assess the degree of integration between the two approaches.   3.5.1 Selection of Documents 3.5.1.1 Document Analysis A Primarily academic literature was selected specifically to help derive key parameters for the IBAMA framework. A keyword search was carried out using the GreenFile, Web of Science, Engineering Village and Google Scholar internet search engines. The key search terms used are listed in Table 3.1. Variations included replacing “building*” with “urban” OR “neighborhood*” OR “communit*”, and “framework*” with “tool*”.  Table 3.1 Key Search terms for Academic Literature on Mitigation & Adaptation Frameworks Search Terms Keyword Inputs Evaluation frameworks for buildings “evaluation framework*” OR “assessment tool*” AND “building*”   Frameworks for sustainable buildings “framework*” AND “building*” AND “green” OR “sustain*” OR “mitigat*” OR “environ*”   Frameworks for building adaptation or resilience “framework*” AND “building*”AND “adapt* OR resilie*”   Frameworks for adaptation or resilience in multifamily residential buildings “framework*” AND “adapt*” OR “resilien*” AND “resident*” OR “multifamily” OR “multi-family” AND “building*” OR “structure” OR “project*” AND “climat*”    43  Abstracts were then reviewed to determine if the publications might be relevant to the goal of establishing parameters for the IBAMA framework. Those deemed pertinent were organized according to whether they related to climate mitigation, adaptation or both, as well as their applicable scale (urban, neighborhood, building, or multiple scales/other). Some additional publications were added by reviewing the bibliographies of the initial papers. A limited number of grey literature documents were also added to supplement information on community/ neighborhood/infrastructure scale adaptation frameworks, for which there is scarce academic literature. In total, 34 academic papers and grey literature documents were reviewed to identify potential IBAMA parameters. See Appendix C for a list of papers and documents reviewed.   3.5.1.2 Document Analysis B Grey literature for Document Analysis B was selected to help establish the climate mitigation and adaptation contexts in the building industry and assess the degree of interaction between the two approaches. Documents represent the contexts of British Columbia and New York City, with supporting documents from other locations where relevant. These documents include reports on climate projections, hazards and risks, planning documents, and official legislation. In addition, a range of widely recognized mitigation and adaptation reference materials used by the North American building design and construction industry were selected for review. They consist of rating systems, guidelines, technical standards, relevant industry reports and websites. Documents were identified by a variety of means, including British Columbia, Vancouver, and New York City government websites; BC Housing’s website; citations from select academic papers; references from subject matter experts interviewed; and documents known to the researcher through professional practice.  44  Documents were compiled and organized by type, focus (mitigation, adaptation, both, other), and location. 70 documents were analyzed for Document Analysis B. See Table 3.2 for a breakdown of documents by type. A detailed list of documents reviewed can be found in Appendix D. Table 3.2 Classification of Grey Literature for Document Analysis B Type Focus Location  Mitigation Adaptation M+A/ Other BC NYC Other/ Various Climate Projections/ Hazards/ Risks & Vulnerabilities2F3  14 2 12 4  Government Action Plans  15 6 3 19 3 2 Policy & Legislation 6   4 2  Metrics/Rating Systems  6 4 4   14 Guidelines  1 6 2  2 7 Reports   7 4 1 9 1  3.5.1.3 Supplementary Reference Documents In selecting relevant grey literature for Document Analysis B, supplementary documents, websites and tools were also identified. These were referenced in the IBAMA framework tools developed during Phases Two and Three of the research process. These supplementary documents fall predominantly under the categories of technical guidelines and other resources. See Table 3.3 for a breakdown of documents by type. See Appendix E for the complete list of documents.     3 Information about climate projections, hazards, risks and vulnerabilities was found in sections of multiple categories of documents but was called out in a separate category. Therefore, some documents are counted twice in Table 3.2. 45  Table 3.3 Classification of Supplementary Reference Documents  Type Focus Location  Mitigation Adaptation M+A/ Other BC NYC Other/ Various Climate Projections/ Hazards/ Risks & Vulnerabilities  5 1 4  2 Codes, Policy & Legislation 2 4 2 2  6 Data  3 1 3  1 Metrics   1   1 Reports & Studies  1 3 3  1 Technical Guidelines 6 9 9 8  16 Other Resources 5 3 8 2  14  3.5.2 Coding and Analysis Documents for analyses A & B were coded using NVivo 12 Pro qualitative data analysis software (QSR International LLC, 2018). Coding and analysis were carried out iteratively. A coding document with initial code categories, sub-categories and codes was created deductively, based on the conceptual framework developed in the initial research proposal (Figure 3.2).   Potential IBAMA framework parameters identified in Document Analysis A prompted modifications to some of the original categories and codes. These modified codes were subsequently used in Document Analysis B and for coding and analysis of the semi-structured expert interviews. During the document coding process, additional codes were derived inductively as needed.  46    Figure 3.2 Initial Conceptual Framework Used for the Research Process  In most cases, sections of text were assigned multiple codes from more than one code category. This process and the software enabled a range of analysis options, for example, identifying which strategies simultaneously addressed climate mitigation and adaptation goals, or aligning a type of adaptation goal with a specific climate hazard.   Codes and code categories were reorganized and streamlined during the analysis process and synthesis of findings. The resultant code categories and sub-categories are listed in Table 3.4. A complete list of document analysis codes can be found in Appendix F.    47  Table 3.4 Code Categories and Sub-categories for Document Analysis B Code Category Sub-Category 1_Climate Data  2_Climate Context 2a_Emissions and Energy Data 2b_Hazards 2c_Vulnerabilities & Risks 2d_Impacts 3_Goals 3a_Climate Mitigation Goals 3b_Adaptation & Resilience Goals 3c_Sustainability Goals 4_Context or Scale  5_Strategy Type  6_ Other Factors   3.5.3 Document Analysis Limitations The documents selected attempt to capture the key building industry-related climate policies in British Columbia and New York City, as well as the most frequently referenced climate mitigation and adaptation documents in these regions. It is not an exhaustive review of all policies, rating systems and other types of references. Many of the documents analyzed focus on projections, recommendations or aspirations related to climate adaptation and mitigation, rather than completed actions, results or outcomes. Since the analysis was primarily carried out in 2019, documents published or revised in 2020 were typically not included.    While a coding framework was developed and reviewed with the research supervisor, it should  be noted that all coding and analysis were carried out by a single researcher, limiting the ability to minimize bias in the analysis process. Triangulation with findings from the semi-structured expert interviews attempts to address some of these limitations.  48  3.6 Phase One – Semi-Structured Expert Interviews In-depth, semi-structured interviews were conducted with experts involved in climate mitigation/sustainability and/or adaptation/resilience initiatives in British Columbia or New York City. Semi-structured interviews combine the flexibility of an unstructured, open-ended interview with the directionality and agenda of the survey instrument (Schensul, Schensul, & LeCompte, 1999). This format was selected because it allowed for a balance between establishing a consistent line of questioning for all interviewees with the flexibility for elaboration of pertinent details and individual perspectives.   The objectives of the expert interviews were similar to those for the document analysis, enabling triangulation of findings: 1. To help establish and validate the structure and parameters of the IBAMA framework. 2. To understand the state of mitigation and adaptation efforts in industry-leading contexts.  3. To understand if and how current approaches to mitigation and adaptation for the built environment are integrated.  3.6.1 Selection of Interview Subjects Adaptation processes benefit from integrating different knowledge domains and systems of thinking (Folke et al., 2005; Olsson et al., 2006 as cited in Campos et al., 2016). As such, interview subjects were selected to represent the diversity of expertise and complementarity of perspectives involved in advancing mitigation and adaptation in the built environment.   Nine categories of experts were identified, with the goal of interviewing at least one expert in each category. The categories established were Architects, Contractors, Community/Residents, Emergency Managers, Engineers, Landscape/Planning/Urban Design, Owners/Developers, Policy, and Sustainability/Adaptation Consultants. Experts were interviewed in seven of the nine 49  categories, with contractor and community/resident representatives not identified, a gap to be addressed in future research.  A list of potential interviewees was developed based on well-known industry experts involved in mitigation and/or adaptation for the built environment. This list was circulated amongst members of the Adaptive Mitigation project team (PICS, BC Housing and UBC) to help identify additional experts. Approximately 80 names were compiled across seven of the nine categories. A short list of experts in New York City was defined based on the researcher’s knowledge of the industry in that location. Similarly, Wilma Leung, Senior Manager of Technical Research and Education at BC Housing identified a short list of experts to contact in British Columbia based on her industry knowledge.  Table 3.5 Classification of Expert Interview Participants Expertise British Columbia New York City Architecture 1 1 Emergency Management 1 - Engineering 2 2 Landscape/Planning/Urban Design 1 1 Owner/Developer (Building) 3 1 Owner/Developer (Neighborhood) - 2 Policy 2 2 Sustainability or Adaptation  2 1 Total 12 10  22 experts were contacted by email for interviews, and 21 responses were received. One expert was unavailable and recommended a colleague, who participated in an interview. Another expert included a second participant in their interview to better address both mitigation and adaptation perspectives.  In total, 10 experts were interviewed in New York City and 12 in British 50  Columbia. 21 interviews were conducted between July and October of 2019, with 12 interviews occurring in person, and nine conducted by phone. A list of interviewees categorized by expertise and location can be found in Table 3.5.   3.6.2 Interview Process A semi-structured interview schedule (see Appendix G) was created to guide the interview process. Nineteen open ended questions were designed to elicit responses to inform the interview goals and development of the IBAMA framework. Questions were organized into four sections: an introduction to establish each participant’s expertise in the research topic; climate mitigation initiatives; climate adaptation initiatives; and the integration of mitigation and adaptation.    In addition to the consent form, this schedule was sent to each participant in advance of their interview, explaining that initial questions would be selected in accordance with their area of expertise. For example, if the interviewee was a climate adaptation expert, the adaptation questions served as the initial focus of the interview, with mitigation questions discussed where applicable. During the interview, based on responses to initial questions, follow up questions emerged spontaneously to obtain further clarification or details. Interviews ranged between 30 and 90 minutes depending upon the questions discussed and the availability of the expert.   3.6.3 Transcription, Coding and Analysis Interviews were recorded and transcribed using Otter.ai transcription software (Liang & Fu, 2018), then reviewed and corrected manually. Transcripts were redacted to remove potential identifiers, then sent to the interviewees to confirm if they required any additional redaction or modification. Although they were not attributed to specific individuals, quotes cited in the interview findings section (Section 4.2) were also confirmed by email with the corresponding interview subjects prior to inclusion. 51  Transcripts were coded using NVivo 12 Pro qualitative data analysis software (QSR International LLC, 2018) to identify potential IBAMA framework parameters, mitigation and adaptation goals and strategies, and other factors pertaining to the integration of mitigation and adaptation in the built environment (See Table 3.4). Code categories and codes were similar to those used for the document analysis process, with some modifications. Additional codes and one additional code category, “Evaluation of Strategies”, were added during the interview coding process. A complete list of interview analysis code categories and codes can be found in Appendix H.   Coding was analyzed to identify potential IBAMA framework parameters, the degree of advancement of mitigation and adaptation efforts in both New York City and British Columbia, and ways in which integration between mitigation and adaptation was being considered and could be effectively implemented. The analysis also revealed key themes and trends, as well as areas of consensus and disagreement about mitigation and adaptation in the built environment. In addition, differences in perspective amongst the various professional categories and the two regions were noted, to help inform how the IBAMA framework could be used by diverse stakeholders and/or in different locations.    3.6.4 Interview Limitations  Although the selection of interview participants aimed to represent the diversity of building industry expertise in two leading edge contexts, this limited the number of participants with the same background, potentially obscuring differences of opinion amongst those in the same profession or region. In addition, as indicated in Section 3.6.1, the perspectives of general contractor and building resident participants are missing from the analysis.   There are several relevant reasons for investigating the leading-edge North American climate policy contexts of British Columbia and New York City to inform development of the IBAMA 52  framework. However, the viewpoints of experts working in regions outside of North America, or  with less advanced climate policies would likely result in additional insights and potentially different conclusions.      3.7 Phase Two – Case Study Workshop The findings from the document analysis and expert interviews were used to create a general structure and initial parameters for the Integrated Building Adaptation and Mitigation Assessment (IBAMA) framework (see Section 4.3 for details). These were presented at a day-long industry stakeholder workshop held in Vancouver in November 2019. The goals of the workshop were: 1. To present the research problem and initial analysis results to industry stakeholders; 2. To elicit feedback on the draft IBAMA structure and framework parameters; 3. To obtain input for further development of the IBAMA framework.  3.7.1 Workshop Format A scenario workshop method (Campos et al., 2016) was developed to engage participants with the draft framework parameters and provide feedback in the context of real-world projects. Stakeholder workshops are a means of providing the inclusive participatory processes and capacity building approaches recommended for planning climate change policies (Amaru & Chhetri, 2013).   The first portion of the workshop consisted of a presentation summarizing the research problem and associated literature review, results of the document analysis, and expert interview findings. The draft IBAMA framework parameters were then introduced along with an exercise that tested their application using BC Housing case study projects. Participants provided feedback on the framework structure, parameters and process via workshop facilitators, who were given a training session and case study materials in advance of the workshop. 53  3.7.2 Workshop Participants The workshop presentation was attended by approximately 40 industry experts invited by BC Housing, including four or five attendees joining remotely. 37 experts participated in the case study exercise. A broad range of industry expertise was represented, which included architects, engineers, planners, policy analysts, government representatives, development representatives, BC Housing staff, landscape architects, environmental health scientists, and PICS staff.   3.7.3 Case Study Exercise The exercise was designed to test the draft IBAMA framework process and parameters using a hypothetical redesign exercise of BC Housing projects. Participants were divided into six groups that were organized to have a diversity of professional expertise to ensure that a variety of skills and perspectives were represented. Each table was assigned a facilitator to lead the exercise. Table 3.6 Workshop Case Study Characteristics and Hazards  Location Context Community Scale Demographics  Hypothetical Hazards Explored  West Vancouver, BC Urban Affluent w/robust adjacent services Four-Five storeys/     140 units  Independent Seniors Overland flooding; Seasonal water shortage Colwood, BC Suburban Mid-income; average services; moderate walkability Six storeys/          102 units Mixed: Families, Seniors, Disabled Residents Heat Waves; Poor Air Quality Smithers, BC Village/ Rural Mid-income; low walkability; limited services Three storeys/ 19 units Intellectually Disabled Residents, Seniors Wildfires; Winter Power Outage with Ice Storm  Groups were each assigned a recently designed or built BC Housing case study project, as well as a climate hazard deemed to be of medium to high risk in British Columbia by the year 2050 (BC Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy, 2019). In total, six climate hazards were 54  explored using three BC Housing case studies. Case studies were selected to represent  different contexts, project scales, typologies and resident demographics. A summary of case study characteristics and assigned hazards is listed in Table 3.6.   The exercise consisted of a four-step process organized according to the draft framework categories illustrated in Figure 3.3. The task involved a hypothetical redesign of the assigned case study to respond to a future climate hazard and to meet ambitious climate mitigation goals. Participants were provided with a copy of their team’s case study exercise. Each team was also provided with case study drawings and neighborhood images, drawing and writing materials, as well as a BC Housing document listing potential adaptation strategies for their assigned hazard.   Figure 3.3 Draft Framework Categories and Interactions 55  First, teams reviewed information about the project case study, a 2050 climate change scenario, the assigned climate hazard, and a hypothetical neighbourhood resilience evaluation (IBAMA categories 1-4). They then identified neighborhood assets and risks, as well as project risks with respect to the climate hazard (IBAMA categories 5-7). Next, teams decided upon climate adaptation goals and reviewed the mandated climate mitigation goals for their project. They selected strategies to meet their adaptation goals and reviewed pre-established strategies to meet mitigation goals (IBAMA categories 8-11).   Using a scoring template provided in the case study exercise document, each group evaluated their proposed adaptation strategies with respect to the mitigation goals and evaluated the mitigation strategies with respect to their adaptation goals. In addition, mitigation and adaptation strategies were evaluated vis-à-vis other criteria such as cost, complexity, and reliability (IBAMA categories 12-13) 3F4. An example case study exercise is included in Appendix I.  Following the exercise, the researcher elicited participants to discuss their proposed strategies, how they were evaluated, and suggestions for modifications to the framework process and parameters. In addition to the post-exercise discussion, participants were given the opportunity to provide written feedback within their case study exercise documents. BC Housing also provided additional feedback in a separate meeting following the workshop.    4 Categories 14 and 15 were not included in the exercise due to time constraints.  56  3.7.4 Analysis of Workshop Feedback Participants’ verbal feedback was transcribed by a workshop assistant (Figure 3.4), and written feedback from the case study exercise documents was collated. Additional input from a separate BC Housing meeting was transcribed via meeting minutes. Feedback was then coded using NVivo 12 Pro, and organized into the following six categories: • Framework Parameters • Framework Process • Framework Format • Level of Complexity • Framework Integration and Implementation • Project Context • Other Considerations   Figure 3.4 Excerpts of Verbal Feedback from Case Study Workshop 57  3.7.5 Stakeholder Workshop Limitations  The workshop and case study exercises were conceived to represent a condensed early project stage decision-making process (Cherry & Petronis, 2016). Though team members were industry experts, they were given a short time to familiarize themselves with the research problem, the exercise and the case study projects. Moreover, given that knowledge of climate adaptation and resilience is still nascent in the industry, some of the terminology would likely have been unfamiliar to several participants. As such, the extent of stakeholder feedback was limited by both time and experience.  It should also be noted that all participants in the case study exercise were from British Columbia, unlike the interviews, where perspectives from New York City were represented.  3.8 Phase Three – Feedback on Draft Framework Documents Feedback from the stakeholder workshop, further input from BC Housing, and review of select supplementary reference documents noted in Section 3.5.1.3 were used to modify the IBAMA framework to develop a comprehensive draft of the framework tools (see Section 4.5 for details). These tools are intended for use by multi-unit residential building teams and include a high-level primer document, a detailed reference guide, and an Excel tool for assessment inputs. Final versions of the primer and reference guide can be found in Appendices A and B.    The draft framework and associated tools were presented to stakeholders via webinar in May 2020. 55 experts were invited to attend the presentation, representing those who had either participated in an expert interview and/or the November 2019 stakeholder workshop.    3.8.1 Survey and Comment Period Following the webinar, stakeholders were asked to provide general feedback on the IBAMA tools via a six-question survey, and more pointed feedback by commenting directly within the three documents. The questions were designed to be open-ended, with general feedback elicited on 58  each of the three tools, as well as how the framework could be effectively applied on multi-unit residential projects. Due to the onset of COVID-19 and potential interest in using the tools for pandemic-related hazards, an additional question was added to inquire about how the tools might be adapted to include non-climate hazards.  The survey was distributed to all webinar invitees via the University of British Columbia’s Qualtrics survey tool (Qualtrics, 2019) to those invited to the presentation. The survey included embedded links to the three documents which could be downloaded, annotated and emailed back to the researcher. A copy of the survey can be found in Appendix J.   Following a three-week comment period in June 2020, eight responses to the survey plus two sets of comments via email were received, representing an 18% response rate. In addition, two of the respondents also provided detailed comments directly in the draft IBAMA documents.   3.8.2 Analysis of Survey Feedback Survey responses and additional feedback were organized by question number and categorized according to the following themes:  • Framework Parameters  • Framework Process • Format of Documents • Level of Complexity • Framework Implementation • Time and Costs • Education and Training • Other Considerations   59  3.8.3 BC Housing Online Workshop To supplement the survey responses, elicit more detailed feedback, and determine how to best implement IBAMA, an online workshop was held in September 2020 for ten key BC Housing stakeholders. The workshop was organized so that each framework section or group of sections  was presented, following which participants responded to a series of questions related to that section or sections in a shared online document.  The list of questions can be found in Appendix K. Feedback was categorized by section, question and whether the comment pertained to framework document modifications or implementation.   3.8.4 Draft Framework Feedback Limitations Feedback on the draft IBAMA documents was originally conceived to occur in the context of a full-day stakeholder workshop that would include a presentation and team exercises enabling participants to test the tools. Due to the onset of COVID-19, this was reconfigured into a one-hour online presentation, a survey, a request for detailed comments on the documents, and a separate BC Housing online workshop.  A key limitation of this study relates to these revisions to the format for Phase Three stakeholder feedback. Given the additional pandemic-related responsibilities of many participants, the complexity of the documents, and the asynchronous collection of feedback, we received less input than was originally expected from a multi-hour face-to-face workshop.     60  Chapter 4: Findings The research findings enabled the development and refinement of an integrated climate adaptation and mitigation process and framework for urban multi-unit residential buildings. The findings and resultant framework attempt to answer the two initial research questions posed:  1. How can the design process for urban multi-unit residential buildings effectively integrate both climate mitigation and adaptation considerations? 2. How can interactions between climate mitigation and adaptation strategies for urban multi-unit housing designs be consistently evaluated to inform more integrated and synergistic decision-making?  4.1 Phase One – Document Analysis Findings The document analysis findings resulted in the initial IBAMA framework structure and parameters. To further inform the framework’s development, the findings also established the state of climate mitigation and adaptation initiatives in BC and New York City, and the degree to which building industry guidelines and standards were integrating mitigation and adaptation approaches.    4.1.1 Identification of Initial IBAMA Framework Parameters Initial IBAMA framework parameters in eight categories were distilled from the coding carried out in Document Analysis A.  See Table 4.1 for the initial parameter categories. Modifications, additions and refinements to these initial parameters were carried out as part of Document Analysis B and the semi-structured expert interviews. Further adjustments to the parameters and framework structure were carried out in Phase Two following the case study workshop.       61  Table 4.1 Initial IBAMA Parameter Categories Derived from Document Analysis A Parameter Category Sub-category 1. Boundaries  2. Hazards  3. C02 Emissions Indicators  4. Characteristics/Vulnerabilities Physical Assets Social Assets/Capabilities 5. Goals  6. Strategies & Responses  7. Mitigation & Adaptation Interactions  8. Evaluation of Success    4.1.2 Context of Climate Mitigation and Adaptation in BC and New York City To create an effective IBAMA framework for urban multi-unit residential buildings, it was important to establish the existing state of climate action planning in the leading-edge regions being investigated. Document Analysis B identifies climate mitigation goals and progress, as well climate risks and adaptation planning in these regions, at both municipal and building scales. The analysis also helped to refine the initial framework parameters derived in Document Analysis A.  4.1.2.1 Climate Mitigation and Sustainability  Analysis of climate mitigation policy documents in BC and New York City reveals specific trends pertaining to GHG emissions and energy in the built environment, as well as to sustainability goals. A few documents from other municipalities were reviewed for comparison.      62  4.1.2.1.1 GHG Emissions and Energy The documents reviewed focus mainly on future GHG reduction targets and actions, with projections as to how those actions could achieve the targets. Information about past and current emissions is more limited and typically relegated to a graphic or a paragraph pertaining to emissions data. According to government reports emissions are shown to be decreasing, but at a significantly slower rate than necessary to achieve the stated climate targets. The City of Vancouver indicates achieving a 12% GHG emissions reduction between 2007 and 2018 (City of Vancouver, 2019b), with New York City indicating emissions reductions of 17% between 2005 and 2017 (New York City Mayor’s Office, 2019).   The documents also confirm that buildings are responsible for a greater proportion of total GHG emissions in large municipalities than they are provincially or federally. While buildings were responsible for 10% of British Columbia’s 2014 GHG emissions (Government of British Columbia, 2016), 59% of Vancouver’s 2017 GHG emissions (City of Vancouver, 2019b) and 67% of New York City’s 2016 emissions came from buildings (The City of New York, 2017b).  While opportunities for emissions reductions in buildings are significant, particularly in existing buildings, progress has been slow. According to the City of Vancouver, there has been a 5% reduction in emissions from the building sector since 2007, though improvements are much more significant for new buildings (City of Vancouver, 2018b). Similarly, GHG reductions from building energy efficiency improvements in New York City has been minor, with reductions largely achieved due to changes in the electricity supply mix (New York City Mayor’s Office of Sustainability, 2016).      63  4.1.2.1.2 Mitigation and Sustainability Goals and Initiatives Given that past emissions reductions have been modest, Vancouver and New York City have set very ambitious climate mitigation goals. The City of Vancouver initially set a target of 80% reduction by 2050 (City of Vancouver, 2017b). When the City declared a climate emergency in 2019, the goal was increased to target carbon neutrality by 2050 (City of Vancouver, 2019a). In 2014, New York City committed to an 80% reduction in GHG emissions by 2050 (New York City Mayor’s Office of Sustainability, 2016). In 2019, this was increased to target carbon neutrality by 2050, and 100% clean electricity by 2040 (New York City Mayor’s Office, 2019).   These cities have also established aggressive GHG reduction targets for buildings. Vancouver is aiming for a 20% reduction of GHG emissions from existing buildings (City of Vancouver, 2018b), and for zero emissions from new buildings by 2050 (City of Vancouver, 2015). The 2019 Vancouver Climate Emergency response added a target of a 40% reduction in embodied GHG emissions for new buildings by 2030 (City of Vancouver, 2019a). New York City targets a reduction of 35% of emissions in existing city-owned buildings by 2025 (New York City Mayor’s Office of Sustainability, 2016), net-zero energy for all newly constructed buildings by 2030 (New York City Mayor’s Office, 2019) as well as maximum GHG emissions thresholds for large existing buildings by 2024 and 2030 (Urban Green Council, 2019b).   To varying degrees, these municipalities have translated their overall goals for climate mitigation in buildings into specific targets and metrics mandated through building codes or other policies. Using the BC Step Code, Vancouver established incremental greenhouse gas intensity (GHGI) targets for different building types, as well as other targets related to energy use and airtightness (City of Vancouver, 2016; Enright, 2018). This is in contrast to New York City, who allow for multiple target pathways for city-owned or funded buildings (The New York City 64  Council, 2016a, 2016b). Non-municipal buildings must comply with the New York City Energy Conservation Code (The City of New York, 2016).  Vancouver has also focused on mitigation goals for mid and high-rise multi-unit residential buildings over six stories, which represented 29% of the city’s new built area in 2016  (City of Vancouver, 2016). Requirements have also been set for new buildings on rezoned sites, which are required to meet a near zero emissions standard such as Passive House (City of Vancouver, 2017a, 2018c).   At the municipal scale, climate mitigation is typically embedded in broader sustainability action plans that include other objectives. New York City’s OneNYC also includes goals pertaining to zero waste, stormwater management, water and air quality, and greenspace (The City of New York, 2018b). Vancouver’s goals also include targets for green transportation, walkability, local food, green economy, and reduced ecological footprint (City of Vancouver, 2015, 2018b, 2019a).   4.1.2.2 Climate Adaptation and Resilience  The climate adaptation policy documents reviewed pertain to climate projections; analysis of hazards, vulnerabilities and risks; as well as climate adaptation planning and initiatives.  4.1.2.2.1 Climate Projections, Hazards, Vulnerabilities and Risks The Pacific Climate Impacts Consortium (PCIC) assessed specific indicators pertaining to historic climate data and determined that the climate in British Columbia has already changed. General trends assessed between 1900-2013 include an average annual temperature increase of 1.4ºC per century, increases in night-time temperatures and annual precipitation, earlier snow melt and 65  river flow, increase in sea level rise, and warmer water temperatures (BC Ministry of Environment, 2016).   The BC government has also developed a climate risk assessment framework and carried out a provincial climate risk assessment based on Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5, information that is being used by BC agencies and local governments. The risk assessment identifies high to extreme risk climate hazards in BC. Those pertaining to the built environment are severe wildfires, short and long-term water shortages and heat waves. Key hazards for urban environments include flooding, coastal storm surge, extreme precipitation and landslides. The assessment notes the need for analysis of compounding hazards and cascading impacts (BC Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy, 2019).   Critical climate hazards in Vancouver now include flooding and/or inundation due to sea level rise, overland flooding due to increased frequency and intensity of precipitation, damage from increased frequency and intensity of wind and rain storms, and more days of extreme warm temperatures and heat waves (City of Vancouver, 2012). More recent hazards include king tide flooding and summer air quality alerts due to wildfires (City of Vancouver, 2018a). Though not defined as a climate hazard, per the City of Vancouver there is a 100% chance that Vancouver and the Lower Mainland will be hit by a damaging earthquake (City of Vancouver, 2019d).  Future climate projections for Metro Vancouver indicate increases in daytime and nighttime temperatures as well as peak seasonal temperatures (Metro Vancouver, 2016). Projections also include rainfall increases (Metro Vancouver, 2016). Coupled with a projection of one metre of sea level rise by 2100, increasing winter winds and storms surges, this will lead to increased flooding (City of Vancouver, 2018d). By contrast, summer precipitation is predicted to decrease. 66  Drier summer conditions and reduced water supplies may also increase wildfire activity in the region leading to poor air quality in Vancouver (Metro Vancouver, 2016).  New York City is focused on three main climate hazards: heat and rising temperatures, increasing precipitation, and sea-level rise coupled with storms (New York City Mayor’s Office, 2019). Rising temperatures are also exacerbated by the urban heat island effect (New York City Housing Authority, 2019).   Both cities have vulnerabilities associated with large coastal urban areas. Physical vulnerabilities in Vancouver include significant infrastructure situated in low-lying waterfront areas (City of Vancouver, 2012). In New York, the 1% annual flood plain area is anticipated to cover one quarter of the city’s landmass by 2050 (NYC Department of City Planning, 2019). Lack of vegetation will also increase heat risks in some neighborhoods. Other physical vulnerability concerns in Vancouver include unsafe buildings, aging civic facilities, insufficient food system resilience, and lack of local back-up power (City of Vancouver, 2017c, 2019e). Socio-economic vulnerabilities common to both cities include poverty, the high cost of housing, homelessness, social isolation, elderly populations, and populations with chronic health issues (City of Vancouver, 2019e; New York City Housing Authority, 2019).   4.1.2.2.2 Adaptation and Resilience Goals and Initiatives BC’s Climate Adaptation Strategy emerged as a response to specific hazards already occurring in the province such as drought and wildfires. Three initial strategies were established: build a strong foundation of knowledge by providing the necessary scientific information, climate-monitoring programs, and adaptation planning tools for decision-makers; integrate adaption into government activities such as planning, policy and new legislation; and assess risk and implement 67  priority adaptation actions through activities such as sector working groups, and updates of existing policies and activities (BC Ministry of Environment, 2010).   Vancouver’s initial Climate Change Adaptation Strategy also focused on knowledge and capacity building, integration of climate change into current municipal initiatives, and as well as targeted adaptation actions. The goal was to increase resilience of city infrastructure, programs and services to anticipated climate impacts, with a focus on vulnerable populations and flexible management approaches. Given the uncertainty of future climate change, the plan prioritized “no-regret” actions that would benefit the community regardless of the degree of climate change experienced (City of Vancouver, 2012).  Proposed adaptation actions were evaluated according to the following criteria: sustainability, effectiveness, risk & uncertainty, opportunity, implementation; and categorized as must do, monitor, or investigate. Key actions included an integrated stormwater management plan, a coastal flood risk assessment, an urban forest management plan, a backup power policy, and including climate change adaptation measures in the next Vancouver Building Bylaw update, amongst others (City of Vancouver, 2012).  Vancouver’s Climate Change Adaptation Strategy was updated in 2018 with core actions focusing on climate robust infrastructure, resilient buildings, prepared, connected communities, healthy and vigorous natural areas, and coastline preparedness. Actions are being considered through the lenses of climate change mitigation and equity. Multiple actions in the Resilient Buildings category align with BC Housing’s Mobilizing Building Adaptation and Resilience project (BC Housing, 2019; City of Vancouver, 2018a).   68  The 2019 Resilient Vancouver Strategy looks at adaptation and resilience through a broader framework that includes climate and geophysical, technological, and health shocks, as well as socio-economic, environmental and infrastructure stresses. The strategy focuses on enhancing capacity in three priority areas: neighbourhoods, government, and buildings and infrastructure (City of Vancouver, 2019e). The buildings and infrastructure efforts have primarily focused on seismic resilience. Particular emphasis has been placed on designing and upgrading civic facilities to support community resilience and minimizing disruption to infrastructure and critical services (City of Vancouver, 2019e). The City has also created a Resilient Neighbourhoods program and toolkit (City of Vancouver, 2019d).  In New York City, after some initial climate adaptation planning strategies were investigated in the 2008 Green Codes Task Force (Urban Green Council, 2010), climate adaptation initiatives mobilized quickly following Hurricane Sandy when a Building Resiliency Task Force was convened and produced 33 recommendations. While the task force’s goal for commercial buildings was to minimize business interruptions, the goal for residential buildings was that they be habitable as soon as possible following a disaster. The objective was to ensure residential buildings provided for occupants’ essential needs (Urban Green Council, 2013).   Since Hurricane Sandy, many adaptation and resilience projects have been initiated in New York City at the building, landscape, planning and infrastructure scales (The City of New York, 2018a). These initiatives have mainly focused on flood risks and related infrastructure failure, with more recent initiatives targeting extreme heat (New York City Housing Authority, 2019; The City of New York, 2017a).  The New York City Climate Resiliency Design Guidelines establish how the City can increase the resiliency of its facilities. The goal of the guidelines is for the facility in question to withstand or 69  recover quickly from hazards, as well as to perform to its design standard throughout its useful life. The City requires that all new and substantially renovated City capital projects apply the guidelines in their planning process (NYC Mayor’s Office of Recovery and Resiliency, 2019). The guidelines link climate projections to anticipated lifespans of buildings, systems and infrastructure. This provides a way to balance the uncertainty of climate risks with costs, as well as manage operational and maintenance constraints. The guidelines also promote an approach that addresses multiple hazards with single interventions, leverages synergies and co-benefits such as climate mitigation, and integrates ‘soft’ resiliency strategies (operational or green infrastructure) with ‘hard’ ones. A framework for cost-benefit analysis is also included, though acknowledged by the authors as a work in progress (NYC Mayor’s Office of Recovery and Resiliency, 2019).   Zoning has also been revised for coastal flood resiliency. In the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy, New York City’s Department of City Planning (DCP) adopted two zoning text amendments to remove zoning barriers that were hindering the reconstruction and retrofits of damaged buildings. In 2019, DCP released a report with recommendations for modifying zoning to respond to future climate hazards (NYC Department of City Planning, 2019).   Mechanisms for appropriate project siting are also being explored. In certain neighborhoods, zoning regulations may be amended to either limit density in areas where coastal flood risk is high, or encourage density in areas where risk is low or can be effectively managed (NYC Department of City Planning, 2019).   4.1.3 Integration between Mitigation and Adaptation  To effectively integrate and evaluate climate mitigation and adaptation strategies under a unified framework, it was important to determine the degree to which existing standards and guidelines are integrated, and in what manner.  70   Document Analysis B revealed that integration between mitigation and adaptation efforts is limited. Many documents from each discipline have language acknowledging the importance of considering the other either as a co-benefit, as an additional lens through which to assess a strategy, or as a sub-section within the main theme of the document. In most documents, however, there is a clear dominance and hierarchy of one field over the other.  To gain an understanding of how mitigation and adaptation interact, 24 documents were selected to represent standards, references and rating systems that would be used to guide mitigation and/or adaptation approaches for urban multi-unit residential buildings or their surrounding neighbourhoods in North America. Most documents pertain to the building scale, with a few focusing on the infrastructure, community, landscape or building system scales. Table 4.2 lists the number of documents by area of focus and scale.   Table 4.2 Classification of Mitigation and Adaptation Documents Reviewed for Integration Primary document focus Buildings Community Landscape Infrastructure Systems Multiple Mitigation and Sustainability 6 1     Adaptation and Resilience  8    1 1 Both and/or Other 3  1 2  1  4.1.3.1 Mitigation and Sustainability Documents  Of the documents reviewed that focus primarily on mitigation and sustainability, mentions of adaptation or resilience range from none to a few dedicated resilience requirements or optional credits. On average, references are minor across all documents. When specific adaptation or resilience measures are mentioned, they are included in parallel to mitigation and sustainability initiatives rather than integrated, with a few exceptions such as sensitive land and flood plain 71  avoidance, stormwater management, and reducing the urban heat island effect (Enterprise Community Partners, 2015a; International Living Future Institute, 2014; U.S. Green Building Council, 2016b, 2018a, 2019).   Interactions between mitigation and adaptation are rarely mentioned, though some of the proposed mitigation and sustainability measures have potential synergies or co-benefits with adaptation and resilience goals. With one exception, trade-offs are not discussed. Floods, urban heat island, and power disruption are the only hazards discussed, and with limited specificity. Only one document mentions hazard, risk and vulnerability assessments (Enterprise Community Partners, 2015a), and one other raises the need to design systems by taking into account future climate data (American Society of Heating Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, 2017).  The LEED® rating systems for homes and buildings has few explicit mentions of adaptation and resilience. Several prerequisites and credits do propose measures that are potentially synergistic with or beneficial to adaptation and resilience. However, these LEED® rating systems are not structured to model or estimate how these measures meet specific resilience objectives. Some proposed measures could also have conflicts or trade-offs depending upon the hazard (U.S. Green Building Council, 2018a, 2019).  The Passive House Standard is referenced by the Enterprise Green Communities rating system as a standard that could maintain habitability during a power outage (Enterprise Community Partners, 2015a). While Passive House can improve resilience to extreme temperatures, poor air quality and power-outages, it does not address other hazards (Passive House Institute, 2016).   Conceived as a highly ambitious sustainability standard, the Living Building Challenge now includes a provision for resilience in its Net-Positive Energy imperative. However, requirements may be 72  insufficient depending upon the hazard and climate, and other imperatives within the framework could potentially create conflicts (International Living Future Institute, 2014).   Enterprise Green Communities targets affordable multi-unit residential buildings. Though primarily a sustainability and mitigation-focused document, it contains the highest number of references to resilience and adaptation of the documents reviewed. A particular emphasis is placed on vulnerable populations and social resilience (Enterprise Community Partners, 2015a).  Community and social resilience are also implicitly promoted in LEED® for Neighborhood Development. However, there are missed opportunities to tie proposed synergistic strategies to climate hazards, risks and vulnerabilities; as well as to explicitly discuss community resilience and emergency management (U.S. Green Building Council, 2016b).  The ASHRAE Handbook’s sustainability chapter was the only document reviewed in this section that acknowledged and described some of the challenges of a changing climate. The Handbook mentioned the vulnerability of building systems to climate change, the inefficacy of using historical weather data for load calculations, and the responsibility of designers to be concerned with both the mitigation and adaptation dimensions of climate change (American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, 2017).  4.1.3.2 Adaptation and Resilience Documents  The adaptation and resilience documents reviewed reference mitigation more frequently than mitigation documents reference adaptation. This is specifically in the context of energy efficiency, load reduction and passive survivability, but with little mention of embodied emissions. Emphasis is placed on synergies with mitigation strategies, with limited references to conflicts and trade-offs. The formats of the documents vary, with some focusing on broader resilience and others relating 73  to a specific hazard. Several documents are structured as guidelines while others are similar to point-based sustainability certification systems. This raises the question of whether adaptation and resilience frameworks should follow the same format as mitigation and sustainability frameworks.  The Community Resilience Benchmarks is conceived for high-level asessment at the community and municipal scales. Many of the strategies listed would support mitigation and sustainability efforts, however they are not referenced as goals (Alliance for National and Community Resilience, 2019).   Hazard-specific guidelines and standards such as FORTIFIEDTM for wind and hurricanes, FireSmart for wildfires (FireSmart Canada, n.d.), and REDiTM for earthquakes have few mentions of interactions with climate mitigation. Exceptions include provisions for renewable energy systems (Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety (IBHS), 2019), passive comfort, and efficient appliances and fixtures (Almufti et al., 2013).   The LEED® Pilot Credits for Resilience promote the concept of passive survivability. This approach uses passive design and efficiency strategies to reduce the need for mechanical systems and external energy and water sources. This concept is emphasized in a study by New York City’s Urban Green Council, which demonstrates the importance of improving the performance of building enclosures to ensure adequate thermal comfort during power outages (Urban Green Council, 2014). The LEED® Pilot Credits for Resilience also require that half the back-up power supplied come from solar or wind energy. While these credits do emphasize synergies between mitigation and adaptation and acknowledge some trade-offs, they are voluntary credits subsumed within the LEED® rating system, worth only five points out of a possible 110 towards LEED® certification (U.S. Green Building Council, 2016a).  74  The Ready to Respond guidelines are geared to affordable multi-unit residential buildings. There is explicit mention of the need to consider synergies with mitigation goals and reduce conflicts, with an emphasis on green infrastructure and vegetation, Passive House design, and on-site renewable energy. There are only a few mentions of conflicts or trade-offs. The guidelines also recommend strategies for community resilience, many of which are synergistic with mitigation and sustainability goals (Enterprise Community Partners, 2015b).   New York City’s Climate Resiliency Design Guidelines and the Climate Resilience Strategies for Buildings in New York State focus on resilience but emphasize the need for load reduction and passive design strategies. They discuss the feedback loop of increasing the urban heat island effect from additional mechanical cooling (NYC Mayor’s Office of Recovery and Resiliency, 2019), reducing electricity demand and GHG emissions from the energy supply, and neighborhood-scale synergistic strategies (Rajkovich et al., 2018). The New York City guidelines advocate using strategies that align with municipal goals such as GHG emissions reduction, but acknowledge the trade-offs from emergency power (NYC Mayor’s Office of Recovery and Resiliency, 2019).   The specifics of backup power are elaborated in the City of Toronto’s Minimum Backup Power Guidelines for MURBs. The guidelines aim to shelter-in-place residents by providing backup power of essential loads for 72 hours. Natural gas generators are recommended, in part because of their lower GHG emissions as compared to other fossil fuels. However, there is no other mention of climate mitigation synergies or trade-offs (Carou, 2016).   4.1.3.3 Combined Mitigation/Adaptation and Other Document Types  A selection of documents addressed both mitigation/sustainability and adaptation/resilience. These documents are the most diverse in terms of the scales addressed, with some including other 75  types of objectives beyond adaptation, mitigation or sustainability. The documents have varying degrees of integration between mitigation and adaptation, ranging from credits or sections that are siloed, to a document that explores synergies and trade-offs in significant detail.   Several of the combined documents focus on larger scales. ENVISION is conceived for sustainable infrastructure. A points-based framework, it addresses the entire project lifecycle and is positioned as a process-based collaborative tool. Mitigation and adaptation measures are addressed in distinct credits, without providing a means to assess interactions between them (Institute for Sustainable Infrastructure, 2018). This siloed approach is similar in the Waterfront Edge Design Guidelines for waterfront sustainability and resilience (Waterfront Alliance, 2018), and the PEER rating system for electrical infrastructure (Green Business Certification Inc., 2018).  The RELi rating system is a resilience framework that draws from sustainability and regenerative design guidelines. Structured similarly to LEED®, it emphasizes opportunities for integration across multiple scales and a “living design approach for robust sustainability comprised of long-term adaptation and mitigation, restoration, regeneration & resilience” (U.S. Green Building Council, 2018b, p.12). The framework is inclusive and ambitious, with prerequisites to ensure a minimum level of both sustainability and resilience. However, its complexity will be challenging for project teams trying to set appropriate priorities, and its use will likely be limited to large projects with ample resources.   The MURB Design Guide attempts to provide an integrated framework for multi-unit residential buildings that includes the concepts of sustainability, resilience, liveability and civility. The guide presents a general approach for designing MURBs that prioritizes passive-first design and active systems powered by renewables, with the goal of providing shelter through extreme weather events. Some potential trade-offs between mitigation and adaptation are acknowledged. 76  Recommended building-related strategies are specific, though details regarding hazards, emergency management, and community resilience are limited (Kesik & O’Brien, 2017).  Resilient Adaptation of Sustainable Buildings posits that using a regenerative framework rather than an efficiency-based approach will result in buildings that are both sustainable and resilient. The report modifies the designs of two case study projects in Minnesota to ensure shelter-in-place during a summer power outage and disruption of the water supply. It serves as a valuable design approach for delving into the specifics of meeting an adaptation goal for a predetermined hazard scenario while prioritizing sustainable strategies. However, it does not overtly address trade-offs, and excludes embodied carbon considerations (Graves, Weber, & Kutschke, 2018).  FEMA’s Natural Hazards and Sustainability for Residential Buildings was the only document reviewed that considered specific interactions between mitigation and adaptation strategies in an integrated manner. The guideline looks at the impact of natural hazard risks on specific green building strategies. Impacts of resilience strategies on green building objectives are not investigated. The document also notes how strategies could be synergistic for one hazard but create a conflict for another. Using lifecycle assessment (LCA), the document addresses embodied GHGs, and introduces the concept of post-disaster sustainability benefits, or the avoided costs and impacts associated with post-disaster reconstruction (Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2010).   4.1.4 Summary of Document Analysis Findings The document analysis reveals a robust climate mitigation context in both Vancouver and New York City with clear regulatory requirements. Both cities also demonstrate more recent but rapidly growing adaptation initiatives. However, with a few exceptions, there is a lack of significant integration between mitigation and adaptation objectives.  77  The analysis also exposed the limited interaction between mitigation and adaptation in the majority of rating system and guidelines documents reviewed, while uncovering some avenues to more effectively integrate them. Most documents also failed to adequately address interactions between multiple scales and hazards, and many were limited in considering future climate or a project’s full lifespan. Finally, the structure of many adaptation/resilience frameworks is organized according to the format of sustainability rating systems. These systems are typically based on meeting minimum requirements coupled with a range of optional credits in order to achieve a score or certification level. This may be problematic for ensuring adequate resilience as credits can be chosen for ease of implementation and not linked to a project’s most critical risks.   4.2 Phase One – Semi-Structured Expert Interview Findings Expert interview findings helped in refining the initial IBAMA framework parameters that were derived from Document Analysis A. They were also used to triangulate results from Document Analysis B regarding the state of climate action initiatives in BC and New York City. In addition, the interviews revealed key factors associated with effective implementation and integration of climate mitigation and adaptation that were used to inform the framework’s development.  4.2.1 Context of Climate Mitigation and Adaptation in BC and New York City 4.2.1.1 Climate Data  Interview subjects stressed the need to use future climate projections, or at least current weather data, rather than historical data, when designing projects. It was noted that this is an emerging rather than mainstream practice but is likely to become standard protocol in the near future.  “Professionals are starting to consider future climate projections in energy modelling and building design services, and are required to do so in some public sector and research projects. But future climate considerations are not mainstream yet because of lack of codified requirements, lack of client demand, and knowledge gaps in applying future climate data.” – Engineering SME, BC   78  Challenges were cited regarding access to reliable future data, particularly in BC, where municipalities are waiting on the provincial government to provide more granular data. Where unavailability of data or requirements to follow existing protocols limit the use of future climate data, experts mentioned using workarounds.  Uncertainty of the data as well as timeframes (e.g. 100 yr. storm vs. 500 yr. flood vs. 1700 yr. wind event) vary according to the type of climate hazard. Several experts relied on official government climate projections and noted the importance of using data that is harmonized and collectively agreed upon, though sometimes government data was not sufficiently future-looking.  “The work that we do that includes adaptation is to take existing FEMA maps, which are based on historic data looking backward, and add some projections looking forward to sea level rise to increase the storm intensity frequency, and try to put some numbers on flood probabilities.”  – Engineering SME, NYC  The use of historical weather data is beginning to result in projects that are experiencing overheating in BC, especially in Passive House projects. However, experts noted that using historical data is helpful for understanding the history of hazards and for sizing peak stressors. Modeling multiple climate scenarios was emphasized, to optimize the project design over its lifespan.  4.2.1.2 Climate Context  4.2.1.2.1 GHG Emissions and Energy Several experts acknowledged that buildings are responsible for a large share of GHG emissions. However, in many instances, interviewees noted that adaptation takes precedence over mitigation given that it pertains to life safety and resident well-being.   “We are a housing organization. Our priorities are always going to be the housing priorities.”  – Owner/Developer SME, NYC  79  Energy source was raised as a key variable in current emissions and future targets for New York City, which is targeting a zero-carbon electrical grid by 2050. This varies significantly from BC, which has a low carbon source of electricity.  “If you decarbonize electricity production, which allows you to decarbonize your buildings, and you decarbonize transport, probably also through electrification, then the only thing you have left is industry and embodied.” – Engineering SME, NYC  The viability of a full transition to zero carbon electricity in New York City was also questioned.  4.2.1.2.2 Hazards, Vulnerabilities and Risks Interview subjects in New York City and British Columbia emphasized different hazards, with some overlap. While hazards varied by location, experts noted that attention was being directed primarily towards hazards that were already occurring.  “The best climate adaptation people said if you're running into problems now a little bit, that's what you should worry about, because that's what's going to hit you biggest and fastest.”  – Policy SME, BC  In many instances, hazards were being studied individually, but several experts noted the importance of an integrated multi-hazard approach and understanding potential cascading impacts throughout the lifespan of the building or system.   Prioritizing hazards and risks due to limited resources emerged as a theme. Some BC experts cited an earthquake-first approach, given that it would be the most extreme hazard, and that preparing for a major earthquake would by default help prepare for less extreme hazards. Another expert recommended looking at the top ten hazards based on frequency and severity and prioritizing the top three. Prioritizing hazard impacts to critical facilities was also mentioned.  “If you are a providing a critical service, you're a seniors center or police station, something that has a vulnerable population or is performing a valuable service, in many cases it doesn't matter what your protection system is, you probably want a second level of protection.”  – Policy SME, NYC  80  Failure of infrastructure systems, notably power and water, was mentioned frequently. Experts recommended having a better understanding of risks at the broader scale and how they relate to building risks. Concerns were raised about the increasing risks of power outage, especially as a transition to electricity is being promoted as a low carbon solution. The cost of back up power and the trade-offs associated with diesel fuel use and storage was deemed as challenging.   In order to prioritize actions, experts also recommended understanding potential hazards within their immediate context, such as the physical environment, vulnerability of the populations they were impacting, and availability of neighborhood resources. One engineer stressed that vulnerabilities are often overlooked in risk assessments and are very important, particularly income and economic-based vulnerabilities.  “Where you sit on the vulnerability scale, to me, in a risk assessment doesn't come through…From a multifamily housing point of view, where you sit on the income scale is more important than your flood elevation. If you're high income, you can just go get a hotel room for a week. If you're low income, you could become bankrupt.” – Engineering SME, NYC  4.2.1.3 Adaptation, Mitigation and Sustainability Goals 4.2.1.3.1 Climate Mitigation Goals Interviews in both New York City and BC confirmed that climate mitigation goals are evolving from being voluntary to government mandated.  “In the past couple of years, we've gone from leading the conversation around sustainability generally, to having in particular the City of Vancouver and the province of British Columbia, really, I would say, step up to the plate with new policy requirements.” – Architecture SME, BC  Municipal goals focus on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction targets, while goals at the building scale tend to include energy performance metrics. Energy reduction targets are shifting from relative reductions from a baseline to absolute energy use and GHG emissions targets. In Vancouver, a recent 40% reduction target in embodied carbon for new construction was also mentioned. 81  Some concerns were raised about current mitigation targets and approaches, most notably the challenges associated with shifting to all electric systems and a renewable-energy based grid.  “I think that shifting to electric is the right thing to do from a carbon standpoint. And the devil is entirely in the detail. So there's a question about how quickly can buildings themselves transition to all electric. There's a parallel question about how quickly the grid can transition from being fairly heavily carbon to decarbonized.” – Engineering SME, NYC  One expert emphasized that more effort needs to be made beyond the building scale to establish climate mitigation goals for neighbourhoods and districts. “Cities are saying that if our building stock can be zero carbon by x date, we essentially win. And for sure, that's an incredibly important goal. But the trade-off to achieving true zero carbon is investing equally in the district context where these buildings are sitting.” – Urban Design SME, NYC  4.2.1.3.2 Sustainability Goals In addition to climate mitigation goals, some experts discussed sustainability goals relevant to the mitigation-adaptation nexus. These included goals related to water management, biodiversity, social and economic sustainability, and health and well-being. Experts emphasized a focus on synergies and co-benefits as a means to achieve sustainability goals.  While one expert noted that health and well-being goals were key co-benefits to leverage when promoting mitigation and adaptation, another highlighted conflicts with mitigation objectives. “We as a culture are rightly demanding higher quality ventilation, higher quality air conditioning, heating, more appliances, cell phones, refrigerators, TVs. Our lifestyles are expanding and the quality of office buildings and multifamily buildings, the amount of ventilation that's provided, a lot of the codes that are requiring those…are actually requiring more energy use.” – Engineering SME, NYC  In the cases of urban design and water management, one interview subject indicated that the lens of sustainability can integrate mitigation and adaptation goals under a holistic framework. A few experts are also looking at goals beyond mitigation and adaptation, that go from a “do less harm” model towards a regenerative one where projects can improve their surrounding environment.  82  4.2.1.3.3 Adaptation and Resilience Goals Interviews revealed that while climate mitigation goals are typically metrics-based and often mandated, adaptation and resilience goals, when they exist, are highly variable and have not reached the same degree of integration into policy or practice.  “Adaptation hasn't had the same kind of airtime that mitigation has over the past decade; there's probably just over a handful of communities in the province that have actually done adaptation plans.” – Sustainability & Adaptation SME, BC  At the building scale, there appears to be more of a focus on strategies to address specific hazards than on goals. Unlike climate mitigation goals, some experts stressed that setting adaptation goals involves a process as opposed to meeting a specific standard. “It's a process approach with housing owners and developers. It can't be theoretical, it has to be, here's what you're facing, here's what the cost is to you right now.” – Adaptation SME, NYC  Nevertheless, standard checklists are currently being used as a way to gather information and evaluate existing properties in order to help inform goals.   The adaptation and resilience goals raised covered a broad range that can be categorized as either occupant-focused, asset-focused, or community-focused. Occupant-focused goals ranged from minimum life safety for evacuation, to health standards, to sheltering-in-place in fully functional apartments. Asset-focused goals pertained to appropriate siting, minimizing damage, operational function, and recovery and repair through the lenses of time and costs. Community-focused goals included community organization, social connectivity, improved infrastructure, and economic resilience.     Inconsistency around who was determining goals was also discussed. Beyond minimum code requirements, goals are being determined by city agencies, individual owners, community members or project teams.   83  “It still comes down to who's in the room. And who's asking the question? Who's the project manager? Who's the project director? Are they good enough at storytelling to capture the imagination of the person sitting on the other side of the table?” – Engineering SME, NYC  One adaptation expert emphasized that flexibility in setting goals was also necessary as different agencies and building types have different functional requirements. What emerged was the need for alignment, or at least coordination of goals across multiple groups, scales and timelines; between building owners, neighborhoods, agencies and municipalities.   4.2.2 Implementation of Mitigation and Adaptation 4.2.2.1 Scalar Considerations Experts remarked that consideration of the appropriate scale for action was relevant for determining effective approaches to mitigation and adaptation. The relationship between the municipality, infrastructure, neighbourhood and building was also seen as a central consideration. Several subjects stressed the importance of these systems and scalar interactions.  “It really homed in on the need for a systems thinking approach... So understanding the interconnectedness between whether it’s water flows, energy flows, your site ecology, looking at opportunities or synergies with your neighbors, particularly when you're operating or designing at a master planning level, what are the opportunities for synergies with the neighboring whether it's community amenities, or industry?” – Architecture SME, BC  Municipalities were citied as the most appropriate scale for coordinating emergency management, community resilience and infrastructure planning efforts. Use of municipal tools such as zoning, development permit areas, guidelines, codes and regulations were all referenced.    Water, green infrastructure and power were the main infrastructure types mentioned. Challenges and opportunities for distributed systems were discussed. The impact of building electrification on gas and electricity infrastructure was a dominant theme for both mitigation and adaptation. Some also commented on the relationship between urban density and infrastructure capacity.  84  “If we have localized solutions such as green infrastructure or even storage tanks to meet aspirations around harvest and reuse, that is quite simply more water that isn’t contributing to system overflows and polluting our receiving waters. It’s also important to conserve capacity in the pipe system so that more sewage goes to the treatment plant. And from a shocks and stressors point of view, having these distributed system elements is really important to simply make space for water in our cities, that are less susceptible to failure than centralized ones.”  – Planning SME, BC  Many interviewees stressed the importance of the neighborhood and community scale, primarily for adaptation and resilience. Experts discussed the role of critical facilities, neighborhood assets and community organizations. However, initiatives at this scale appear to be less developed.   Buildings were the main unit of reference discussed for most mitigation and many adaptation initiatives. Owners, designers and engineers seemed to have the greatest control over initiatives at this scale and delved into details of building-specific strategies and solutions. Several interview subjects stressed that the existing building stock must be considered, and that new buildings had a responsibility to support existing facilities in adaptation planning.  “I really believe every new building can be designed to be undamaged in an earthquake, and we're going to get there. We've got all the tools and devices to get there. I just hope as a community we get there soon, because then for new buildings they're not part of the post-earthquake problem anymore, we’re not adding a problem. Then we can focus on upgrading existing buildings.” – Engineering SME, BC  There was a particular emphasis on communication strategies for improving social resilience and emergency management. Neighborhood activities, outreach to vulnerable populations, public education, and relationship building were some approaches discussed. However, effective communication and relationship building was remarked to be a challenging endeavour.  “We were part of this ‘Hey Neighbor’ pilot in the City of Vancouver, which was looking at high rise multifamily buildings and getting people to know their neighbors, and hopefully contribute to social well being… And it was primarily through programming and events…So we're trying to recreate that in our rental buildings. And then…maybe we can more easily roll out emergency preparedness training, through the network, or these networks and these champions that we're building up. – Owner/Developer SME, BC  85  4.2.2.2 Leadership and Knowledge Experts perceived a growing level of awareness and concern about climate issues amongst the general public and within the industry. However, they noted lack of sufficient knowledge and expertise with respect to both mitigation and adaptation. This was mentioned as a main cause of inconsistency in establishing goals.  “If somebody wants to build an art gallery or factory, and you ask them ‘What kind of level of resilience do you want?’ And they look at us, ‘What kind of question is that?’…The level of understanding on the client side for most projects is quite low.” – Engineering SME, NYC  Several experts noted that developing knowledge and skills was crucial to successful mitigation and adaptation efforts on projects. One interview subject recommended that experts in mitigation be trained on adaptation and vice versa.   Given these knowledge limitations, interview subjects favored simplicity in developing climate solutions. One expert stressed that implementation frameworks also needed to strive for simplicity.   Though expertise was cited as an important factor, success or failure of initiatives was most often attributed to leadership. The type of ownership was also a key factor, with larger and long-term owners noted to typically be more invested in mitigation and adaptation efforts.   “The successes I've seen, and this is one of the reasons why I'm in this role, is because you have a client team that's interested, and has written something into the project brief. And that really is mandating from top down.” – Owner/Developer SME (Neighbourhood), NYC  4.2.2.3 Processes, People and Organizations As mitigation and adaptation are increasing the number of design parameters, experts mentioned the importance of more extensive studies and analysis prior to and during design. Auditing real-estate portfolios and the existing building stock was also critical to understanding macro-level mitigation and adaptation.   86  “We started looking more aggressively initially through PHPP at how to trim the heat gains and then move to hourly modeling of individual suites, which we've now developed a pretty good system for doing that. That system has been adopted by [names removed for confidentiality], we now have to model suites, and we have targets for all buildings.” – Sustainability SME, BC  How mitigation and adaptation initiatives are organized was also seen as a contributing factor to their successful implementation. Emphasis was placed on a more effective design and construction process in order to achieve mitigation and adaptation goals. Some experts felt that there was also a need to better leverage local knowledge for informed decision-making about adaptation. “What's exciting about working with them [BC local governments] right now, is that many are interested in and committing to integrated climate action planning, whereby they update their emissions inventories and forecasts and undertake risk and vulnerability assessments, saving time and resources by collecting and evaluating climate data at the same time. This data then becomes part of the local government toolbox to be used when evaluating policies, plans, and individual strategies against more comprehensive, resilience-based criteria such as reducing community risk and vulnerability to projected impacts, lowering emissions, and advancing co-benefits alongside typical criteria such as cost and feasibility.” – Sustainability & Adaptation SME, BC   Partnerships with anchor organizations were perceived as contributing to solutions tailored to the uniqueness of each community. Early goal setting, clear roles and responsibilities, and a high level of communication throughout the project were identified as critical to success. Some observed that relationship-building was a needed complement to formal planning, policy and engineering strategies. Current governance structures were seen as a barrier to greater integration.  Project performance was noted as an ongoing challenge, with several experts stressing the need for gathering performance data, training qualified operators, and recommissioning projects. Post-occupancy testing was cited as important but not frequently performed.   “It's a huge difference depending on the training of the building staff. Some of them are so well versed in this stuff. They not only know their building inside and out, but where their flood logs are kept, how to install them, what the problems are with the gaskets, and how often they should be running a dry run of setting up everything. And the difference between some of these buildings can be really extraordinary.” – Policy SME, NYC  87  4.2.2.4 Availability of Resources Lack of adequate resources be they financial, technological, or human, was noted as a key challenge to achieving mitigation and adaptation goals. Some experts suggested that either mitigation or adaptation would be favored in the context of limited resources, while others advocated combining mitigation and adaptation efforts and funding to increase efficiency. Limited human resources were also mentioned, especially with respect to emergency management.  The most frequent resource challenge mentioned was economic. High performance projects were seen as more expensive, though one expert remarked that cost premiums could be kept low by early project goal setting and team integration. Experts emphasized using cost-effective strategies that create synergies and co-benefits.  “When we get projects early on, we're seeing that it's really doable, and we can make these projects work. And there's not necessarily a massive additional cash injection that's necessary. And it's really those projects that are coming a little bit later on or have done a lot of design work without involving us early on, that it becomes more challenging.” – Owner/Developer SME, BC  Investigating all available funding and financial incentives was deemed as essential to integration of technical solutions. Combining mitigation and adaptation subsidies was also suggested for potential cost savings, since funding is typically siloed. Financial levers such as insurance and mortgage rates were also referenced for implementing adaptation. However, the effectiveness of these mechanisms seemed to vary based on the hazard and region. “If you're in the Flood Insurance Program, and you elevate your home, your insurance premiums go down and within a few years, you've paid off whatever investment you've made…But the city is self-insured, we rely on our ability to get access to capital and to end with the federal government to help us recover from extreme weather events...We don't pay those premiums that can drop the more resilient we are.” – Architecture SME, NYC  Other approaches discussed include the use of better asset management tools. Experts cited the advantage of mitigation projects to leverage operational cost savings through lifecycle cost analysis, with adaptation projects more difficult to justify financially since they are typically 88  based on potential avoided damages. One interview subject noted the challenge of assessing a return on investment based on a future potential hazard event. Another expert remarked that governments also need to consider societal costs such as displacement of people and disruption of the economy when evaluating returns on investment.  “Displacing 500,000 kids means you displace all those families from going to work, and it becomes economic…So when you look at proper (hazard) mitigation factors, you are alleviating in pre-mitigation what's going to happen to the shelters, you're keeping people and businesses in operation” – Architecture SME, NYC  4.2.2.5 Time and Lifecycle Time was revealed to be an important factor in successfully implementing mitigation initiatives. Several BC interviewees referenced the Energy Step Code as a model where increasingly ambitious targets could be adopted over time as meeting previous targets was mastered. With adaptation and resilience, experts noted the necessity to think dynamically over the entire lifespan of the asset and its systems.  “We advise our clients that we want them to look at 100 years, and most of them are comfortable with 50 years to look at.“ – Architecture SME, NYC  One expert remarked on the challenge of designing for several different climate scenarios over the lifespan of the building, but that designers of current projects should be building in the flexibility to retrofit for future climate. Another noted the difficulty of retrofitting certain elements, which should be designed for the more extreme climate projection. “Once you've chosen your materials, once you've chosen your mechanical systems and their heat tolerance, it's much harder to change some of these things. It's the same with rainfall retention, we're talking about whole building systems for reuse, or green roofs, or large underground tanks, these things are just hard to change. They're hard to retrofit.” – Policy SME, NYC  4.2.2.6 Governance, Regulations, and Voluntary Standards  The role of governments in mitigation and adaptation planning was raised frequently. References to government actions included climate action plans, collecting relevant data, establishing policies, 89  codes and regulations; and using their own buildings to set precedents. Municipal governments were perceived to have large spheres of influence. Some experts mentioned shifting governance structures from siloed to integrated as a requisite for mitigation and adaptation implementation.   Building codes and regulations were perceived to be an essential mechanism for systematizing and enforcing mitigation and adaptation, leading to their broad acceptance. However, many agreed that codes typically set minimum standards that were not sufficient nor always resulted in higher performance, and they merited improvement. Several people observed that conflicts between different codes could inhibit successful implementation of mitigation or adaptation.   “Commercial and residential lighting densities are dropping for sure. That the code is requiring that that's, that's excellent. But it's not really outpacing the amount of…the volume of ventilated, fully ventilated, over ventilated space in New York City, which is a code requirement.”  – Engineering SME, NYC  There were differing opinions about how code language should be structured: a simpler prescriptive approach as compared to a more dynamic performance-based format. One expert noted that some adaptation measures were more easily codified than others, and another explained that only certain measures could be legally included in code language.  “DEP has a standard for how much water you should retain on site. That's pretty straightforward to change. Design flood elevation is pretty straightforward to change. Questions about whether or not you should be building in a zone that is right on the water and will be flooded by tide in the future... Should anybody be allowed to build the future tidal zone? I don't know. That's a zoning question. That's a much thornier issue.” – Policy SME, NYC  Another suggestion was to mandate the more easily accepted “low-hanging fruit” in codes and regulations, and incentivize leading property owners to incorporate additional measures through voluntary frameworks. Voluntary guidelines were identified as a way for leading-edge owners to achieve higher targets which might then be incorporated into future codes. While these types of frameworks were deemed as important for advancing adaptation, one expert cautioned that they should not be structured as rating systems due to potential liability. 90  4.2.3 Evaluation of Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies From the interviews, evaluation of strategies to achieve mitigation and sustainability goals appeared further advanced than for adaptation. There was very limited mention of metrics for embodied emissions, though it was noted that the City of Vancouver was developing them.  Pre-construction evaluation is typically being carried out via energy modeling, though one expert noted that models often differ significantly from actual performance. As a result, the City of Vancouver has developed standardized energy modeling guidelines to resolve this issue.  Post-occupancy evaluations offered a more accurate assessment of mitigation solutions. Building energy reporting and audit regulations in New York City also contribute to evaluation of the building stock at the macro-scale. “One of the things that audits require, for example, is an inventory of systems in buildings. So you put down whether your building has single glazing, what percentage of glazing it has, what kind of a heating system it has, what kind of boiler it has if it has a boiler, etc. So collecting that data turned out to be a gold mine in terms of understanding, for example, that 75% of the area of New York City's large buildings is heated by steam heat.” – Policy SME, NYC   Experts noted that proposed adaptation strategies could also be evaluated via modeling. For some hazards such as hurricanes, they mentioned adhering to standards or rating systems that have performed effectively under past hazards in order to estimate project performance. “Our house is FORTIFIED that we did for [name removed for confidentiality]. There's just over 5000 of these homes built in the Gulf Coast. With all of the disasters that happened the last three or four years, not a single one of those homes lost their roofs.” – Architecture SME, NYC  However, it was noted that multiple adaptation/resilience systems exist, with no front-runner.  “There are a lot of rating systems out there currently, none of them are driving the market. Not quite like a LEED certification does in sustainability…There are some that are overly complicated.” – Architecture SME, NYC   Other types of evaluation discussed were comparisons of multiple design options, as well as pilot projects. Assessing human-centered adaptation strategies was mentioned as highly challenging. 91  4.2.4 Integration between Mitigation and Adaptation  In general, interviews revealed that mitigation and adaptation are typically separate efforts, with exceptions in some organizations. Even within the adaptation field, there appears to be limited communication between the building/infrastructure teams and emergency management.   There were differing views on whether and how mitigation and adaptation should be integrated. While some expressed the need for more integration, two adaptation experts felt that while mitigation and adaptation need to be coordinated, there are advantages to them remaining distinct. Another expert advocated for the need to look at both in a broader holistic way that is proactive and reactive and considers both technical and social factors.  “The ultimate thing I believe about this issue, is for both resiliency and sustainability to be meaningful they have to be part of business as usual, which means they have to coexist and be as complementary as possible…Whether resiliency and sustainability as fields of thought need to be in lockstep or in close coordination, I don't feel as convinced about that.” – Policy SME, NYC  Adaptation was often prioritized over mitigation, with one owner stressing that there was so much room for improvement on mitigation that they had limited concerns about the impacts of adaptation strategies on mitigation goals.   “We have so much headroom in terms of our ability to improve on the mitigation side. I think that if we were at optimal performance with the existing systems that we have, then maybe we would be more leery about what these trade-offs are.” – Owner/Developer SME, NYC  Though some interview subjects speculated that the general public may not even distinguish between mitigation and adaptation, others observed that stakeholders often understood and embraced adaptation more easily than mitigation. A few experts suggested recasting mitigation through the lens of adaptation, or vice-versa, to facilitate adoption of both.  “Our asset managers, finance guys, even our building guys who are predominantly engineers, they get the resilience stuff, so it is not a fight to do the resilience stuff.” – Owner/Developer SME, BC  92  4.2.5 Interactions between Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies 4.2.5.1 Synergies and Co-benefits Experts focused on leveraging solutions that provided multiple mitigation, adaptation and other benefits, one expert using the analogy of “triple-word scores.” Three main approaches were raised with regards to leveraging synergies and co-benefits: passive strategies, green infrastructure, and integrated water management.  “There are all kinds of other landscaping quality of life benefits that come from having more rain gardens, permeable pavements, and facilities that are able to work more regularly because they are not puddling water, they're soaking up water when it rains.” – Policy SME, NYC  Other synergies mentioned focused on building systems that used greener electricity to provide heating, cooling and air filtration, and on-site battery storage combined with renewables. “This pilot that we're doing on [name removed for confidentiality] is actually a great both mitigation adaptation example, in that we’ve got these in-suite fan coil units that are on an extremely high temperature loop that provide heating, and so it's a super inefficient system...We found that we can get rid of those fan coil units by putting these little PTAC mini-split heat pump units…And one of the great things about these [name removed for confidentiality] units we found is that you can actually fit a MERV 13 filter in them as well, too. This is decarbonizing the building by 70%. ” – Owner/Developer SME, BC  At the neighborhood scale, some district systems and urban design solutions were lauded as providing both mitigation and adaptation benefits. There were few mentions of synergistic solutions with regards to embodied carbon emissions reduction. Operational synergies are another area that was not discussed but merits further exploration.   4.2.5.2 Conflicts and Trade-offs While many interviewed emphasized synergies and co-benefits, some conflicts and trade-offs between mitigation and adaptation were acknowledged as inevitable.  “Healthcare clients in particular are looking at building in redundant systems. So does that redundancy add to the climate change effects as well, if you're building in additional backup power, or capacity, or water storage? What effects is that having? I think they're questions that were kind of grappling with as we enter into this whole dialogue around resiliency.”  – Architecture SME, BC 93  Mitigation and sustainability conflicts that were discussed related to increased energy use for cooling, the use of GHG intensive refrigerants for cooling systems, and emissions from backup generators. Some in New York City argued that once the electrical grid was decarbonized, there would be little to no conflicts. However, others questioned the reality of fully transitioning to all-electric systems. Embodied emissions were mentioned by a few experts as a potentially substantial conflict for providing resilience and redundancy.  “When we talk about things like hardening facilities for flooding, a lot of folks go immediately towards retaining walls. And that's all carbon intensive, that's very strong, lots of concrete.” – Architecture SME, NYC  Adaptation and resilience conflicts that emerged pertained to overheating in Passive House projects, passive ventilation strategies being unsuitable during forest fires, and promoting electrification of buildings that could increase the vulnerability of electrical infrastructure. Trade-offs included a lesser degree of functionality of a building following a hazard event.   Planning experts noted that densification or zoning bonuses to favour mitigation can result in adaptation and resilience trade-offs such as increased urban heat island and stormwater runoff. At the infrastructure scale, widespread transition of heating systems to renewable electricity would result in the decline of natural gas infrastructure, thereby eliminating redundancy. Conflicts can also arise between different regulations, and between strategies used for different hazards. “You could imagine moving to a situation where you could use gas to support the heating or to support a generator that then supports heating...But if you are moving to an all electric system the gas infrastructure will start to fall apart.” – Engineering SME, NYC  4.2.5.3 Compromises, Leverage Points and Offsets There was general agreement that as the climate changes, there will rarely be solutions where adaptation–mitigation trade-offs don’t exist, and most felt that adaptation to minimum life-safety and health standards had to be prioritized. A passive-first approach was cited to be the best 94  means of reducing loads so that GHG and other impacts would be minimized. Load reduction would also reduce requirements for back up systems.  “You can't actually take all the fat out, you can only take 90% of the fat out, because you've got to still continue to be able to operate. And I think, actually that that is the switch: from thinking only about sustainability and driving things as low as possible, to thinking about resilience, to say that it's got to work for this. And then it's got to work for these realistic and plausible scenarios that could happen in the next 30 years, or the life of my system. That's the design condition.”  – Engineering SME, NYC  Several experts recommended community-based adaptation solutions that would lessen trade-offs and costs. These included improving critical facilities and neighborhood infrastructure, and better community coordination.  “…when you can provide life safety and basic needs through community facilities in one location, to me, from a resilience standpoint, from a cost-benefit analysis, from a risk assessment point of view, if you make a critical asset that the community can utilize during any kind of event,…You make the strong investment in a public, oftentimes, schools or community centers, libraries, civic buildings servicing a certain radius. That tends to provide the critical life safety needs in a much more cost-effective manner than having every building providing them for themselves.”  – Engineering SME, NYC  Some acknowledged that there was still a need to depend on fossil fuels for redundant power, and that increasing resiliency often resulted in higher embodied carbon emissions. One expert suggested offsetting emissions for an adaptation strategy by reducing impacts elsewhere. While mitigation and/or adaptation were priorities for those were interviewed, they acknowledged that other project requirements typically have equal or greater priority. These may be design criteria, budgets, resident lifestyle choices, building codes and regulations, and other project parameters. They noted that this sometimes made it challenging to meet mitigation and adaptation goals.     95  4.2.6 Summary of Expert Interview Findings Expert interview findings reinforced that BC and New York City have advanced policies and practices with regards to climate mitigation, many of which are mandated. Both regions are also rapidly advancing adaptation efforts, though data, knowledge and expertise are still nascent. Integration between mitigation and adaptation was limited, with a focus mainly on finding synergies whenever possible, and without a formal process for considering interactions.  To successfully implement mitigation and adaptation solutions, interviews highlighted the need to focus on scalar interactions, better process and team integration, more strategic resource allocation, expanded training and education, and post-occupancy verification. These findings were considered in development of the IBAMA framework.   4.3 Phase One – Draft Framework Structure and Parameter Development Based on the findings from the document analysis and expert interviews, a draft Integrated Building Adaptation and Mitigation Assessment (IBAMA) framework structure and parameters were developed. Table 4.3 compares the initial eight parameter categories derived from Document Analysis A to the resultant 15 parameter categories established at the end of Phase One.    96  Table 4.3 Evolution of IBAMA Parameter Categories  Document Analysis A Initial Parameter Categories  Phase One  Final Parameter Categories 1. Boundaries  1. Project Information 3. C02 Emissions Indicators  2. Climate Parameters 2. Hazards  3. Climate Hazards 4. Characteristics/Vulnerabilities • Physical Assets • Social Assets/Capabilities  4. Neighbourhood Resilience to Hazard 5. Neighbourhood Assets for Adaptation 6. Neighbourhood Risks 7. Project Risks 5. Goals 6. Strategies & Responses  8. Adaptation to Risks - Goals 9. Adaptation Strategies to Meet Goals 10. Mitigation Goals 11. Mitigation Strategies 7. Mitigation & Adaptation Interactions 8. Evaluation of Success  12. Evaluation of Adaptation Strategies 13. Evaluation of Mitigation Strategies   14. Adaptation and Neighbourhood Resilience 15. Mitigation and Neighbourhood Resilience  The IBAMA framework is conceived as a process-based approach to be used sequentially and throughout a project’s development. It is a flexible decision-making tool rather than a set of prescriptive requirements or a score-based rating system. This enables project teams to respond to the unique context, vulnerabilities and circumstances of their project including factors such as location, climate hazards, occupant demographics, budgets, and management structure.  97  To be effectively implemented, IBAMA was designed to be used primarily at the pre-design and early design stages of projects. This requires a front-loaded approach with multiple stakeholders working collaboratively to develop goals and strategies, akin to an integrated design process (Lu, Sood, Chang, & Liao, 2020). Though the majority of effort occurs at early project stages, the framework is meant to be used throughout subsequent design, construction, and project occupancy phases. This is essential for reinforcing initial goals and ensuring that effective strategies are employed.  Phase One framework parameter categories and their interactions are outlined in Figure 4.1. Parameter categories and interactions are described in sections 4.3.2 through 4.3.12.  Figure 4.1 Phase One Draft Framework Categories and Interactions 98  4.3.1 Category One – Project Information Project information gathering is the initial step in the IBAMA process. Here, the project team would gather general information such as project location, housing typology, and budget; relevant site and desired building features; and anticipated building demographics such as age, income, and family type. This section helps identify specific project characteristics and vulnerabilities in order to determine project risks and point to appropriate climate mitigation or adaptation solutions.  4.3.2 Category Two – Climate Parameters Climate parameters refer to the climate scenarios and timeframes to be used for a project’s design. These include the representative concentration pathway (RCP) climate scenario (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, n.d.) selected by the project team, and the target year or years associated with that scenario. Target years would typically be linked to the project’s anticipated lifespan, as well as the lifespan of key building systems. Climate parameters can also include historical and current weather data relevant to calculating peak loads or determining hazard patterns.   4.3.3 Category Three – Climate Hazards This section helps project teams identify the most critical climate hazards to their project and the surrounding neighbourhood, based on the climate scenarios identified. It also includes determining potential cascading impacts resulting from the hazard, such as transportation or infrastructure interruptions due to flooding. Criteria for determining critical hazards include frequency, intensity/severity, exposure, and affected area.  4.3.4 Category Four – Neighbourhood Resilience to Hazards The neighbourhood resilience category was created in response to the document analysis and interview findings, which highlighted the need to consider multiple scales as well as social and 99  economic factors when developing adaptation and resilience strategies for buildings. In this section, a high-level neighbourhood resilience assessment would be carried out for each critical hazard and used to help inform a project’s potential adaptation strategies. Parameter sub-categories in this section include infrastructure, buildings, environment, transportation, municipal demographics, community services and governance, municipal economic indicators.  4.3.5 Categories Five & Six – Neighbourhood Assets for Adaptation/ Neighbourhood Risks Based on the information from the neighbourhood resilience assessment in Category Four and the hazards identified in Category Three, the project team would then identify neighbourhood assets (Category Five) that could contribute to a project’s overall adaptation and resilience, as well as key neighbourhood risks (Category Six) that may increase the project’s vulnerability to a specific climate hazard. Identification of these assets and risks will contribute to developing more targeted project adaptation goals and effective strategies.  4.3.6 Category Seven – Project Risks Project risks are determined based on the project information and vulnerabilities outlined in Category One, the climate hazards established in Category Three, and the neighbourhood risks identified in Category Four. Project risks for MURBs can pertain to occupants, building and property assets, building management, or economic factors.  4.3.7 Category Eight – Adaptation Goals Once the project risks have been determined for each of the critical climate hazards, the project owner then determines the adaptation goals, taking into consideration the project information outlined in Category One. Adaptation goals can be occupant-focused, asset-focused, or related to broader goals such as increasing community resilience.   100  4.3.8 Category Nine – Climate Adaptation Strategies Development of adaptation strategies would be carried out by the project team based on the adaptation goals established for each of the critical hazards identified. These strategies could pertain to the design of the project, operations and management, or relate to leveraging existing neighbourhood assets determined in Category Five.   4.3.9 Category Ten – Climate Mitigation Goals  Mitigation goals can be mandated by government requirements, based on an institution’s standards, or determined by the project team. Sub-categories include GHG reduction goals, embodied carbon reduction goals, renewable energy goals, and other goals.   4.3.10 Category Eleven – Climate Mitigation Strategies In this section, climate mitigation strategies will be developed by the project team in response to the mitigation goals established in Category 10. These strategies could pertain to the project site, building enclosure, building systems, project materials, or operations and management.   4.3.11 Categories Twelve & Thirteen – Evaluation of Adaptation and Mitigation Strategies In Categories Twelve and Thirteen, proposed adaptation strategies are evaluated with respect to a series of performance criteria, listed in Table 4.4.   101  Table 4.4 Evaluation Criteria for Adaptation and Mitigation Strategies  Evaluation of adaptation strategies Evaluation of mitigation strategies 1. Climate Mitigation Goals Climate Adaptation Goals 2. Reliability to Adaptation Goals Reliability to Mitigation Goals 3. Effectiveness 4. Construction Costs 5. Operations Costs 6. Indirect Costs n/a 7. Complexity of Implementation 8. Reliance on External Systems 9. Alignment with Design and Project Requirements  Climate Mitigation Goals and Adaptation Goals refer to the extent to which a proposed strategy contributes to the goals established in IBAMA categories Eight and Ten. Reliability to Adaptation Goals or to Mitigation Goals indicate how reliable a proposed strategy would be. For example, a management or behavioural solution may be less reliable than a technical solution. Effectiveness denotes how well a proposed strategy will work. Cost criteria are categorized as Construction Costs, Operations Costs, and Indirect Costs, which are costs not typically borne by the project such as health or emergency management costs. Reliance on External Systems indicates how dependent a strategy is on resources beyond the project boundary such as municipal infrastructure or community facilities. Lastly, Alignment with Design and Project Requirements refers to how synergistic a proposed strategy is with respect to other project requirements. 102  4.3.12 Categories Fourteen & Fifteen – Adaptation, Mitigation and Neighbourhood Resilience The final sections of the initial IBAMA framework attempt to address how a project’s mitigation and adaptation strategies impact neighbourhood resilience. Proposed adaptation, mitigation and sustainability strategies would be evaluated to determine how they reduce or increase the level of neighbourhood resilience.   4.4 Phase Two – Case Study Workshop Feedback Stakeholder input on the draft framework structure, process and parameters was solicited during the case study workshop, and in a separate follow-up meeting with BC Housing. 37 industry experts participated in the case study workshop exercise, with a range of expertise that included architects, engineers, planners, policy analysts, government representatives, development representatives, BC Housing staff, landscape architects, environmental health scientists, and PICS staff. Feedback received pertained to the framework’s parameters, process, format and level of complexity; integration and implementation of the framework, and other considerations.  4.4.1 Framework Parameters Workshop participants and BC Housing stakeholders recommended that the following additional parameters be included in the IBAMA framework:  Category One - Project Information • Indoor air quality requirements • Additional resident health parameters • Level of knowledge and expertise of building management and operations team • Differences between BC Housing-operated projects and those operated by not-for-profits who have limited resources   Category Three – Climate Hazards • Seismic issues (though not a climate hazard, a critical hazard in BC) 103  Category Four - Neighborhood Resilience to Hazards • Exposure to hazard • Status of community resilience/ emergency preparedness plan • Existence of a map of community emergency assets • City budget or City staff capacity (alternate parameter to # elected officials/resident) • Level of knowledge and expertise of emergency management/resilience staff • Hazard-related human resources (alternate to % of residents with a university degree) • Number and level of resilience of refuge centers, critical facilities and community services  • Number and type of voluntary organizations and faith-based organizations • Number and type of organizations that provide support and social services • Community health status and determinants of health - Mobility of neighbours - Health vulnerabilities: chronic disease, respiratory illness, dementia, asthma, etc. - Loneliness/isolation indicator • Entry points and access to neighbourhood • Social connectivity and cohesiveness  Categories Twelve & Thirteen – Evaluation of Adaptation and Mitigation Strategies • Cost parameters: cost avoidance, resilience dividends, opportunity costs, total project cost  • Combined cost-benefit & GHG analysis • Duration of proposed strategy (e.g., how long back-up power will last) • Safety of strategy • Occupant comfort • Equity (considering vulnerable populations, cost burdens to low income residents) • How the strategy supports social service needs • Evaluation of social connectivity  • Incentives for mitigation to leverage adaptation and vice-versa  • Enable the project team to rank the evaluation parameters according to their priorities 104  4.4.2 Framework Process Participants emphasized the need for a more interconnected process when using the framework. Suggestions included using an iterative process when developing mitigation and adaptation strategies rather than a parallel process. Linking the evaluation of neighbourhood resilience parameters to the proposed adaptation strategy was also recommended, as knowledge of the strategy could influence how the resilience parameter is assessed. Several stakeholders suggested including a compounding hazards or multi-hazard assessment, and a mechanism to determine trade-offs and potential maladaptation between adaptation strategies for different hazards.  4.4.3 Framework Format and Complexity Stakeholders expressed the importance of balancing the framework’s level of complexity with the skill sets of those using it. BC Housing suggested including a high-level document with provocative questions and criteria for use by design teams. They recommended that these questions be “future-proofed” so that the framework could be used over time. Given that each project varies significantly in terms of location, site, scale and typology, they suggested that IBAMA serve as a method to explore a range of solutions rather than be prescriptive. However, one stakeholder felt that some simple prescriptive low-cost strategies should also be included.  Feedback also focused on developing more guidance and tools. Some participants noted that the IBAMA diagram was difficult to understand and could be simplified to illustrate the workflow more clearly. Other recommendations included creating step-by-step guidance on how to use the framework and score the evaluation parameters, as well as clarifying who is responsible for completing each of the categories. Given that industry knowledge on adaptation and some areas of mitigation is still nascent, one expert suggested including more explanations and concrete examples, particularly for less familiar topics such as embodied carbon.  105  4.4.4 Framework Integration and Implementation  BC Housing stakeholders provided input on how to best implement the use of IBAMA and integrate it within their current standards. One team member advised embedding the framework within existing BC Housing tools such as their Design Guidelines, which are primarily prescriptive. Another recommended including some of the framework’s cost parameters into project proformas. Drawing attention to the co-benefits of IBAMA with respect to other BC Housing goals was also suggested.  Experts noted that timing and accountability were critical to the success of effective implementation. They stressed the importance of outlining specific project team member responsibilities into IBAMA, citing the effectiveness of LEED® in helping teams establish goals and linking them to specific deliverables at various project phases. Similarly, BC Housing has existing project milestones and associated deliverables that IBAMA deliverables could be aligned with.   Of significant concern was how the framework could bridge the gap between design, construction, and operations. Several participants noted the need for building manager and operator training on the basics of adaptation and mitigation, along with a dedicated IBAMA building manual or checklist to ensure strategies remain effective throughout project occupancy.   Questions were raised about the logistics of implementing IBAMA given that the framework straddles the traditional boundaries, scale and scope of multi-unit residential projects. Some felt that the neighbourhood resilience assessment and identification of neighbourhood assets and risks should fall under the purview of municipal or regional governments. BC Housing stakeholders stressed the need to frame the neighbourhood resilience assessment as a tool for general inquiry from the municipality. 106  4.4.5 Other Considerations Other considerations included taking into account the soft costs of implementing the framework when determining budgets for consultant fees, as well as ensuring project development briefs require that the framework be used early in the design process.  One expert suggested that the framework identify quantifiable outcomes or metrics to establish the degree of adaptation or resilience of a project, as is the case in sustainability or mitigation metrics such as LEED® and the BC Energy Step Code. However, given the uncertainty and variability associated with adaptation, as well the multiple permutations of goals and solutions that could result from the flexible format of IBAMA, this would involve a separate research initiative beyond the scope of this project.  4.5 Phase Two – Development of Draft Framework Tools Following input from the stakeholder workshop and BC Housing meeting, the draft IBAMA framework tools were developed. These included a high-level short primer, a detailed step-by-step reference guide, and an Excel-based input tool to accompany the reference guide.   4.5.1 Revised Framework Structure and Parameters Some adjustments were made to the framework structure and parameters based on feedback received. The framework process diagram was simplified and organized into twelve parameter categories, or sequential steps, that are grouped into five stages: A) Information Gathering, B) Evaluation of Assets and Risks, C) Development of Goals and Strategies, D) Evaluation of Strategies, and E) Adjustment and re-evaluation of strategies (Figure 4.2). Evaluation of project strategies’ impacts on neighbourhood resilience was eliminated to contain the project team’s scope of work, but was suggested by a stakeholder as a topic for future research. 107   Figure 4.2 Updated IBAMA Process Diagram  Other structural adjustments included developing adaptation and mitigation/sustainability goals concurrently before determining strategies (Steps 8 and 9), evaluating both types of strategies using integrated criteria (Step 12), enabling project owners to weight specific evaluation criteria according to their priorities, and emphasis on the iterative nature of the evaluation process through verification of the strategies at multiple project milestones.   Many of the additional parameters recommended by stakeholders were added, including those related to health, building management, emergency management, community resources, and cost metrics. Assessment of compounding hazards and trade-offs between adaptation strategies for different hazards were also incorporated.   4.5.2 Draft IBAMA Primer  The IBAMA Primer (Appendix A) was developed in response to stakeholder feedback recommending a short, high-level document to be used as a departure point for project teams to 108  explore mitigation and adaptation goals and strategies. This tool is targeted to those who have more basic knowledge about mitigation and adaptation. The primer follows the twelve sequential steps of the framework using a simplified process with a limited amount of analysis. It is to be used in an early project stakeholder meeting or workshop where teams would collectively brainstorm, discuss climate mitigation and adaptation issues, and set a direction for the project.   4.5.3 Draft IBAMA Reference Guide The IBAMA reference guide (Appendix B) is a comprehensive document that provides detailed guidance on using the framework throughout the pre-design, design, construction and occupancy phases of multi-unit residential projects. It is organized according to the framework’s steps, and also includes an introductory section and appendices.  The introductory section provides instructions on how to use the reference guide. It explains the intent of the framework, overall structure of the document and chapters, and function of the Excel tool. It also includes a summary of the framework categories and sub-categories, an explanation of scoring and performance metrics, recommended project team members and integrated team meetings, associated deliverables for each project phase, and a glossary of terms.  Each of the main sections of the reference guide is structured as follows: • Section Description – Overview of the purpose, intent and objectives of the section.  • Parameters – Information inputs, assessments or evaluations required. Instructions are provided on how to complete fields, as well as suggestions for which parties are responsible for their completion. This information is typically input into the IBAMA Excel tool and updated as the project evolves.  • Reference Standards – Documents and standards that were used either to help develop the parameters and/or can serve as references when completing the parameter fields.  109  • Additional Resources – Additional reference materials and technical resources that may be helpful for completing inputs or making decisions regarding goals or strategies.  • Case Study Example – Where applicable, a step-by-step example of how parameters can be completed or developed using a BC Housing project or local case study. Examples are hypothetical and do not necessarily represent actual project designs or evaluations. • Recommended Documentation and Deliverables – Suggested deliverables at each project milestone, and parties responsible for documentation. This includes deliverables during construction and after project occupancy.  4.5.4 Draft IBAMA Excel Tool The Excel tool was created as a master document to input project information related to each step of the IBAMA process. The tool is designed to be used in concert with the reference guide. It is divided into tabs that follow the twelve sections of the framework. Specific inputs in earlier sections are linked to subsequent tabs to facilitate assessment and evaluation. Several sections have pull-down menus where team members are asked to evaluate, rank, or select the most appropriate option. Selection from a pull-down menu typically translates into a score that is used as part of the assessment process.   Integrated evaluation of proposed adaptation, mitigation or sustainability strategies is carried out in Section 12 of the tool. The process involves the project owner first allocating 200 points across various evaluation criteria in accordance with their highest priorities (Section 12a). There are 21 evaluation criteria distributed amongst six categories: Climate Adaptation, Climate Mitigation and Sustainability, Technical Requirements, Project Requirements, Direct Costs, and Indirect Costs. Supplementary evaluation criteria can be added at the discretion of the project 110  team. Given the intent of IBAMA, a minimum of 25 points each must be allocated to the criteria of ‘Meeting Climate Adaptation Goals’ and ‘Meeting Climate Mitigation and Sustainability Goals’.   The project team then evaluates, on a ranking from high to low, how well a proposed strategy meets each of the 21 criteria. Once the evaluation is completed, a score is generated for each strategy and weighted according to the criteria prioritized by the owner. This score also includes a score for each of the six evaluation criteria categories. Outputs also include a bar chart comparing the total scores between strategies and a radar chart comparing strategies’ scores in each criteria category (Figure 4.3). This enables project teams to more objectively identify whether strategies are synergistic or conflicting with respect to climate mitigation and adaptation goals.   Figure 4.3 Radar Chart Comparing Adaptation Strategies for a Hazard Scenario  111  4.6 Phase Three – Feedback on Draft Framework Tools Survey responses and feedback on the draft framework tools emphasized IBAMA’s clarity, logic, organization, and comprehensiveness. However, there were concerns about the complexity of the Reference Guide and Excel tool, and whether project teams had sufficient knowledge, time and financial resources to effectively implement the process. The BC Housing workshop revealed the opportunity to standardize some components of the framework while still enabling the necessary flexibility. BC Housing stakeholders also raised relevant questions and suggestions regarding the implementation of IBAMA on future projects.  4.6.1 Survey – IBAMA Primer Survey responses generally noted that the IBAMA Primer’s flow, objectives and metrics were clear and logically organized. There was one suggestion to modify the IBAMA process diagram into an infographic to make it more accessible to users, and another to separate evaluation of design strategies from operations and maintenance solutions.  A few respondents highlighted the need to include an introduction outlining the intended use of the document as well as the overall value proposition. One stakeholder mentioned that the primer was presented without sufficient context and therefore wouldn’t engage the reader. An expanded introductory section proving additional context, explicit links to the IBAMA reference guide and a glossary of terms would help to address these issues.   4.6.2 Survey – IBAMA Reference Guide While most respondents felt that the reference guide structure was clear and comprehensive, there were concerns about the document’s length. One stakeholder felt that there were too many parameters, while another suggested creating an abbreviated version of the reference guide. 112  There were also recommendations to subdivide the evaluation section (Section 12), add graphics to facilitate wayfinding, and move the blank input tables in each section to an appendix.  There were several comments related to specific content within the reference guide. One respondent questioned who would fill the role of a neighbourhood representative to assist with the neighbourhood resilience assessment. Another suggested additional references to BC standards and requirements to include in the Reference Standards sections, and also questioned the incorporation of US standards and references. This points to the need to clarify that intended users of the document can be from jurisdictions outside of British Columbia, and potentially separately categorize non-Canadian references within each section of the document.   Other suggestions related to content included expanding the introductory section to explain the value proposition for using IBAMA, requiring concurrent investigation of multiple climate scenarios in the Climate Parameters section, differentiating slow onset hazards from extreme events, expanding equity and health criteria, incorporating regenerative potential, and including specific examples of synergistic strategies.   4.6.3 Survey – IBAMA Excel Tool Feedback on the Excel tool was similar to that of the Reference Guide. Survey respondents typically noted that the structure and metrics were clear and had a high level of detail. However, there was concern that there might be too much detail and time involved in using the tool, especially if most of the work is intended to be carried out early in the design process.   With respect to content, there were some specific suggestions such as including additional graphic elements, adding a glossary within the spreadsheet, enabling assessment of bundled groups of strategies, and incorporating a cost-benefit analysis section. 113  4.6.4 Survey – Effective Implementation of IBAMA  Comments on how to effectively implement the framework pertained to improving education, instituting mandates, and testing the process through pilots. One respondent noted that the existing knowledge levels and capacities of design team members may inhibit effective use of the tools. Another stressed the need for much more training, particularly for building owners who ultimately drive project decisions. Other stakeholders echoed this viewpoint, but also felt that regulatory requirements were necessary to drive the process, whether through the building code, construction permits or BC Housing mandates. Three respondents expressed the importance of testing IBAMA on a pilot project(s) to determine potential adjustments, as well as to increase awareness and interest amongst industry stakeholders.  Appropriate timing with respect to project milestones was also discussed. One respondent emphasized that for effective implementation, IBAMA should be used primarily in the pre-design phase, either in the development of the project’s program or the owner’s project requirements. They recommended moving some of the tasks assigned to schematic design or design development to this earlier phase.   Respondents also noted challenges related to project scope. Some felt it was important to determine approximate soft costs and time associated with implementing IBAMA, as they could be significant for a single building or smaller project. One respondent was concerned about who would complete the neighbourhood level assessment, given it would be outside the scope of a building design team. To mitigate these scope and cost limitations, another stakeholder suggested that IBAMA would be more effectively implemented on a larger project such as multi-building development, or across a portfolio of buildings.   114  4.6.5 Survey – Inclusion of Non-climate Hazards The question of incorporating non-climate hazards in IBAMA was raised prior to the onset of COVID-19. BC Housing is already investigating earthquake resilience along with multiple climate hazards as part of their MBAR process. Interpretation of what constituted a climate hazard was also mentioned, with one survey participant noting that the World Health Organization highlighted an increase in infectious diseases that may be linked to climate change (World Health Organization, 2012). Another respondent indicated that the IBAMA acronym might create confusion as it doesn’t include the term climate, suggesting that non-climate hazards are already included in the framework.   Opinions on whether to incorporate non-climate hazards such as COVID-19 into IBAMA were mixed. Some respondents felt that it would be excessive to include other hazards, given the breadth and complexity of the current framework design. Other suggestions were to include a short COVID-related section in the reference guide focusing on neighbourhood parameters, or to  consider pandemics in the Climate Hazards section, perhaps as part of a multi-hazard analysis. A few stakeholders suggested more detailed recommendations, such as reviewing health frameworks in order to include additional parameters or adding references to COVID-related solutions in the Resources section of applicable reference guide chapters. Emphasis on design for flexibility was mentioned as an important approach to developing pandemic-related solutions.  One respondent remarked that the current format of IBAMA can already help create institutional knowledge about resources in the building and neighbourhood, which would serve as a reference for non-climate hazards. They suggested that the IBAMA process require creating a list of these resources and sharing it with the surrounding community or municipality.  115  4.6.6 BC Housing Workshop Feedback Feedback from BC Housing stakeholders pertained both to suggested framework modifications and to effective implementation of IBAMA on future projects.  Recommended modifications to the framework included additional parameters such as more specific details about zoning and official community plan requirements, desired building features, and inclusion of an Indigenous lens. To facilitate use of IBAMA, some stakeholders also suggested standardizing information for BC Housing projects and pre-populating the Excel tool wherever possible, such as for climate scenarios, lifespan of building components, occupant essential needs, and for some hazards. However, other participants stressed the need for flexibility based on a project’s unique circumstances. Finally, participants suggested including more guidance on how to carry out the hazard assessment, neighbourhood resilience assessment and strategy evaluation steps of the framework.   Participants also noted the challenge of carrying out neighbourhood resilience assessments. While this information was deemed to be valuable, BC Housing does not typically have the capacity to undertake this type of evaluation, nor would all information needed to do so be readily available. As such, suggestions included a provincial mandate requiring municipalities to report on neighbourhood resilience, carrying out a partial assessment as part of a project’s community engagement process, and enabling project teams to prioritize a few key neighbourhood parameters that they could assess.  For effective implementation of IBAMA, stakeholders recommended including municipal and provincial governments in next steps to create supporting mandates, as well as professional organizations who could issue official draft guidelines. Above all, participants felt that testing IBAMA on a BC Housing pilot project was the appropriate next step towards broad application. 116  4.6.7 Summary of Feedback  Stakeholder feedback on the draft IBAMA tools revealed some key factors necessary for effective integration of climate mitigation and adaptation considerations into urban multi-unit residential buildings. These included ensuring that the framework is initially implemented in the pre-design phase by an integrated project team, testing the framework on pilot projects, addressing scope issues related to the neighbourhood resilience assessment, and appropriately allocating the costs of implementing IBAMA into project budgets.  On a broader level, respondents stressed the need for more training on climate adaptation for owners and project team members, integration of adaptation processes into regulatory  requirements, and increasing promotion within the building industry on the value of integrating climate mitigation and adaptation.  4.6.8 Final IBAMA Documents  The IBAMA framework documents were revised based on the feedback received in Phase Three. While many of the suggestions were incorporated, some were beyond the scope of this thesis and should be developed in future versions of the framework. The revised IBAMA Primer and Reference Guide can be found in Appendices A and B.  117  Chapter 5: Conclusions 5.1 Discussion The main objective of this research was to develop a framework and process to support integrated climate adaptation and mitigation decision-making at the building and neighbourhood scales, specifically with respect to urban multi-unit residential buildings (MURBs). Research questions asked how the design process for MURBs could effectively integrate both mitigation and adaptation considerations, and how interactions between mitigation and adaptation strategies could be consistently evaluated to inform more integrated and synergistic decision-making. An integrated building assessment framework, systematic methodology, and tools for evaluating mitigation and adaptation strategies were successfully developed.   However, striking the appropriate balance between simplicity and sufficient comprehensiveness was a challenge. Knowledge of adaptation and resilience across the industry is still at an early stage, where data is limited and where introducing too much complexity may lead to confusion, and potentially rejection by project teams. Most building projects are staffed with a standard consultant team that may not have all the expertise needed to carry out a meaningful IBAMA assessment. In addition, the framework is intended to be used by a comprehensive integrated project team primarily in early project phases, which traditionally have shorter durations, smaller budget allocations, and a more restricted number of team members than they do in later phases.  As such, stakeholders will need to shift mindsets and evolve practices to effectively implement IBAMA. A broader range of expertise is needed as compared to a typical building design and construction project, which will require adjustments for owners and project teams. This first iteration of IBAMA will evolve as it is piloted, regional differences are elaborated, traditional project boundaries are tested, and stakeholder aptitudes are better understood.  118  How the adaptive mitigation process can be effectively implemented and achieve desired outcomes remains a critical question. Findings from the interviews, survey, and BC Housing workshop point to challenges such as constraints on project resources; current governance structures; limited awareness, knowledge and expertise; and outmoded financing, design and construction processes. This points to the need for additional mandates, initiatives, and resources from governments; education on adaptive mitigation, and advocacy of alternative project delivery methods from industry associations; and tools that reduce financial barriers and demonstrate the value proposition of integrating climate mitigation and adaptation.  5.1.1 Role of Governments While governments in the two regions investigated have robust climate action plans and pioneering climate mitigation regulations, emissions reductions from the building sector remain well below stated targets. Governments have also started to adopt some adaptation and resilience policies and practices that impact the building scale, primarily in response to hazards that have already occurred. However, much remains to be carried out in order to integrate long-term adaptation and resilience into standard design and construction processes.   Governments can accelerate effective implementation of integrated building adaptation and mitigation in several ways. Overcoming typical siloes between mitigation and adaptation departments is an important step. While a few stakeholders interviewed felt that keeping them distinct was necessary, others noted advantages to combining efforts. For example, departmental integration could help optimize strategies such as New York City’s Cooling Assistance Benefit, which provides funding for low-income residents to purchase an air conditioner (City of New York, 2020). If adaption and mitigation mandates had been coordinated, more energy efficient cooling units using less impactful refrigerants could be procured for the program. The City of Vancouver’s 119  One Water cross-departmental water strategy is a useful model for considering how mitigation and adaptation initiatives could be integrated within government agencies (City of Vancouver, 2019c).   The research revealed that while multi-scalar neighbourhood and infrastructure resilience assessments are important for developing effective adaptation strategies at the building scale, there is a scope gap with respect to who should undertake them. Municipal and regional governments would be best suited to commission these assessments, identify priorities, and fund improvements to neighbourhood infrastructure and critical facilities to better support building-scale adaptation and mitigation efforts.  Providing data, standardized tools and financial resources to project teams is another area where  assistance from multiple levels of government is needed. This includes future climate data, hazard projections and maps that can be used for design purposes, multi-hazard assessment scenarios, standards such as New York City’s Climate Resiliency Design Guidelines (NYC Mayor’s Office of Recovery and Resiliency, 2019), and financially-oriented incentives to help offset potential cost increases.   For effective implementation, data and incentives should be coupled with well-crafted mandates, such as requiring an integrated climate adaptation–mitigation brief as part of the development permitting process, as well as adequate enforcement measures (Neuberger, 2018). In addition, municipalities should ensure that there is an expedient mechanism for resolving regulatory conflicts and identifying potential modifications, whether they be between mitigation and adaptation requirements, or with respect to other types of building regulations. 120  5.1.2 Role of Industry Associations The research findings exposed the need for modifications to traditional building design and construction processes in order to increase the chances of achieving integrated adaptation and mitigation objectives. Echoing conclusions found in the literature (Darko & Chan, 2017; Franz et al., 2017; Li et al., 2019; Venkataraman & Cheng, 2018), this involves front-loading the design process, early goal setting, greater project team integration, and higher levels of communication amongst team members. Industry associations can help shift the current paradigm by promoting, demystifying and incentivizing the use of alternative project delivery methods (Ebrahimi, 2018; Gunhan, 2019) that facilitate a more integrated approach. These methods enable early inclusion of the contractor or construction manager, greater weighting of consultant fees to early project stages, more iterative cost modeling, and alternative contractual relationships.   The expert interviews and survey revealed that insufficient awareness, education and training were also significant obstacles to implementation. An understanding of adaptation and resilience is still nascent among design professionals and owners, as are aspects of climate mitigation such as embodied carbon. Similar to efforts made to advance green building education, industry associations are well positioned to create and provide training and accreditation programs on adaptive mitigation using resources such as IBAMA and the array of documents that helped inform its development.   5.1.3 Financial Considerations IBAMA was conceived to enable development for a range of mitigation and adaptation goals and strategies in response to the unique context of each project. This flexibility is particularly important for affordable housing projects, which often have constrained construction and/or operating budgets. In order to manage costs, proposed solutions can be design or operations-121  related and can leverage community assets through a better understanding of the neighbourhood. While this flexible approach can help minimize additional construction costs, it does expand the pre-design process and can increase consultant fees. Though these fees are relatively small as compared to overall construction costs, implementing IBAMA may exceed typical fee allocations, particularly those for pre-design and early design phases. General contractors would likely add a separate documentation fee during construction, as is typically done on LEED® projects.   This points to the need for financial tools and case study examples that can more clearly articulate to owners the value proposition of implementing integrated mitigation and adaptation on projects. Mitigation and some sustainability goals are often mandated, with associated costs already built into project budgets. Proposed mitigation strategies can also be assessed using lifecycle cost analysis (LCCA) tools based on energy cost savings paybacks. However, financial assessment of adaptation and resilience strategies is more challenging and includes factors such as the probability and degree of future damage, costs associated with potential loss of use, future benefits, and external societal costs not borne directly by the owner or developer. Governments, the insurance industry, and building industry associations can partner to develop standards, economic analysis tools, and case studies to help building owners better understand the related costs, benefits, and risks of various adaptation and resilience approaches. Furthermore, insurance models need to shift towards addressing risk over the full lifespan of a building and incentivize implementation of resilient design strategies through reductions in insurance premiums.  By exploring the relationship between the building and its surrounding neighbourhood, the IBAMA process also reveals questions about where a community’s financial resources should be allocated. Does it make more sense for a few new buildings to be highly resilient, to make broader but less resilient improvements to existing buildings within the neighbourhood, or to levy a tax to develop 122  a local resilience hub? In addition, which parties bear the costs of which adaptation and resilience measures requires negotiation. For example, if a neighbourhood’s stormwater system is aging and outdated, do the building owners bear the cost of additional flood resilience measures to protect their asset? Can a new building support an aging neighbourhood by providing a resilience space for emergency management in exchange for lower property taxes? While answers will vary depending upon the regional context and governance structure, IBAMA’s neighbourhood resilience analysis component can serve as a starting point for these discussions.  5.1.4 Considerations for Initial Implementation As was the case with the first green building projects, implementing IBAMA will likely require more effort and entail higher costs for early adopters. Because of this, it might be practical to initially employ it on larger projects that inherently benefit from more resources, economies of scale, and more sophisticated project management systems. On larger projects, additional consultant fees can be more easily absorbed and typically represent a smaller percentage of total project costs. Multi-building developments would be ideal for early implementation of IBAMA as they also broach the neighbourhood and infrastructure scales, enabling better trials of the neighbourhood resilience assessment. Early implementation of IBAMA may also be suited for owners and public agencies with portfolios of projects or buildings, where analysis and lessons learned on one project could be more broadly applied, and where projects could serve as a testing ground prior to developing broader mandates. However, established institutional procurement processes may impede implementation on larger scale and/or public projects (Ebrahimi, 2018).  5.2 Research Limitations There were various limitations to the scope of this research that can point to opportunities for further investigation. Documents reviewed were those typically used in U.S. and Canadian 123  contexts. Policy documents primarily focused on British Columbia, with select evaluation of policies in New York City and Toronto. A review of documents from other leading-edge regions, particularly those in Europe and Asia, would help to refine and enrich the IBAMA framework.  Although there were 22 interview subjects, they were still limited in number given the breadth of industry expertise being sought out. As such, there was only partial redundancy of expert type (e.g. architect, engineer, owner, etc.), which likely resulted in some degree of bias and a lack of diversity in perspectives. In addition, contractor, building management and resident stakeholders were not represented. Those interviewed were deemed to be experts about mitigation and/or adaptation and were situated in regions noted to be at the leading-edge in the advancement of climate policy. Interviews with less experienced stakeholders, those in construction and operations, and experts from other regions, especially ones that have experienced severe hazard events, would provide additional insights. These stakeholders may have other perspectives regarding IBAMA’s complexity, how it could be applied in less advanced climate policy contexts, and about effective approaches or lessons learned during the construction and occupancy phases of a project.    Another limitation is the extent to which the framework’s methodology can be generalized. IBAMA was conceived as a climate-focused framework that targets new multi-unit residential buildings. While it can be adjusted to assess existing MURBs through some minor changes, modifications related to other building and hazard types would require additional research to adequately adapt the process and parameters.   Practical limitations may also exist that restrict effective implementation of IBAMA. These include the lack of available data in some regions, especially at the neighbourhood scale, which would inhibit a thorough assessment and where further research is merited. 124  5.3 Recommendations for Future Research  Development of IBAMA was a first attempt to provide an integrated framework for implementing building-scale mitigation and adaptation strategies. In addition to the suggestions outlined in Section 5.2, there are multiple research opportunities that can stem from this work. A logical next step would be case study research (Groat & Wang, 2013) on the application of IBAMA to project pilots, in order to understand the effectiveness of the framework over the course a building design and construction process. Testing the applicability of the framework across a range of physical contexts, hazards, and building typologies would enable further refinement, development of additional parameters, and potentially result in broader applicability. Case study research would facilitate documentation of detailed examples of interactions between mitigation and adaptation strategies. The effectiveness of these strategies could also be assessed with respect to differences in climate, region, building type and associated infrastructure.  Further investigation of the framework’s parameters and evaluation metrics is also needed. This includes how to more objectively assess specific neighbourhood resilience parameters, as well as proposed mitigation and adaptation strategies. Information is also lacking on methods to appropriately weight hazard assessment criteria. While a points-based rating system may not necessarily be suitable, there is also demand for research into quantifiable metrics or outcomes that help assess the overall resilience of a building with respect to various hazards.  Lastly, research on interactions between the building and neighbourhood scales should be expanded. For example, the initial IBAMA framework structure included steps to determine how the outcomes of a building project contributed to, or detracted from, the resilience of a neighbourhood. While these steps were eliminated due to scope limitations, understanding the nexus between residents, buildings and their neighbourhoods was found to be important for 125  optimizing mitigation and adaptation solutions. In particular, the role of and requirements for neighbourhood resilience hubs, community centres and critical facilities merits further investigation. A regenerative design approach (Cole, 2012) would be beneficial for deeper explorations into building-neighbourhood dynamics.  5.4 Conclusion Conflicts between adaptation and mitigation strategies are already occurring, whether they pertain to flood protection materials that contain high embodied carbon emissions, building electrification strategies that don’t adequately consider power infrastructure resilience, or installation of cooling systems without passive design measures that first reduce loads. Building systems may be designed to be highly integrated and efficient but lack the necessary redundancy to minimize risks, or conversely, be overly redundant and result in high environmental impacts. While not all solutions can be synergistic, frameworks such as IBAMA will help raise important questions and expose the trade-offs and challenges associated with addressing the wicked problem of climate change. In addition, combining adaptation and mitigation can also help leverage one paradigm to support the other.   Perhaps the most salient insight from the adaptive mitigation research process is the need to shift from a primarily boundary-based design approach towards a linkages-based model that helps to strengthen relationships between people, buildings, their neighbourhoods and the infrastructure that serves them. While the realities of typical project sites, scopes, budgets and schedules necessitate that boundaries be established, more clearly positioning a building and its occupants as participants within a greater system will help prioritize how to best allocate limited resources and expand the thinking required to develop more effective climate solutions.  126  Bibliography Adabre, M. A., & Chan, A. P. C. (2019). Critical success factors (CSFs) for sustainable affordable housing. Building and Environment, 156(March), 203–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2019.04.030 Adger, W. N. (2000). Social and ecological resilience: are they related? Progress in Human Geography, 24(3), 347–364. Adger, W. N. (2006). Vulnerability. Global Environmental Change, 16(3), 268–281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.02.006 Alliance for National and Community Resilience. (2019). The Community Resilience Benchmarks. Retrieved from http://media.iccsafe.org/2016_MarComm/16-13282_GR_ANCR_Website/pdf/ANCR_Merged.pdf Almufti, I., Willford, M., Delucchi, M., Davis, C., Hanson, B., Langdon, D., … Mote, T. (2013). REDi Rating System. Retrieved from https://www.arup.com/perspectives/publications/research/section/redi-rating-system Amaru, S., & Chhetri, N. B. (2013). Climate adaptation: Institutional response to environmental constraints, and the need for increased flexibility, participation, and integration of approaches. Applied Geography, 39, 128–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2012.12.006 American Society of Heating Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers. (2017). Sustainability. In 2017 ASHRAE Handbook: Fundamentals (pp. 35.1-35.12). Atlanta, GA: American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt1xhr7d5.38 ARUP, & The Rockefeller Foundation. (2016). City Resilience Index: Understanding and Measuring City Resilience. ARUP International Development, 47. https://doi.org/London, United Kingdom Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response. (n.d.). Healthcare and Public Health Risk Identification and Site Criticality (RISC) Toolkit Threat / Hazard Assessment Module (THAM). Bagheri, M., Delbari, S. H., Pakzadmanesh, M., & Kennedy, C. A. (2019). City-integrated renewable energy design for low-carbon and climate-resilient communities. Applied Energy, 239, 1212–1225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.02.031 Bartos, M., Chester, M., Johnson, N., Gorman, B., Eisenberg, D., Linkov, I., & Bates, M. (2016). Impacts of rising air temperatures on electric transmission ampacity and peak electricity load in the United States. Environmental Research Letters, 11, 1–13. Retrieved from https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/11/114008/pdf BC Housing. (2019). Mobilizing Building Adaptation and Resilience (MBAR). Retrieved July 8, 2020, from https://www.bchousing.org/research-centre/library/residential-design-construction/MBAR BC Ministry of Environment. (2010). Preparing for Climate Change: British Columbia’s Adaptation Strategy. https://doi.org/10.2307/1310640 BC Ministry of Environment. (2016). Indicators of Climate Change for British Columbia: Update 2016. https://doi.org/ISBN 0-7726-4732-1 BC Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy. (2019). Preliminary Strategic Climate Risk Assessment for British Columbia. Berawi, M. A., Basten, V., Latief, Y., & Crévits, I. (2020). Role of green building developer and owner in sustainability construction: Investigating the relationships between green building key success factors and incentives. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 426(1), 0–9. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/426/1/012061   127  Blackwelder, A. (2019, February 20). Revised LEED Resilient Design pilot credits now available . Retrieved June 19, 2020, from https://www.usgbc.org/articles/revised-leed-resilient-design-pilot-credits-now-available Blaikie, P., Cannon, T., Davis, I., & Wisner, B. (1994). At Risk - Natural Hazards, People’s Vulnerability and Disasters. London: Routledge. Bocchini, P., Frangopol, D. M., Ummenhofer, T., & Zinke, T. (2014). Resilience and sustainability of civil infrastructure: Toward a unified approach. Journal of Infrastructure Systems, 20(2), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)IS.1943-555X.0000177 Bonham, M. Ben. (2013). Leading by example: New professionalism and the government client. Building Research and Information, 41(1), 77–94. https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2013.743251 Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa. Brown, T. W., Bischof-Niemz, T., Blok, K., Breyer, C., Lund, H., & Mathiesen, B. V. (2018). Response to ‘Burden of proof: A comprehensive review of the feasibility of 100% renewable-electricity systems.’ Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 92(February), 834–847. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.04.113 Burroughs, S. (2017). Development of a Tool for Assessing Commercial Building Resilience. Procedia Engineering, 180, 1034–1043. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2017.04.263 C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group. (2018). Adaptation and Mitigation Interaction Assessment (AMIA) tool. Retrieved October 11, 2020, from https://www.c40knowledgehub.org/s/article/Adaptation-and-Mitigation-Interaction-Assessment-AMIA-tool?language=en_US Campos, I., Vizinho, A., Coelho, C., Alves, F., Truninger, M., Pereira, C., … Penha Lopes, G. (2016). Participation, scenarios and pathways in long-term planning for climate change adaptation. Planning Theory and Practice, 17(4), 537–556. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2016.1215511 Canadian Wood Council. (2018). Mid-Rise Best Practice Guide. Carou, F. (2016). Minimum backup power guidelines for MURBs. Toronto. Retrieved from https://www.toronto.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/91ca-Minimum-Backup-Power-Guideline-for-MURBs-October-2016.pdf CDP. (2019). Cities A List 2019. Retrieved July 8, 2020, from https://www.cdp.net/en/cities/cities-scores#46f3ea056caa3126b91f3f70beea068c Champagne, C. L., & Aktas, C. B. (2016). Assessing the Resilience of LEED Certified Green Buildings. Procedia Engineering, 145, 380–387. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2016.04.095 Chang, S. E., Yip, J. Z. K., & Tse, W. (2018). Effects of urban development on future multi-hazard risk: the case of Vancouver, Canada. Natural Hazards, (0123456789). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-018-3510-x Charoenkit, S., & Kumar, S. (2014). Environmental sustainability assessment tools for low carbon and climate resilient low income housing settlements. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 38, 509–525. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.06.012 Cherry, E., & Petronis, J. (2016). Architectural Programming. Retrieved July 9, 2020, from https://www.wbdg.org/design-disciplines/architectural-programming Christensen, P. H., Robinson, S. J., & Simons, R. A. (2018). The influence of energy considerations on decision making by institutional real estate owners in the U.S. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.05.061   128  Christiansen, L., Martinez, G., & Naswa, P. (Eds.). (2018). Development of universal metrics for adaptation effectiveness. Adaptation metrics: Perspectives on measuring, aggregating and comparing adaptation results. Copenhagen, DK: UNEP DTU Partnership. Cimellaro, G. P., Asce, A. M., Renschler, C., Reinhorn, A. M., Asce, F., & Arendt, L. (2016). PEOPLES: A Framework for Evaluating Resilience. Journal of Structural Engineering, 142(10), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001514 City of New York. (n.d.). Our Current Affordable Housing Crisis. Retrieved July 8, 2020, from https://www1.nyc.gov/site/housing/problem/problem.page City of New York. (2020). Cooling Assistance Benefit. Retrieved August 26, 2020, from https://access.nyc.gov/programs/cooling-assistance-benefit/ City of Vancouver. (2012). Climate Change Adaptation Strategy. Vancouver, BC. Retrieved from https://vancouver.ca/files/cov/Vancouver-Climate-Change-Adaptation-Strategy-2012-11-07.pdf City of Vancouver. (2015). Greenest City 2020 Action Plan. Vancouver, BC. Retrieved from https://vancouver.ca/files/cov/Greenest-city-action-plan.pdf City of Vancouver. (2016). Zero Emissions Building Plan. Vancouver, BC. Retrieved from https://vancouver.ca/files/cov/zero-emissions-building-plan.pdf City of Vancouver. Green Buildings Policy for Rezoning - Process and Requirements (2017). Vancouver, BC. Retrieved from http://bylaws.vancouver.ca/Bulletin/G002_2017April28.pdf City of Vancouver. (2017b). Renewable City Action Plan. Vancouver, BC. Retrieved from http://vancouver.ca/files/cov/renewable-city-action-plan-november-2017.pdf City of Vancouver. (2017c). Resilient Neighbourhoods Program: Kick-off Workshop Report. Vancouver, BC. City of Vancouver. (2018a). 2018 Climate Change Adaptation Strategy Update. Vancouver, BC. Retrieved from https://council.vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/20181205/documents/cfsc1.pdf City of Vancouver. (2018b). Greenest City 2020 Action Plan - 2017-2018 Implementation Update. Vancouver, BC. Retrieved from https://vancouver.ca/files/cov/greenest-city-action-plan-implementation-update-2017-2018.pdf City of Vancouver. Higher Buildings Policy (2018). Vancouver, BC: Vancouver City Council. Retrieved from https://guidelines.vancouver.ca/H005.pdf City of Vancouver. (2018d). Vancouver’s Changing Shoreline. City of Vancouver. Retrieved from https://vancouver.ca/files/cov/vancouvers-changing-shoreline.pdf City of Vancouver. (2019a). Climate Emergency Response. Vancouver, BC. Retrieved from https://council.vancouver.ca/20190424/documents/cfsc1.pdf City of Vancouver. (2019b). Greenest City 2020 Action Plan - 2018-2019 Implementation Update. Vancouver, BC. Retrieved from https://vancouver.ca/green-vancouver/vancouvers-climate-emergency.aspx?utm_campaign=climate-emergency&utm_medium=Vanity&utm_source=climate-emergency_Vanity#redirect City of Vancouver. (2019c). One Water. Retrieved August 26, 2020, from https://vancouver.ca/home-property-development/one-water.aspx City of Vancouver. (2019d). Resilient Neighbourhoods Toolkit. Vancouver, BC. Retrieved from https://vancouver.ca/people-programs/resilient-neighbourhoods-program.aspx#toolkit City of Vancouver. (2019e). Resilient Vancouver Strategy. Vancouver, BC. Retrieved from https://council.vancouver.ca/20190423/documents/rr1.pdf Cole, R. J. (2012). Transitioning from green to regenerative design. Building Research and Information, 40(1), 39–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2011.610608 129  Collier, F., Hambling, J., Kernaghan, S., Kovacevic, B., Miller, R., Pérez, A. P., … Macmillan, S. (2014). Tomorrow’s cities: a framework to assess urban resilience. Urban Design and Planning, 167(DP2), 79–91. https://doi.org/10.1680/udap.13.00019 Cutter, S. L., Ash, K. D., & Emrich, C. T. (2014). The geographies of community disaster resilience. Global Environmental Change, 29, 65–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.08.005 Cutter, S. L., Barnes, L., Berry, M., Burton, C., Evans, E., Tate, E., & Webb, J. (2008). A place-based model for understanding community resilience to natural disasters. Global Environmental Change, 18(4), 598–606. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2008.07.013 Dang, H. H., Michaelowa, A., & Tuan, D. D. (2003). Synergy of adaptation and mitigation strategies in the context of sustainable development: the case of Vietnam. Climate Policy, 3S1, S81–S96. Darko, A., & Chan, A. P. C. (2017). Review of Barriers to Green Building Adoption. Sustainable Development, 25(3), 167–179. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.1651 Davis, L. W., & Gertler, P. J. (2015). Contribution of air conditioning adoption to future energy use under global warming. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(19), 5962–5967. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1423558112 Demuzere, M., Orru, K., Heidrich, O., Olazabal, E., Geneletti, D., Orru, H., … Faehnle, M. (2014). Mitigating and adapting to climate change: Multi-functional and multi-scale assessment of green urban infrastructure. Journal of Environmental Management, 146, 107–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.07.025 Doan, D. T., Ghaffarianhoseini, A., Naismith, N., Zhang, T., Ghaffarianhoseini, A., & Tookey, J. (2017, October 1). A critical comparison of green building rating systems. Building and Environment. Elsevier Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2017.07.007 Dosa, D., Hyer, K., Thomas, K., Swaminathan, S., Feng, Z., Brown, L., & Mor, V. (2012). To evacuate or shelter in place: Implications of universal hurricane evacuation policies on nursing home residents. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association, 13(2), 190.e1-190.e7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamda.2011.07.011 Duguma, L. A., Minang, P. A., & Van Noordwijk, M. (2014). Climate change mitigation and adaptation in the land use sector: From complementarity to synergy. Environmental Management, 54(3), 420–432. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-014-0331-x Dyer, G., & Dyer, M. (2017). Strategic leadership for sustainability by higher education: the American College & University Presidents’ Climate Commitment. Journal of Cleaner Production, 140, 111–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2015.08.077 Ebrahimi, G. (2018). Stakeholder Perspectives on Adoption of Integrated Project Delivery (IPD). The University of British Columbia. Engel-Yan, J., Kennedy, C., Saiz, S., & Pressnail, K. (2005). Toward sustainable neighbourhoods: the need to consider infrastructure interactions. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 32, 45–57. https://doi.org/10.1139/L04-116 Engineers Canada. (2016). Public Infrastructure Engineering Vulnerability Committee (PIEVC) Assessment Protocol. Retrieved from https://pievc.ca/documents Enright, P. (2018). Proposed Energy Efficiency and Water Updates to the Vancouver Building By-law and Rezoning Policy. City of Vancouver. Retrieved from https://vancouver.ca/files/cov/final-consultation-letter-energy-and-water-updates-to-bylaw-and-rezoning-policy.pdf   130  Enterprise Community Partners. (2015a). 2015 Enterprise Green Communities Criteria. Washington, DC. Retrieved from https://www.enterprisecommunity.org/sites/default/files/media-library/solutions-and-innovation/green/ecp-2015-criteria-manual-11-15.pdf Enterprise Community Partners. (2015b). Ready to Respond - Strategies for Multifamily Building Resilience. Washington, DC. Retrieved from https://www.enterprisecommunity.org/download?fid=2154&nid=4325 Federal Emergency Management Agency. (2010). Natural Hazards and Sustainability for Residential Buildings (FEMA P-798). Washington, DC. Retrieved from https://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/documents/19750 FireSmart Canada. (n.d.). FireSmart Home Development Guide. Retrieved from https://www.firesmartcanada.ca/mdocs-posts/firesmart-home-development-guide/ Ford, J. D., & Berrang-Ford, L. (2016). The 4Cs of adaptation tracking: consistency, comparability, comprehensiveness, coherency. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 21(6), 839–859. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-014-9627-7 Franz, B., Leicht, R., Molenaar, K., & Messner, J. (2017). Impact of Team Integration and Group Cohesion on Project Delivery Performance. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 143(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001219 Glaeser, E. L., Kahn, M. E., & Rappaport, J. (2008). Why do the poor live in cities? The role of public transportation. Journal of Urban Economics, 63, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jue.2006.12.004 Göpfert, C., Wamsler, C., & Lang, W. (2019). A framework for the joint institutionalization of climate change mitigation and adaptation in city administrations. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 24, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-018-9789-9 Gorman, J. D. (2020, February 6). Environmental Groups Seek to Stop NYC Seawall Construction. Courthouse News Services. Retrieved from https://www.courthousenews.com/environmental-groups-seek-to-stop-nyc-seawall-construction/ Government of British Columbia. (2016). Climate Leadership Plan. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0967-0637(99)00042-4 Government of British Columbia. (2017). BC Energy Step Code - A Best Practices Guide for Local Governments. Grafakos, S., Trigg, K., Landauer, M., Chelleri, L., & Dhakal, S. (2019). Analytical framework to evaluate the level of integration of climate adaptation and mitigation in cities. Climatic Change, 154(1–2), 87–106. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-019-02394-w Graves, R., Weber, W., & Kutschke, L. (2018). Resilient Adaptation of Sustainable Buildings. Saint Paul, Minnesota. Green Business Certification Inc. (2018). PEER Rating System. Groat, L. N., & Wang, D. (2013). Case studies and combined strategies. In Architectural research methods (pp. 415–451). Retrieved from https://ezp.lib.unimelb.edu.au/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=cat00006a&AN=melb.b4817576&scope=site Gunhan, S. (2019). Analyzing Sustainable Building Construction Project Delivery Practices: Builders’ Perspective. Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction, 24(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)SC.1943-5576.0000397 Gurstein, P., LaRocque, E., & MacDonald, R. (2018). No Vacancy. High Rent. Low Vacancy. Growing Homelessness, 34.   131  Hamin, E. M., & Gurran, N. (2009). Urban form and climate change: Balancing adaptation and mitigation in the U.S. and Australia. Habitat International, 33(3), 238–245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2008.10.005 Han, H. (2019). Governance for green urbanisation: Lessons from Singapore’s green building certification scheme. Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space, 37(1), 137–156. https://doi.org/10.1177/2399654418778596 Haynes, K., Coates, L., Leigh, R., Handmer, J., Whittaker, J., Gissing, A., … Opper, S. (2009). “Shelter-in-place” vs. evacuation in flash floods. Environmental Hazards, 8(4), 291–303. https://doi.org/10.3763/ehaz.2009.0022 Hills, J. M., Μichalena, E., & Chalvatzis, K. J. (2018). Innovative technology in the Pacific: Building resilience for vulnerable communities. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 129(February), 16–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.01.008 Holden, M., Li, C., & Molina, A. (2015). The emergence and spread of ecourban neighbourhoods around the world. Sustainability (Switzerland), 7(9), 11418–11437. https://doi.org/10.3390/su70911418 Holling, C. S. (1973). Resilience and Stability of Ecological Systems. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 4, 1–23. Hosseini, S., Barker, K., & Ramirez-Marquez, J. E. (2016). A review of definitions and measures of system resilience. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 145, 47–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2015.08.006 Hrabovszky-Horváth, S., Pálvölgyi, T., Csoknyai, T., & Talamon, A. (2013). Generalized residential building typology for urban climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies: The case of Hungary. Energy & Buildings, 62, 475–485. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2013.03.011 Hui Liu, S., Rahmawati, Y., & Amila Wan Abdullah Zawawi, N. (2019). Critical success factors of collaborative approach in delivering sustainable construction. MATEC Web of Conferences, 270, 05003. https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/201927005003 Hunt, A., & Watkiss, P. (2011). Climate change impacts and adaptation in cities: a review of the literature. Climatic Change, 104, 13–49. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-010-9975-6 Hurricane Sandy’s Impact, By The Numbers. (2013, October 29). Retrieved March 9, 2019, from https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/29/hurricane-sandy-impact-infographic_n_4171243.html Hussain, A., Bui, V. H., & Kim, H. M. (2019). Resilience-Oriented Optimal Operation of Networked Hybrid Microgrids. IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, 10(1), 204–215. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSG.2017.2737024 Institute for Sustainable Infrastructure. (2018). ENVISION - Sustainable Infrastructure Framework. Washington, DC: Institute for Sustainable Infrastructure. Retrieved from www.sustainableinfrastructure.org Insurance Information Institute. (2020). Facts + Statistics: U.S. catastrophes. Retrieved April 5, 2019, from https://www.iii.org/fact-statistic/facts-statistics-us-catastrophes Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety (IBHS). (2019). The FORTIFIED HomeTM–Hurricane standard. Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety (IBHS). Retrieved from https://disastersafety.org/wp-content/uploads/FORTIFIED-Home-Hurricane-Standards-2019.pdf Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (n.d.). IPCC DDC Glossary. Retrieved July 24, 2020, from https://www.ipcc-data.org/guidelines/pages/glossary/glossary_r.html Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, & Houghton, J. T. (1990). IPCC first assessment report. Geneva. 132  International Code Council. (2018). International Energy Conservation Code Adoption Map. Retrieved September 8, 2019, from https://www.iccsafe.org/wp-content/uploads/Code_Adoption_Maps.pdf International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies. (2000). Disaster Emergency Needs Assessment - Disaster Preparedness Training Programme. International Living Future Institute. (2014). Living Building Challenge 3.0. Seattle, WA: International Living Future Institute. Retrieved from http://living-future.org/sites/default/files/reports/FINAL LBC 3_0_WebOptimized_low.pdf Keating, A., Campbell, K., Mechler, R., Magnuszewski, P., Mochizuki, J., Liu, W., … McQuistan, C. (2017). Disaster resilience: what it is and how it can engender a meaningful change in development policy. Development Policy Review, 35(1), 65–91. https://doi.org/10.1111/dpr.12201 Keenan, J. M. (2014). Material and Social Construction: A Framework for the Adaptation of Buildings. Enquiry: A Journal for Architectural Research, 11(1), 18–32. https://doi.org/10.17831/enq:arcc.v11i1.271 Keenan, J. M. (2016). From sustainability to adaptation: Goldman Sachs corporate real estate strategy. Building Research and Information, 44(4), 407–422. https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2016.1085260 Kesik, T., & O’Brien, L. (2017). MURB Design Guide. Toronto. Retrieved from https://www.daniels.utoronto.ca/faculty/kesik_t/MURB-Design-Guide/MURB-Design-Guide-v1.0-Jan2017.pdf Kontokosta, C. E., & Malik, A. (2018). The Resilience to Emergencies and Disasters Index : Applying big data to benchmark and validate neighborhood resilience capacity. Sustainable Cities and Society, 36, 272–285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2017.10.025 Krause, R. M. (2011). Policy innovation, intergovernmental relations, and the adoption of climate protection initiatives by u.s. cities. Journal of Urban Affairs, 33(1), 45–60. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9906.2010.00510.x Kurth, M. H., Keenan, J. M., Sasani, M., & Linkov, I. (2019). Defining resilience for the US building industry. Building Research and Information, 47(4), 480–492. https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2018.1452489 Kwok, A. H., Paton, D., Becker, J., Hudson-doyle, E. E., & Johnston, D. (2018). A bottom-up approach to developing a neighbourhood-based resilience measurement framework. Disaster Prevention and Management, 27(2), 255–270. https://doi.org/10.1108/DPM-07-2017-0169 Landauer, M., Juhola, S., & Klein, J. (2019). The role of scale in integrating climate change adaptation and mitigation in cities. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 62(5), 741–765. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2018.1430022 Landauer, M., Juhola, S., & Söderholm, M. (2015). Inter-relationships between adaptation and mitigation: a systematic literature review. Climatic Change, 131(4), 505–517. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-015-1395-1 Laukkonen, J., Blanco, P. K., Lenhart, J., Keiner, M., Cavric, B., & Kinuthia-Njenga, C. (2009). Combining climate change adaptation and mitigation measures at the local level. Habitat International, 33(3), 287–292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2008.10.003 Lee, S., & Lee, B. (2014). The influence of urban form on GHG emissions in the U.S. household sector. Energy Policy, 68, 534–549. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2014.01.024 Li, Y., Song, H., Sang, P., Chen, P. H., & Liu, X. (2019). Review of Critical Success Factors (CSFs) for green building projects. Building and Environment, 158(January), 182–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2019.05.020 133  Liang, S., & Fu, Y. (2018). Otter.ai [Computer Software]. Lindell, M. K. (2019). Emergency Management: Shelter In-Place. In Encyclopedia of Security and Emergency Management (pp. 1–5). Springer Nature. Lu, Y., Sood, T., Chang, R., & Liao, L. (2020). Factors impacting integrated design process of net zero energy buildings: an integrated framework. International Journal of Construction Management, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2020.1742625 Magnan, A. (2014). Avoiding maladaptation to climate change: towards guiding principles. SAPIENS, 7(1), 1–10. Marchese, D., Reynolds, E., Bates, M. E., Morgan, H., Clark, S. S., & Linkov, I. (2018). Resilience and sustainability: Similarities and differences in environmental management applications. Science of the Total Environment, 613–614, 1275–1283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.09.086 Matthews, E. C., Friedland, C. J., & Orooji, F. (2016). Integrated environmental sustainability and resilience assessment model for coastal flood hazards. Journal of Building Engineering, 8, 141–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2016.08.002 Matthews, E. C., Sattler, M., & Friedland, C. J. (2014). A critical analysis of hazard resilience measures within sustainability assessment frameworks. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 48, 59–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2014.05.003 Mcevoy, D., Lindley, S., & Handley Obe, J. (2006). Adaptation and mitigation in urban areas: synergies and conflicts. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Municipal Engineer, 159(4), 185–191. Retrieved from http://www.adamproject.eu McKibbin, W. J., & Wilcoxen, P. J. (2004). Climate policy and uncertainty: the roles of adaptation versus mitigation. Brookings Discussion Papers in Internation Economics, (161), 1–21. Retrieved from file:///Articles/2004/McKibbin/Brookings Discussion Papers in Internation Eco-2.pdf Meacham, B. J. (2016). Sustainability and resiliency objectives in performance building regulations. Building Research & Information, 44(5–6), 474–489. https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2016.1142330 Meerow, S., & Newell, J. P. (2016). Urban resilience for whom, what, when, where, and why? Urban Geography, 00(00), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/02723638.2016.1206395 Metro Vancouver. (2016). Climate Projections for Metro Vancouver. Vancouver, BC. Retrieved from http://www.metrovancouver.org/services/air-quality/AirQualityPublications/ClimateProjectionsForMetroVancouver.pdf Mutani, G., & Todeschi, V. (2018). Energy resilience, vulnerability and risk in urban spaces. Journal of Sustainable Development of Energy, Water and Environment Systems, 6(4), 694–709. https://doi.org/10.13044/J.SDEWES.D6.0211 National Institute for Standards and Technology. (2016). Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems Volume II. https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1190v2 Neuberger, M. (2018). Renovation Permits and the Challenge of Reducing Emissions from Legacy Buildings. The University of British Columbia. New York City Department of Environmental Protection. (2015). NYC Green Infrastructure: 2015 Annual Report. New York City Housing Authority. (2019). Sheltering Seniors from Extreme Heat. New York City. New York City Mayor’s Office. (2019). OneNYC 2050 - A Liveable Climate (Vol. 7). New York City. New York City Mayor’s Office of Sustainability. (2016). New York City’s Roadmap to 80 x50, 133. Retrieved from https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/sustainability/downloads/pdf/publications/New York City’s Roadmap to 80 x 50_20160926_FOR WEB.pdf 134  Norman, J., MacLean, H. L., & Kennedy, C. A. (2006). Comparing High and Low Residential Density: Life-Cycle Analysis of Energy Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 132(1), 10–21. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9488(2006)132:1(10) Nowell, L. S., Norris, J. M., White, D. E., & Moules, N. J. (2017). Thematic Analysis: Striving to Meet the Trustworthiness Criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406917733847 NYC Department of City Planning. (2017). NYC Flood Hazard Mapper. Retrieved June 19, 2020, from https://www1.nyc.gov/site/planning/data-maps/flood-hazard-mapper.page NYC Department of City Planning. (2019). Zoning for Coastal Flood Resiliency. New York City. Retrieved from www.nyc.gov/zcfr NYC Mayor’s Office of Recovery and Resiliency. (2019). Climate Resiliency Design Guidelines - Version 3.0. New York City. Retrieved from https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/orr/pdf/NYC_Climate_Resiliency_Design_Guidelines_v3-0.pdf Onat, N. C., Egilmez, G., & Tatari, O. (2014). Towards greening the U.S. residential building stock.A system dynamics approach. Building and Environment, 78, 68–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2014.03.030 Ortiz, L., González, J. E., & Lin, W. (2018). Climate change impacts on peak building cooling energy demand in a coastal megacity. Environmental Research Letters, 13(9), 094008. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aad8d0 Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions. (2020). Opportunity Projects Program. Retrieved July 8, 2020, from https://pics.uvic.ca/programs/opportunity-projects-program Palermo, V., Walsh, C. L., Dawson, R. J., Fichera, A., & Inturri, G. (2018). Multi-sector mitigation strategies at the neighbourhood scale. Journal of Cleaner Production, 187, 893–902. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.03.223 Passive House Institute. (2016). Criteria for the Passive House, EnerPHit and PHI Low Energy Building Standard v.9f. Darmstadt, Germany. Retrieved from www.passivehouse.com Phillips, R., Troup, L., Fannon, D., & Eckelman, M. J. (2017). Do resilient and sustainable design strategies conflict in commercial buildings? A critical analysis of existing resilient building frameworks and their sustainability implications. Energy and Buildings, 146, 295–311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2017.04.009 QSR International LLC. (2018). NVivo 12 Pro Qualitative Data Analysis [Computer Software]. Qualtrics. (2019). Qualtrics XM [Computer Software]. Provo, Utah. Rajkovich, N. B., Tuzzo, M. E., Heckman, N., Gilman, K. M. E., Bohm, M., & Tanner, H.-R. (2018). Climate Resilience Strategies for Buildings in New York State. Albany, NY. Retrieved from http://ap.buffalo.edu/content/dam/ap/PDFs/NYSERDA/Climate-Resilience-Strategies-for-Buildings.pdf Raouf, A. M., & Al-Ghamdi, S. G. (2019). Effectiveness of Project Delivery Systems in Executing Green Buildings. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 145(10), 03119005. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)co.1943-7862.0001688 Redman, C. L. (2014). Should sustainability and resilience be combined or remain distinct pursuits? Ecology and Society, 19(2). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-06390-190237 Retzlaff, R. C. (2008). Green building assessment systems: A framework and comparison for planners. Journal of the American Planning Association, 74(4), 505–519. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944360802380290   135  Retzlaff, R. C. (2009). The Use of LEED in Planning and Development Regulation. Journal of Planning and Education Research, 29, 67–77. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X09340578 Roostaie, S., Nawari, N., & Kibert, C. J. (2019). Sustainability and resilience: A review of definitions, relationships, and their integration into a combined building assessment framework. Building and Environment, 154(March), 132–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2019.02.042 Rose, A., & Liao, S. (2005). Modeling Regional Economic Resilience to Disasters: A Computable General Equilibrium Analysis of Water Service Disruptions. Journal of Regional Science, 45, 75–112. Rosenzweig, C., Solecki, W. D., Romero-Lankao, P., Mehrotra, S., Dhakal, S., & Ali Ibrahim, S. (2018). Climate Change and Cities: Second Assessment Report of the Urban Climate Change Research Network. In C. Rosenzweig, W. D. Solecki, P. Romero-Lankao, S. Mehrotra, S. Dhakal, & S. Ali Ibrahim (Eds.) (p. 811). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316563878 Sample, J. E., Duncan, N., Ferguson, M., & Cooksley, S. (2015). Scotland’s hydropower: Current capacity, future potential and the possible impacts of climate change. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 52, 111–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.07.071 Satow, J. (2013, January 11). Post-Sandy the Generator Is Machine of the Moment - The New York Times. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/13/realestate/post-sandy-the-generator-is-machine-of-the-moment.html Schensul, S. L., Schensul, J. J., & LeCompte, M. D. (1999). Semistructured Interviewing. In Essential Ethnographic Methods (pp. 149–164). Walnut Creek: AltaMira Press. Senate Canada. (2018). Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emission from Canada’s Built Environment. Ottawa, Canada. Retrieved from sencanada.ca/en/Committees/enev/Reports/42-1 Sharifi, A. (2016). A critical review of selected tools for assessing community resilience. Ecological Indicators, 69, 629–647. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.05.023 Sharifi, A., & Yamagata, Y. (2014). Major Principles and Criteria for Development of an Urban Resilience Assessment Index. In ICUE 2014 (pp. 19–21). Shaw, A., Burch, S., Kristensen, F., Robinson, J., & Dale, A. (2014). Accelerating the sustainability transition: Exploring synergies between adaptation and mitigation in British Columbian communities. Global Environmental Change, 25(1), 41–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.01.002 Solecki, W., Seto, K. C., Balk, D., Bigio, A., Boone, C. G., Creutzig, F., … Zwickel, T. (2015). A conceptual framework for an urban areas typology to integrate climate change mitigation and adaptation. Urban Climate, 14, 116–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.uclim.2015.07.001 Spencer, B., Lawler, J., Lowe, C., Thompson, L. A., Hinckley, T., Kim, S. H., … Voss, J. (2017). Case studies in co-benefits approaches to climate change mitigation and adaptation. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 60(4), 647–667. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2016.1168287 Tang, Z., Dai, Z., Fu, X., & Li, X. (2013). Content analysis for the U.S. coastal states’ climate action plans in managing the risks of extreme climate events and disasters. Ocean and Coastal Management, 80, 46–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2013.04.004   136  Taylor, A., Downing, J., Hassan, B., Denton, F., & Downing, T. E. (2007). Supplementary material to chapter 18: Inter-relationships between adaptation and mitigation. In M. L. Parry, O. F. Canziani, J. P. Palutikof, P. J. van der Linden, & C. E. Hanson (Eds.), Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (p. 745). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. The City of New York. (2016). 2016 Energy Conservation Code. Retrieved November 3, 2019, from https://www1.nyc.gov/site/buildings/codes/energy-conservation-code.page The City of New York. (2017a). Cool Neighborhoods NYC. New York City. Retrieved from https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/orr/pdf/Cool_Neighborhoods_NYC_Report_FINAL.pdf The City of New York. (2017b). Inventory of New York City Greenhouse Gas Emissions in 2016. New York City. Retrieved from https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/sustainability/downloads/pdf/publications/GHG Inventory Report Emission Year 2016.pdf The City of New York. (2018a). NYC Recovery - Sandy Funding Tracker Maps. Retrieved November 5, 2019, from https://www1.nyc.gov/content/sandytracker/pages/interactive-maps The City of New York. (2018b). OneNYC - 2018 Progress Report. New York City. Retrieved from https://onenyc.cityofnewyork.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/OneNYC_Progress_2018-2.pdf The New York City Council. New York City - Local Law 31 (2016). New York City, United States: New York City Council. The New York City Council. New York City - Local Law 32 (2016). New York City: New York City Council. Tol, R. S. J. (2005). Adaptation and mitigation: Trade-offs in substance and methods. Environmental Science and Policy, 8(6), 572–578. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2005.06.011 U.S. Green Building Council. (2016a). LEED Pilot Credits for Resilience. Retrieved from http://www.usgbc.org/credits/enhancedresilience U.S. Green Building Council. (2016b). LEED Reference Guide for Neighborhood Development v4. Washington, DC. Retrieved from https://www.usgbc.org/resources/leed-reference-guide-neighborhood-development-0 U.S. Green Building Council. (2018a). LEED v4 Homes Design and Construction. Washington, DC. Retrieved from https://www.usgbc.org/sites/default/files/LEED v4 Homes_10.5.18_current_0.pdf U.S. Green Building Council. (2018b). RELi 2.0 - Rating Guidelines for Resilient Design & Construction. Washington, DC: U.S. Green Building Council. Retrieved from https://www.usgbc.org/resources/reli-20-rating-guidelines-resilient-design-and-construction U.S. Green Building Council. (2019). LEED v4.1 Building Design and Construction - Beta. Washington, DC. Retrieved from https://new.usgbc.org/leed-v41 Uda, M., & Kennedy, C. (2015). A framework for analysing neighbourhood resilience. Urban Design and Planning, 168(3), 129–145. https://doi.org/10.1680/udap.14.00028 Uda, M., & Kennedy, C. (2018). Evaluating the Resilience of Sustainable Neighborhoods by Exposing LEED Neighborhoods to Future Risks. Journal of Infrastructure Systems, 24(4), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)IS.1943-555X.0000443. UN Environment and International Energy Agency. (2017). Towards a zero-emission, efficient, and resilient buildings and construction sector. Global Status Report 2017. Retrieved from www.globalabc.org 137  United Nations. (1992). United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. United Nations. (1998). Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. United Nations. (2015). Paris Agreement. Urban Green Council. (n.d.). Building Resiliency Task Force Proposal Tracker. Retrieved June 19, 2020, from https://www.urbangreencouncil.org/resiliencytracker Urban Green Council. (2010). NYC Green Codes Task Force Report - Executive Summary. New York City. Retrieved from http://urbangreencouncil.org/content/projects/green-codes-task-force Urban Green Council. (2013). Building Resiliency Task Force Report. New York City. Urban Green Council. (2014). Baby, It’s Cold Inside. New York City. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0197-2510(08)70066-4 Urban Green Council. (2019a). Advancing Electrification. Retrieved June 19, 2020, from https://www.urbangreencouncil.org/content/projects/advancing-electrification Urban Green Council. (2019b). NYC Building Emissions Law Summary. Retrieved from https://www.urbangreencouncil.org/sites/default/files/urban_green_council_building_emissions_law_summary_v2.pdf Vale, L. J., Shamsuddin, S., Gray, A., & Bertumen, K. (2014). What Affordable Housing Should Afford: Housing for Resilient Cities. Cityscape: A Journal of Policy Development and Research , 16(2), 21–50. van der Heijden, J. (2015). On the potential of voluntary environmental programmes for the built environment: a critical analysis of LEED. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 30(4), 553–567. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10901-014-9428-z Venkataraman, V., & Cheng, J. C. P. (2018). Critical Success and Failure Factors for Managing Green Building Projects. Journal of Architectural Engineering, 24(4), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)AE.1943-5568.0000327 Vierra, S. (2019). Green Building Standards and Certification Systems. Retrieved August 16, 2020, from https://www.wbdg.org/resources/green-building-standards-and-certification-systems Viguié, V., & Hallegatte, S. (2012). Trade-offs and synergies in urban climate policies. Nature Climate Change, 2, 334–337. https://doi.org/10.1038/NCLIMATE1434 Walsh, C. L. et al. (2011). Assessment of climate change mitigation and adaptation in cities. Urban Design and Planning, 164(DP2), 75–84. https://doi.org/10.1680/udap.2011.164.2.75 Walsh, C. L. et al. (2013). Experiences of integrated assessment of climate impacts, adaptation and mitigation modelling in London and Durban. Environment and Urbanization, 25(2), 361–380. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956247813501121 Wang, J. (2019). British Columbia’s Forest Fires, 2018. Ottawa. Waterfront Alliance. (2018). Waterfront Edge Design Guidelines. New York City. Retrieved from waterfrontalliance.org/WEDG Watkiss, P., Benzie, M., & Klein, R. J. T. (2015). The complementarity and comparability of climate change adaptation and mitigation. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 6(6), 541–557. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.368 Weisbrod, C. (2016). Resilient Neighborhoods - East Village, Lower East Side, Two Bridges. New York City. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvc7724d.22 Wilbanks, T. J., Leiby, P., Perlack, R., Ensminger, T. J., & Wright, S. B. (2007). Toward an integrated analysis of mitigation and adaptation: some preliminary findings. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 12, 713–725. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-007-9095-4 138  Wilbanks, T. J., & Sathaye, J. (2007). Integrating mitigation and adaptation as responses to climate change: A synthesis. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 12(5), 957–962. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-007-9108-3 Wilson, A. (2015, November 13). LEED Pilot Credits on Resilient Design Adopted! . Retrieved June 19, 2020, from https://www.resilientdesign.org/leed-pilot-credits-on-resilient-design-adopted/ World Commission on Environment and Development. (1987). Our common future. Oxford: Oxford University Press. World Health Organization. (2012). Climate change and human health - risks and responses. Summary. - Climate change and infectious diseases. Retrieved from https://www.who.int/globalchange/summary/en/index5.html Yan, M., He, Y., Shahidehpour, M., Ai, X., Li, Z., & Wen, J. (2018). Coordinated Regional-District Operation of Integrated Energy Systems for Resilience Enhancement in Natural Disasters. IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, 10(5), 4881–4892. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSG.2018.2870358 Zhao, D., McCoy, A. P., & Smoke, J. (2015). Resilient Built Environment: New Framework for Assessing the Residential Construction Market. Journal of Architectural Engineering, 21(4), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)AE.1943-5568.0000177 139  Appendices Appendix A  – IBAMA Primer    © 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Primer – Version 1.0 1  Integrated Building Adaptation & Mitigation Assessment (IBAMA) Primer  The Integrated Building Adaptation and Mitigation Assessment (IBAMA) framework is a tool to assist BC Housing project teams as well as other building industry stakeholders in BC, Canada, and beyond; to help increase their multi-unit residential building’s resilience to climate hazards (adaptation) while optimizing GHG reduction (mitigation) and sustainability goals. IBAMA was conceived for new construction projects but can be adapted for retrofits and renovations.  Why IBAMA? There are many policies and systems that focus on climate mitigation/sustainability in buildings, and a growing number of guidelines and frameworks that address climate adaptation/resilience. However, most don’t adequately integrate mitigation/sustainability with adaptation/resilience approaches. This lack of integration can result in unintended consequences such as increased greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, augmented risks, negative health outcomes, maladaptation, and added costs. By using IBAMA, project teams can investigate interactions between adaptation and mitigation strategies to maximize synergies, minimize conflicts, identify trade-offs, and achieve more holistic solutions.  What is IBAMA? IBAMA is a roadmap and flexible decision-making tool rather than a checklist or set of prescriptive requirements. It is a step-by-step process that enables teams to respond to the unique context, vulnerabilities and circumstances of their project such as the location, potential climate hazards, occupant demographics, budgets, and management structures.  When are the various IBAMA tools used? This document is a primer for introducing the IBAMA process at initial ownership discussions or project team meetings in the pre-design stage. The IBAMA reference guide and IBAMA Excel tool are more comprehensive documents that map out a detailed process for using the framework, team roles and responsibilities, milestones and deliverables. They should serve as the main resources throughout the project’s development and can also be consulted for additional information and references when using the IBAMA Primer. How is IBAMA organized? The IBAMA framework consists of twelve sequential parts grouped into five stages:  A. Information gathering on the project, climate scenarios, key hazards, and neighbourhood resilience. B. Evaluation of project and neighbourhood assets and risks. C. Development of adaptation, mitigation and sustainability goals and strategies. D. Evaluation of proposed adaptation, mitigation and sustainability strategies to determine viability . E. Adjustment of non-viable strategies and re-evaluation.  © 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Primer – Version 1.0 2  Integrated Building Adaptation & Mitigation Assessment (IBAMA) Primer When using this primer, refer to the IBAMA reference guide for additional information and resources if needed.  1. Project Information & Vulnerabilities What are the key program and project requirements? • Project purpose & principles:  • Program: • Budget: • MEP, security, and other technical: • Building performance: • Operations & Maintenance: • Occupant health & well-being: What are your project’s vulnerabilities?  Vulnerability is the degree to which a system, or part of it, may react adversely during the occurrence of a hazardous event.  • Physical vulnerabilities (Site, Infrastructure, Adjacencies): • Resident/Occupant Vulnerabilities: • Operational/Management Vulnerabilities: • Economic Vulnerabilities: • Other Vulnerabilities:    © 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Primer – Version 1.0 3  Integrated Building Adaptation & Mitigation Assessment (IBAMA) Primer 2. Project Lifespan & Climate Projections What is the anticipated lifespan of your project?  What is the anticipated lifespan of the following project systems? It is important to consider the distinct lifespans of the main building systems in order to optimize the project’s design for the duration of each system, as well as to consider how the systems work together as a whole.   6-18. Pace Layering in Buildings (Brand) ©Peter Morville, CC BY-NC 2.0 • Structure: • Enclosure: • HVAC: • Plumbing: • Electrical: • Site infrastructure: Which future climate scenarios and historical climate data do you anticipate using for the design of the project?  Future climate scenarios include Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) 2.6, RCP 4.5, RCP 6, and RCP 8.5. It is important to consider both current climate and future projections when developing the project’s design.  If you are not familiar with climate projection scenarios, consult with your municipality, an adaptation consultant, or the Pacific Impacts Climate Consortium. Climate projections for Metro Vancouver can be found here:  http://www.metrovancouver.org/services/air-quality/AirQualityPublications/ClimateProjectionsForMetroVancouver.pdf Is there a climate analog location (see Glossary for definition) that can be referenced?   © 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Primer – Version 1.0 4  Integrated Building Adaptation & Mitigation Assessment (IBAMA) Primer 3. Climate Hazards Based on the climate projections for the future climate scenario selected: • What are the top three anticipated climate hazards?  In determining the top hazards, consider factors such as hazard frequency, severity, duration, recovery time, project exposure, and hazard impacts. 1.               2.              3.              • Describe any compounding hazards. Compounding Hazards are multiple natural or climate hazards occurring concurrently or at around the same time.               • Describe any cascading impacts related to the above hazards. Cascading Impacts are the secondary impacts or hazards from an initial natural or climate hazard event.  Hazard 1 1.              2.              3.               Hazard 2 1.              2.              3.               Hazard 3 1.              2.              3.               Compounding Hazards 1.              2.              3.              • Based on current or historical weather data, are there any additional hazards that should be considered for the project?   © 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Primer – Version 1.0 5  Integrated Building Adaptation & Mitigation Assessment (IBAMA) Primer 4. Neighbourhood Resilience How resilient is the project’s neighbourhood to the hazards listed above?   Resilience should be evaluated with respect to each hazard on a scale of 1-5 where 1= lowest resilience & 5= highest resilience. Consider time factors with respect to the lifespan of the project. See IBAMA Reference Guide Section 4 for further guidance on how to evaluate neighbourhood resilience and which stakeholders should be involved in the evaluation.   Categories Hazard 1 Hazard 2 Hazard 3 Compounding Hazards Other Hazard Describe Hazard      Infrastructure (stormwater, sanitation, roads, power, water, communications, etc.)      Built Environment  (public buildings, services, community buildings, hospitals, etc.)      Natural Environment (air quality, water quality, open space, green space, land area at risk, etc.)      Transportation (bus, subway, train, bicycle network, walkability, points of entry to neighbourhood)      Government, Community & Health Services  (emergency management, community organizations, social services, health services, community health, businesses & retail, etc. )      Population  (age, language, family type, minorities, gender, POC, disabilities, etc.)      Local Economy (income, employment, home ownership, etc.)          © 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Primer – Version 1.0 6  Integrated Building Adaptation & Mitigation Assessment (IBAMA) Primer 5. Neighbourhood Assets Identify any potential neighbourhood assets that could be beneficial to the project with respect to the hazards identified.   List assets in left column and check off which hazards they apply to. See IBAMA Reference Guide Section 5 for case study examples of neighbourhood assets.   Neighbourhood Assets Hazard 1 Hazard 2 Hazard 3 Compounding Hazards Other Hazard                                                                   © 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Primer – Version 1.0 7  Integrated Building Adaptation & Mitigation Assessment (IBAMA) Primer 6. Neighbourhood Vulnerabilities & Risks Based on the neighbourhood resilience assessment, list key neighbourhood vulnerabilities. For each vulnerability, rate the level of risk to the neighbourhood with respect to each of the hazards listed.    See IBAMA Reference Guide Section 6  for further references on neighbourhood vulnerabilities and risks.   Risk levels should be evaluated with respect to each hazard on a scale of 1-5 where 1= low risk & 5= very high risk. Neighbourhood Vulnerabilities Risk Level  to Hazard 1 Risk Level to Hazard 2 Risk Level to Hazard 3 Risk Level  to Compounded Hazards Risk Level to Other Hazard                                                                  © 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Primer – Version 1.0 8  Integrated Building Adaptation & Mitigation Assessment (IBAMA) Primer 7. Project Risks Identify the highest project risks based on the combined assessment of the project vulnerabilities in Section 1 and each hazard listed. Include any neighbourhood risks that significantly impact the project.    See IBAMA Reference Guide Section 7  for further references on project vulnerabilities and risks.   Risk levels should be evaluated with respect to each hazard on a scale of 1-5 where 1= low risk & 5= very high risk. Project Vulnerabilities Risk Level  to Hazard 1 Risk Level to Hazard 2 Risk Level to Hazard 3 Risk Level  to Compounded Hazards Risk Level to Other Hazard                                                                 © 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Primer – Version 1.0 9  Integrated Building Adaptation & Mitigation Assessment (IBAMA) Primer 8. Climate Adaptation & Resilience Goals Based on the highest project risks identified in Section 7 and keeping in mind the highest neighbourhood risks identified in Section 6, list the project’s adaptation goals. Goals can refer to the occupants, physical assets, or other factors. Hazard Risk Goals                              For goals that are occupant-related, determine the essential needs for occupants during and after the hazard. List essential needs in left column and check off which hazards they apply to. Essential Needs Hazard 1 Hazard 2 Hazard 3 Compounded Hazards Other Hazard                          © 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Primer – Version 1.0 10  Integrated Building Adaptation & Mitigation Assessment (IBAMA) Primer 9. Climate Mitigation & Sustainability Goals List the key climate mitigation goals for the project. Focus on specific & measurable goals rather than general certifications. Mitigation goals can be categorized as either Operational GHG reductions, Renewable energy generation, Embodied GHG reductions (GHG emissions related to the construction, materials, and demolition of a building), and Sequestration (capturing GHG emissions). 1.              2.              3.              4.              5.               List the key sustainability goals for the project. Goals not captured under climate mitigation would likely fall under categories such as Location & Site, Water, Materials, Human & Public Health, Indoor Environment or Community & Equity. 1.              2.              3.              4.              5.              6.              7.              8.              9.              10.                  © 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Primer – Version 1.0 11  Integrated Building Adaptation & Mitigation Assessment (IBAMA) Primer 10. Climate Adaptation & Resilience Strategies Based on the goals in Section 8 and taking into  consideration the project’s purpose and principles listed in Section 1, develop a list of potential adaptation and resilience strategies. Consider strategies that pertain to design and construction, management and operations, and neighbourhood assets/risks in Sections 5 & 6.  When proposing strategies, keep in mind climate projections over the project’s and building systems’ lifespans, as well as  limitations related to proposed solutions, such as time or reliance on external services. Verify that proposed strategies for each hazard meet regulatory requirements, the project requirements in Section 1, and do not conflict with adaptation and resilience goals for the other main hazards. Hazard Climate Adaptation & Resilience Goals Proposed Adaptation & Resilience Strategies                                       © 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Primer – Version 1.0 12  Integrated Building Adaptation & Mitigation Assessment (IBAMA) Primer 11. Climate Mitigation & Sustainability Strategies Based on the goals in Section 9 and taking into  consideration the project’s purpose and principles listed in Section 1, develop a list of potential climate mitigation and sustainability strategies. Consider strategies that pertain to design and construction as well as management and operations. Strategies should take into account the changing climate throughout the building’s lifespan. When proposing strategies keep in mind climate projections over the project’s and building systems’ lifespans, as well as time and other limitations. Verify that the proposed strategies meet regulatory requirements, the project requirements in Section 1, and do not conflict with other mitigation and sustainability goals. Mitigation or Sustainability Goals Proposed Mitigation & Sustainability Strategies                       © 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Primer – Version 1.0 13  Integrated Building Adaptation & Mitigation Assessment (IBAMA) Primer 12a. Evaluation of Strategies – Adaptation  Evaluate each of the proposed adaptation strategies for each hazard to determine how well they meet the following six criteria. Criteria deemed not significant to the owner can be eliminated. Use multiple copies of the table if needed.  Evaluation scale: 1-5 where 1= Doesn’t sufficiently meet the criteria, 3= Somewhat meets the criteria, 5= Meets the criteria  Technical Requirements include simplicity of implementation, operations and maintenance, durability, and degree of independence from other systems and services. Project Requirements include the owner’s project requirements, project program, and occupant well-being. Direct Costs include design costs, construction costs, and operations & maintenance costs. Indirect Costs & Benefits are hazard-related costs not borne by or directed to the project owner or developer, but by or to entities external to the project such as municipalities or health services.  Adaptation Strategy Adaptation Goals Mitigation & Sustainability Goals Technical Requirements Project Requirements Direct Costs Indirect Costs & Benefits                                                            © 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Primer – Version 1.0 14  Integrated Building Adaptation & Mitigation Assessment (IBAMA) Primer 12b. Evaluation of Strategies – Mitigation & Sustainability  Evaluate each of the proposed mitigation and sustainability strategies to determine how well they meet the following six criteria. Criteria deemed not significant to the owner can be eliminated. Use multiple copies of the table if needed.  Evaluation scale: 1-5 where 1= Doesn’t sufficiently meet the criteria, 3= Somewhat meets the criteria, 5= Meets the criteria  Technical Requirements include simplicity of implementation, operations and maintenance, durability, and degree of independence from other systems and services. Project Requirements include the owner’s project requirements, project program, and occupant well-being. Direct Costs include design costs, construction costs, and operations & maintenance costs. Indirect Costs & Benefits are hazard-related costs not borne by the project owner but by entities external to the project, or additional co-benefits to the project or community.  Mitigation & Sustainability Strategy Adaptation Goals Mitigation & Sustainability Goals Technical Requirements Project Requirements Direct Costs Indirect Costs & Benefits                                                            © 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Primer – Version 1.0 15  Integrated Building Adaptation & Mitigation Assessment (IBAMA) Primer 12c. Selection of Adaptation, Mitigation & Sustainability Strategies  Select strategies for further development that meet the following criteria: • Minimum score of 3 in all categories AND • Minimum score of 4 in adaptation goals category AND • Minimum score of 4 in mitigation & sustainability goals category Strategies that do not meet the above criteria should be reassessed, and/or project goals re-evaluated. Selected Strategies Follow Up                             © 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Primer – Version 1.0 16  Integrated Building Adaptation & Mitigation Assessment (IBAMA) Primer Glossary of Terms  Cascading Impacts  The secondary impacts or hazards following an initial natural or climate hazard event. Examples include power outages due to wildfires, heavy rain causing landslides, reduced road and transportation access after flooding, or supply chain interruptions following an earthquake.   Climate Adaptation A gradual process of maintaining points of resilience to climate change that ultimately results in a future state of being. Climate Analog  Climate-analog mapping involves matching the expected future climate at a location with the current climate of another, potentially familiar, location - thereby providing a more relatable, place-based assessment of climate change. Climate Hazard   Agent of disaster for human settlements or to the environment. Includes wildfires, tropical cyclones, thunderstorms, tornadoes, drought, flooding, rain, hail, snow, lightning, fog, wind, temperature extremes, air pollution, and climatic change. Climate Mitigation Reducing of net greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to decrease global warming. Climate Resilience  The capacity of a building or community to absorb external climate stresses; retain function; reduce risk; and enable people, organizations, and systems to persist. Co-benefit  Benefit(s) of a mitigation and/or adaptation strategy that contributes to additional project or community goals.  Compounding Hazards (Synonyms: compounding processes, compounding events) The effects of multiple natural or climate hazard events occurring concurrently or at around the same time. Examples include wildfires occurring during periods of extreme heat and drought, with ensuing poor air quality.  A compounding hazard can also include the same hazard occurring multiple times within a short period, such as multiple heavy rainfalls over consecutive days. Conflict Adaptation action that has negative consequences for mitigation, or vice-versa. Embodied GHG Emissions          (or Embodied Carbon)                         The total impact of all the greenhouse gases emitted by the materials and construction of a building. This includes the impacts of sourcing raw materials, manufacturing, transportation, wastage, maintenance, repairs, and disposal or recovery. Equity  A concept concerned with the fair and equitable provision, implementation, and impact of services, programs, and policies for all community members. Independence from external systems/services The degree to which a strategy is reliant on the functioning of an externally provided system or service such as an electric utility, municipal transportation service, or community centre. Indirect Costs or Benefits Hazard-related costs or benefits that are not borne by or directed to the project owner or developer, but entities external to the project such as municipalities or health services.  Maladaptation Reducing short-term risk at the expense of long-term vulnerability, or increasing the vulnerability of other systems, sectors or social groups over any time horizon.    © 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Primer – Version 1.0 17  Integrated Building Adaptation & Mitigation Assessment (IBAMA) Primer Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs) Greenhouse concentration (not emissions) trajectories adopted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Four pathways were used for climate modeling and research for the IPCC fifth Assessment Report (AR5) in 2014. The pathways describe different climate futures, all of which are considered possible depending on the volume of greenhouse gases (GHG) emitted in the years to come. The original RCP scenarios are RCP2.6, RCP4.5, RCP6, and RCP8.5. Additional RCP scenarios have been developed since AR5. Risk The possibility of injury, loss, damage or negative environmental impact created by a hazard. Risk is a function of the probability and severity of a hazard event, exposure to the hazard, and the vulnerability of the people or physical assets exposed. Sustainability • Meeting present needs without compromising ability of future generations to meet their needs. • Increasing quality of life with respect to environmental, social and economic considerations, both in present and future generations. Synergy Interaction between adaptation and mitigation strategies when the combined effect of the strategies is equally or more beneficial than the effects of the individual strategies. Trade-off Action that balances mitigation and adaptation when it is not possible to fully carry out both objectives.  Vulnerability The degree to which a system is susceptible to, or unable to cope with, adverse effects of climate change, including climate variability and extremes.             IBAMA was developed as part of BC Housing’s Mobilizing Building Adaptation and Resilience (MBAR) initiative. The project was led by Ilana Judah, architect and MSc Student at The Institute for Resources, Environment and Sustainability at The University of British Columbia, under the supervision of Dr. Stephanie Chang. Funding and project management support were provided by the Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions (PICS).   IBAMA Version 1.0 will be piloted on a BC Housing case study/ies  in order to produce a baseline assessment, optimize the tools and incorporate additional references.  157  Appendix B  – IBAMA Reference Guide                    Integrated Building Adaptation and Mitigation Assessment (IBAMA) Framework Applicable to the Design of Multi-Unit Residential Buildings  REFERENCE GUIDE            November 2020      Version 1.0 New Jubilee House (Image courtesy of GBL Architects Inc., by permission. Photographer: Derek Lepper) © 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved.  IBAMA Refence Guide – Version 1.0              IBAMA was developed as part of BC Housing’s Mobilizing Building Adaptation and Resilience (MBAR) initiative.  The project was led by Ilana Judah, architect and MSc Student at The Institute for Resources, Environment and Sustainability at The University of British Columbia, under the supervision of Dr. Stephanie Chang.  Funding and project management support were provided by the Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions (PICS).  IBAMA Version 1.0 will be piloted on a BC Housing case study/ies  in order to produce a baseline assessment, optimize the tools and incorporate additional references.  © 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved.  IBAMA Refence Guide – Version 1.0    Table of Contents   Introduction to IBAMA .................................................................................................................................................. 1 Reference Guide Instructions ....................................................................................................................................... 2 Document Structure ............................................................................................................................................................... 2 IBAMA Excel Tool .................................................................................................................................................................... 2 Integrated Project Team ........................................................................................................................................................ 3 Summary of IBAMA Parameters ............................................................................................................................................. 4 Scoring and Performance Metrics .......................................................................................................................................... 5 Integrated Process Meetings & Site ....................................................................................................................................... 6 Key Deliverables per Project Phase........................................................................................................................................ 7 Glossary of Terms ................................................................................................................................................................... 8 Section 1 - Project Information .................................................................................................................................. 11 Section 2 - Climate Information ................................................................................................................................. 16 Section 3 – Climate Hazards ....................................................................................................................................... 22 Section 4 - Neighbourhood Resilience to Hazards....................................................................................................... 28 Sections 5 & 6 - Neighbourhood Assets and Risks ....................................................................................................... 40 5. Neighbourhood Assets ..................................................................................................................................................... 40 6. Neighbourhood Vulnerabilities & Risks ............................................................................................................................ 41 Section 7 - Project Risks ............................................................................................................................................. 48 Section 8 – Climate Adaptation Goals ......................................................................................................................... 54 Section 9 - Climate Mitigation & Sustainability Goals ................................................................................................. 61 Section 10 - Adaptation Strategies ............................................................................................................................. 67 Section 11- Climate Mitigation & Sustainability Strategies ......................................................................................... 77 Section 12 - Evaluation of Strategies .......................................................................................................................... 87 Appendix A – IBAMA Summary for Project Team ....................................................................................................... 104 Appendix B – Additional Worksheets ........................................................................................................................ 112      © 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved.  IBAMA Refence Guide – Version 1.0 1 Introduction to IBAMA Introduction to IBAMA  The Integrated Building Adaptation and Mitigation Assessment (IBAMA) framework is a tool to assist BC Housing project teams as well as other building industry stakeholders in BC, Canada, and beyond; to help increase their project’s resilience to climate hazards (adaptation) while optimizing GHG reduction (mitigation) and sustainability goals.  Why IBAMA? There are many policies and systems that focus on climate mitigation/sustainability in buildings, and a growing number of guidelines and frameworks that address climate adaptation/resilience. However, most don’t adequately integrate mitigation/sustainability with adaptation/resilience approaches. This lack of integration can result in unintended consequences such as increased greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, augmented risks, negative health outcomes, maladaptation, and added costs. By using IBAMA, project teams can investigate interactions between adaptation and mitigation strategies to maximize synergies, minimize conflicts, identify trade-offs, and achieve more holistic solutions.  What is IBAMA? IBAMA is a roadmap and flexible decision-making tool rather than a checklist or set of prescriptive requirements. This will enable project teams to respond to the unique context, vulnerabilities and circumstances of their project such as the location and neighbourhood, potential climate hazards, occupant demographics, budgets, and management structures.  How is IBAMA implemented? This document serves as a reference guide for implementing IBAMA. It is accompanied by an IBAMA Excel tool where information and decisions can be documented, and evaluations carried out. A separate abbreviated primer that introduces the framework process to project teams is also available and can be used at a project’s inception to generate initial thoughts and establish a general direction on adaptation, mitigation and sustainability goals and strategies.  When is IBAMA used? It is critical to use the IBAMA framework at the early stages of a project: financing, pre-design and schematic design. However, there are milestones and deliverables at later stages of the design, construction and operations process to ensure that goals are being met and strategies carried out. Most importantly, final goals and strategies implemented should be clearly documented for reference by the management and operations team throughout the project’s lifespan.  Where should IBAMA be employed? While IBAMA is conceived to be used on new construction projects, the process can be adapted for retrofits and renovations. In this case, additional parameters pertaining to existing conditions and logistics planning should be added.    Figure 1. Integrated Building Adaptation and Mitigation Assessment (IBAMA) Process  © 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved.  IBAMA Refence Guide – Version 1.0 2 Reference Guide Instructions Reference Guide Instructions  The IBAMA Reference Guide is intended to be used (with the associated Excel tool) as a living document that evolves through the project planning, design, construction and operations phases. Each section of the guide provides step-by-step instructions about the information required for the evaluation, the parameters to assess; and the stakeholders needed to complete an evaluation, develop goals, or determine appropriate strategies. The guide also includes suggestions for when to carry out integrated project meetings and/or workshops, and what deliverables should be provided at each stage of the process.  Document Structure Following the introduction and instructions, the Reference Guide is organized into twelve sequential sections that are grouped according to the first four phases of the IBAMA process (Figure 1). A fifth phase, Adjust and Re-evaluate, allows for an iterative process whereby strategies that don’t sufficiently meet adaptation, mitigation and sustainability goals would be eliminated, revised, or re-evaluated. While not in the current scope of IBAMA, understanding impacts of proposed strategies on the neighbourhood is also encouraged. A. Information Gathering B. Evaluation of Assets and Risks C. Goal Setting and Strategy Development D. Strategy Evaluation  Each framework section is organized as follows: Section Description – Overview of the purpose, intent and objectives of the chapter. Parameters – Information inputs, assessments or evaluations required. Instructions are provided on how to complete fields, as well as suggestions for which party/ies are responsible for their completion. This information should be input in the IBAMA Excel tool and updated as the project evolves. Reference Standards – Official documents and standards that were used either to help develop the parameters and/or can serve as references when completing the parameter fields.  Additional Resources – Additional reference materials that may be helpful for completing inputs or making decisions regarding goals or strategies. Some of these resources are valuable technical resources for developing specific strategies. Case Study Example – Where applicable, examples of how parameters can be completed/developed using a BC Housing project or other BC case study. Note: The examples and associated inputs are for illustrative purposes only, and do not represent actual project designs, evaluations or decisions by the project team. Recommended Documentation and Deliverables – Suggested deliverables at each project milestone, including parties responsible for documentation.   IBAMA Excel Tool The IBAMA Excel tool is to be used as a master document to track project, climate, and neighbourhood information; document neighbourhood and project assets and risks; establish adaptation, mitigation and sustainability goals; develop potential strategies; and evaluate solutions. The tool should be updated regularly as the project evolves.  The tool is divided into tabs that follow the framework’s sections. Section 12 scores the proposed strategies according to a series of weighted evaluation criteria, with greater weight placed on meeting adaptation, mitigation and sustainability goals. Once the strategies have been evaluated, the tool will generate a series of graphs to help teams compare options.   © 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved.  IBAMA Refence Guide – Version 1.0 3 Reference Guide Instructions Integrated Project Team An integrated design, construction, and operations process is essential for effective implementation of climate mitigation and sustainability goals. With adaptation and resilience goals, ensuring team integration is even more critical.   Whereas project teams addressing mitigation and sustainability goals are generally bounded by the limits of the project site and program, incorporating adaptation and resilience requires broader expertise related to climate science, municipal and infrastructure systems, neighbourhood amenities, as well as health and social services.   Given that some of the expertise required is beyond the scope of traditional design and construction teams, the project owner and/or developer should review the IBAMA parameters to determine how to obtain necessary information and guidance. This may mean allocating additional fees for an expanded project team, greater collaboration with the municipality, or leveraging knowledge from other nearby projects. If the owner is not able to acquire all the necessary information related to the adaptation and resilience parameters, it is recommended that the project team take a precautionary approach when determining adaptation and resilience strategies.  Ideally, an integrated IBAMA project team would include many of the following members at various phases of the project, depending upon the project’s scope. Depending upon the project others may also be included, such as health or equity consultants. Those in bold represent participants that are not typical to a conventional design and construction process: Architect, Adaptation Consultant, Climate Scientist, Commissioning Agent, Contractor/Construction Manager, Cost Estimator, Emergency Management Representative, Facilities Manager, Health Authority Representative, Landscape Architect, MEP Engineer, Municipal Resiliency Officer, Neighbourhood Representative, Owner/Developer, Peer Reviewer, Planner/ Urban Designer, Resident Representative, Site/Civil Engineer, Social Services Representative, Structural Engineer, Sub-Contractors (as required), Sustainability Consultant, Utilities’ Representatives. List of project team members with abbreviations Team Member Abbr. Team Member Abbr. Architect AR Owner/Developer OD Adaptation Consultant AC Peer Reviewer (On large projects, consultant outside project team hired to review the design) PR Climate Scientist CS Planner/Urban Designer PL Commissioning Agent CX Resident Representative RR Contractor/Construction Manager CM Site/Civil Engineer SC Cost Estimator CE Social Services Representative SS Emergency Management Representative EM Structural Engineer ST Facilities Manager FM Sub-contractors SB Health Authority Representative HA Sustainability Consultant SU Landscape Architect LA Utilities Representative - Electricity UT-E MEP Engineer ME Utilities Representative - Gas UT-G Municipal Resiliency Officer MU Utilities Representative - IT UT-I Neighbourhood Representative              (Community Board member or Neighbourhood Planning Committee member)  NR Utilities Representative - Other UT-O  © 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved.  IBAMA Refence Guide – Version 1.0 4 Reference Guide Instructions Summary of IBAMA Parameters  The table below summarizes IBAMA categories and sub-categories. Individual parameters are listed in each section of the IBAMA Reference Guide and in the Excel tool.  Summary of Parameter Categories  Parameter Category Sub-Category 1 Project Information General Information   Project Program & Requirements   Location, Site & Building Features   Anticipated Project Demographics 2 Climate Information Climate Change Scenarios   Project & Systems Lifespans   Building Systems Linkages to Climate Change Scenarios 3 Hazards Hazard Scoring   Description of Top Climate Hazards & Compounding Hazards 4 Neighbourhood Resilience to Hazards Infrastructure   Built Environment   Natural Environment   Transportation   Community Governance, Services & Health   Neighbourhood Demographics   Economy 5 Neighbourhood Assets Neighbourhood Assets for Top Hazards 6 Neighbourhood Vulnerabilities & Risks Neighbourhood Vulnerabilities & Risks for Top Hazards 7 Project Vulnerabilities & Risks Project Vulnerabilities & Risks for Top Hazards 8 Climate Adaptation Goals Adaptation Goals for Top Hazards 9 Climate Mitigation & Sustainability Goals Climate Mitigation Goals Sustainability Goals 10 Adaptation Strategies Adaptation Strategies for Top Hazards    Follow-up on Selected Adaptation Strategies 11 Climate Mitigation & Sustainability Strategies Climate Mitigation Strategies & Follow-up on Selected Strategies Sustainability Strategies & Follow-up on Selected Strategies 12 Evaluation of Strategies Adaptation, Mitigation & Sustainability Strategy Evaluation Criteria   Evaluation of Adaptation Strategies   Scoring of Adaptation Strategies   Summary of Adaptation Strategies for Development   Evaluation of Mitigation & Sustainability Strategies   Scoring of Mitigation & Sustainability Strategies   Summary of Mitigation & Sustainability Strategies for Development  © 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved.  IBAMA Refence Guide – Version 1.0 5 Reference Guide Instructions Scoring and Performance Metrics Project teams score potential adaptation, mitigation and sustainability strategies according to a series of evaluation criteria that can be weighted according to the owner’s priorities. A minimum weight is given to both meeting adaptation goals and meeting mitigation & sustainability goals. Twenty-one evaluation criteria are grouped into six categories: ▪ Climate Adaptation Goals ▪ Climate Mitigation & Sustainability Goals ▪ Technical Requirements ▪ Project Requirements ▪ Direct Costs ▪ Indirect Costs & Benefits If desired, additional criteria can be added by the project team. Once strategies have been evaluated, total scores, scores by category, and comparative charts are generated in the Excel tool (Figures 2 & 3).   Figure 2. Bar chart comparing adaptation strategies for a compounding hazards scenario.  Figure 3. Radar chart comparing adaptation strategies for a compounding hazards scenario.  © 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved.  IBAMA Refence Guide – Version 1.0 6 Reference Guide Instructions Integrated Process Meetings & Site The table below summarizes the minimum recommended integrated team meetings and actions at each phase, with suggested participants. These can be adjusted according to the project’s level of complexity, budget, and schedule.  Project Phase Minimum Meetings & Site Visits Suggested Participants Feasibility & Financing ▪ Owners meeting to determine initial budget & consultant scope/fees for additional adaptation, mitigation & sustainability measures. ▪ Meeting to develop project purpose and principles. ▪ Meetings to develop project program. ▪ Meetings to develop Owner’s Project Requirements (OPR). OD, CE   OD, RR OD, RR, FM, (AR) OD, RR, FM Pre-Design ▪ Meeting with Neighbourhood and Municipal representatives to review/complete Section 4. ▪ Meeting(s) with Utility representatives to review/complete neighbourhood infrastructure evaluation in Section 4. ▪ Integrated Team workshop to complete Sections 1-9 of the IBAMA framework tool and discuss initial adaptive mitigation approach. OD, MU, NR, PL, HA, EM, AC, (AR)  OD, MU, NR, UTs, SC, AC, AR, ME, LA, AC OD, RR, FM, AR, SC, ST, ME, LA, SU, AC, CM, CE, CS Schematic Design ▪ Integrated Team workshop to review updated Sections 1-9 of the IBAMA framework tool, complete Sections 10-12 (proposed adaptation, mitigation, and sustainability strategies), and select strategies for further evaluation or development. ▪ Meeting w/ municipal and neighbourhood representatives to discuss feasibility and next steps for any proposed neighbourhood-related strategies. OD, RR, FM, AR, SC, ST, ME, LA, SU, AC, CM, CE, CS, PL   OD, AR, MU, NR, EM, AD Design Development ▪ Minimum of two team meetings to review development of adaptation, mitigation, & sustainability strategies, costs, potential adjustments, and peer review comments. ▪ Follow up meeting(s) related to neighbourhood strategies. ▪ Onboarding meeting for new project team members. OD, RR, FM, AR, SC, ST, ME, LA, SU, AC, CM, CE, (SBs) OD, AR, NR, EM, AD New team members Construction Documents ▪ Minimum bi-monthly team meeting to review development of adaptation, mitigation, & sustainability strategies, costs and potential adjustments. ▪ Onboarding meeting for new project team members. OD, FM, AR, SC, ST, ME, LA, SU, AC, CM, CE, CX, (SBs). New team members Project Construction ▪ Onboarding meeting for new construction team members. ▪ Dedicated IBAMA time slot at regular construction meetings. New team members CM, SBs, OD, AR, SC, ST, ME, LA, CX, others if needed. As-built/ Occupancy ▪ Integrated team project walkthrough to review as-built adaptation, mitigation and sustainability strategies. ▪ Integrated team meeting with management and resident representatives to review as-built strategies and associated operating requirements. OD, FM, RR, CX, AR, SC, ST, ME, LA, SU, AC, CM Post-Occupancy  ▪ Integrated team meeting to review one-year post-occupancy adaptive mitigation “Commissioning” report. OD, FM, RR, CX, AR, SC, ST, ME, LA, SU, AC, CM  © 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved.  IBAMA Refence Guide – Version 1.0 7 Reference Guide Instructions Key Deliverables per Project Phase The table below summarizes the main recommended deliverables at each phase. These can be adjusted according to the project’s level of complexity, budget, and schedule. However, a first iteration of Sections 1-9 should be completed by the Pre-Design phase. Additional deliverables and details are listed subsequent sections of the IBAMA Reference Guide. Project Phase Deliverable Feasibility & Financing ▪ Preliminary high-level climate hazard assessment. ▪ Budget with allocation for additional consultant fees. ▪ Initial budget that accounts for potential climate mitigation & adaptation measures, including potential value creation assessment. Pre-Design ▪ List of integrated team members and auxiliary contacts. ▪ Completed sections 1-9 of the IBAMA framework tool. ▪ Summary report of key climate hazards, risks & assets, adaptation goals, and mitigation/sustainability goals. Schematic Design ▪ Updated sections 1-9 of the IBAMA framework tool. ▪ Completed sections 10-13 of the IBAMA framework tool. ▪ Strategy evaluation report describing adaptation, mitigation and sustainability strategy alternatives with associated scores, and selected strategies. ▪ Preliminary cost estimate of selected strategies. ▪ Updated report of key climate hazards, risks & assets, adaptation, mitigation and sustainability goals. Design Development ▪ Updated IBAMA framework tool with modifications noted. ▪ Development of technical strategies in drawings and specifications. ▪ Peer-review report of strategies to confirm alignment with initial adaptation and mitigation/sustainability goals, as well as recommended adjustments. ▪ Updated report of key climate hazards, risks & assets, adaptation, mitigation and sustainability goals; selected strategies and scores, explaining synergies and conflicts. ▪ Updated cost estimate of selected strategies. Construction Documents ▪ Further development of technical strategies in drawings and specifications. ▪ Updated cost estimate of selected strategies. ▪ Updated report of key climate hazards, risks & assets, adaptation, mitigation and sustainability goals; selected strategies and scores, explaining synergies and conflicts. Project Construction ▪ Contact list of design & construction leads responsible for IBAMA strategies. ▪ Ongoing construction meeting agenda item for IBAMA strategies in meeting minutes. ▪ Monthly IBAMA-related construction report by general contractor. ▪ Schedule of IBAMA-related site visits with IBAMA design & construction leads. ▪ IBAMA site visit reports by IBAMA design & construction leads. As-built/ Occupancy ▪ Summary of adaptation, mitigation and sustainability goals, as well as strategies. ▪ Manual and/or training video for building managers and operators focusing on proposed strategies and related hazards. ▪ Contact list of project team, municipality, utility & other representatives.  Post-Occupancy  ▪ Resident education video for hazard preparedness, mitigation and sustainability best practices. ▪ Schedule of hazard preparedness drills coordinated with municipality.  ▪ Schedule for testing and inspections of adaptation, mitigation and sustainability-related systems. ▪ Adaptive mitigation commissioning report following first year of occupancy.  © 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved.  IBAMA Refence Guide – Version 1.0 8 Reference Guide Instructions Glossary of Terms  Avoided Costs or Losses  Hazard-related economic costs losses that were avoided due to specific adaptation or resilience measures.  Cascading Impacts  The secondary impacts or hazards following an initial natural or climate hazard event. Examples include power outages due to wildfires, heavy rain causing landslides, reduced road and transportation access after flooding, or supply chain interruptions following an earthquake.   Climate Adaptation A gradual process of maintaining points of resilience to climate change that ultimately results in a future state of being. Climate Analog  Climate-analog mapping involves matching the expected future climate at a location with the current climate of another, potentially familiar, location - thereby providing a more relatable, place-based assessment of climate change. Climate Hazard   Agent of disaster for human settlements or to the environment. Includes wildfires, tropical cyclones, thunderstorms, tornadoes, drought, flooding, rain, hail, snow, lightning, fog, wind, temperature extremes, air pollution, and climatic change. Climate Mitigation Reducing of net greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to decrease global warming. Climate Resilience  The capacity of a building or community to absorb external climate stresses; retain function; reduce risk; and enable people, organizations, and systems to persist. Co-benefit  Benefit(s) of a mitigation and/or adaptation strategy that contributes to additional project or community goals.  Compounding Hazards (Synonyms: compounding processes, compounding events) The effects of multiple natural or climate hazard events occurring concurrently or at around the same time. Examples include wildfires occurring during periods of extreme heat and drought, with ensuing poor air quality.  A compounding hazard can also include the same hazard occurring multiple times within a short period, such as multiple heavy rainfalls over consecutive days. Conflict Adaptation action that has negative consequences for mitigation, or vice-versa. Effectiveness The degree to which a strategy is effective at reducing risk or GHG emissions. For example, an extensive green roof may have low effectiveness at reducing stormwater runoff while an intensive green roof may have moderate effectiveness. Embodied GHG Emissions          (or Embodied Carbon)                         The total impact of all the greenhouse gases emitted by the materials and construction of a building. This includes the impacts of sourcing raw materials, manufacturing, transportation, wastage, maintenance, repairs, and disposal or recovery. Equity  A concept concerned with the fair and equitable provision, implementation, and impact of services, programs, and policies for all community members.    © 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved.  IBAMA Refence Guide – Version 1.0 9 Reference Guide Instructions Hazard (See Climate Hazard)   The potential occurrence of a natural or human-induced physical event or trend or physical impact that may cause loss of life, injury, or other health impacts, as well as damage and loss to property, infrastructure, livelihoods, service provision, ecosystems, and environmental resources. In this document, the term hazard typically refers to climate-related physical events, or trends, or their physical impacts. (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2014. Annex II Glossary, in Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability). Hazard Mitigation Measures that aim to lessen physical damage to natural and built environments during and after hazard events, and also reduce impacts on the social and economic networks of a community.  Independence from external systems/services The degree to which a strategy is reliant on the functioning of an externally provided system or service such as an electric utility, municipal transportation service, or community centre. Indirect Costs or Benefits Hazard-related costs or benefits that are not borne by or directed to the project owner or developer, but by or to entities external to the project such as municipalities or health services.  Maladaptation Reducing short-term risk at the expense of long-term vulnerability, or increasing the vulnerability of other systems, sectors or social groups over any time horizon. Multi-hazard (or Multi-hazard Approach) An approach that considers more than one hazard in a given place and the interrelations between these hazards, including their simultaneous or cumulative occurrence and their potential interactions.  Net-Zero Building (or Zero Carbon) A highly energy efficient building that produces onsite, or procures, carbon-free renewable energy or high-quality carbon offsets to offset the annual carbon emissions associated with building operations, and sometimes materials. Opportunity Costs The economic benefits that are missed when selecting one strategy over another.  Reliability/Functionality  The degree to which a strategy can reliably function in order to achieve the desired goal. For example, having residents opening windows for natural ventilation to reduce artificial cooling is not a highly reliable strategy, whereas automated shutoff of cooling systems below a specific temperature may be a more reliable strategy. Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs) Greenhouse concentration (not emissions) trajectories adopted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Four pathways were used for climate modeling and research for the IPCC fifth Assessment Report (AR5) in 2014. The pathways describe different climate futures, all of which are considered possible depending on the volume of greenhouse gases (GHG) emitted in the years to come. The original RCP scenarios are RCP2.6, RCP4.5, RCP6, and RCP8.5. Additional RCP scenarios have been developed since AR5. Resilience Dividend The difference in the outcomes between a scenario with a resilience approach and one with a non-resilient business-as-usual approach. It quantifies both the direct returns to the immediate resilience goal, as well as the societal and financial co-benefits. (Rodin, J., 2017, Valuing the Resilience Dividend). These can include value-added to the project and regenerative potential.  Risk The possibility of injury, loss, damage or negative environmental impact created by a hazard. Risk is a function of the probability and severity of a hazard event, exposure to the hazard, and the vulnerability of the people or physical assets exposed.  © 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved.  IBAMA Refence Guide – Version 1.0 10 Reference Guide Instructions Sustainability • Meeting present needs without compromising ability of future generations to meet their needs. • Increasing quality of life with respect to environmental, social and economic considerations, both in present and future generations. Synergy Interaction between adaptation and mitigation strategies when the combined effect of the strategies is equally or more beneficial than the effects of the individual strategies. Trade-off Action that balances mitigation and adaptation when it is not possible to fully carry out both objectives.  Vulnerability The degree to which a system is susceptible to, or unable to cope with, adverse effects of climate change, including climate variability and extremes.    © 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved.  IBAMA Refence Guide – Version 1.0 11 Section 1 – Project Information Section 1 - Project Information  Description This section outlines what general project information is required for the IBAMA analysis. This information forms the basis for making informed decisions throughout the project regarding potential mitigation and adaptation strategies.   Parameters  1a. General Information Parameter Notes Completed by List the name, title or information for each of the parameters below. i. Name ii. Address iii. Owner iv. Operator v. Funder vi. Neighbourhood - align with municipal/census information vii. Municipality  viii. Region  ix. Indigenous Territory & Stakeholders x. Local Ecological Knowledge (LEK)  Some data may not be available at the neighborhood scale, only at the municipal level. Wherever possible, reference municipal level information. OD List the names of all relevant utility providers, contact person if available, and any specific details pertaining to utility service. xi. Utility Providers • Electricity • Water • Sewer • Phone • Internet/Cable • Gas  • Other (specify)   OD Describe the project typology in sufficient detail (e.g. low income assisted living, transitional housing for single mothers, market rate condos, etc.) xii. Typology   OD List anticipated project budget & schedule. Includes all hard (construction) and soft (permits, design fees, land) costs related to design and construction. xiii. Project budget – total xiv. Project schedule & milestones Include all anticipated project costs related to design & construction. Include all schedule milestones. OD, CE Describe the overall project’s purpose and guiding principles. xv. Project’s purpose and guiding principles  Similar to a mission statement. OD, RR   © 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved.  IBAMA Refence Guide – Version 1.0 12 Section 1 – Project Information 1b. Project Program and Requirements Parameter Notes Completed by Reference or append existing documents or provide a breakdown of the program and project requirements per the list below. i. Project program • List of unit types and counts • List of amenity areas  • List of service areas • Retail areas if applicable • Parking requirements • List of site/outdoor areas • Area breakdown of all spaces (m2 or ft2) • Space efficiency requirements • Other program requirements  ii. Owner’s project requirements (OPR) • Mechanical, electrical, plumbing, security, and other technical requirements • Building performance requirements • Operations & Maintenance criteria • Occupant comfort requirements • Other requirements  See Additional Resources – Project Program and Requirements for guidance on project programs and Owner’s project requirements.      OD, RR, AR           OD, RR, FM   List estimated costs and budgets. iii. Soft project costs (consultant fees, permits, land costs, etc.) iv. Construction budget (project budget minus soft costs) v. Annual operations budget (staff, energy costs, etc.) vi. Estimated costs associated with IBAMA process vii. Anticipated value to be added from adaptation, mitigation & sustainability measures.   OD, CE, CM, FM List all applicable codes and regulations, including reference year.  viii. Applicable building codes & regulations   • Building code • Energy code • Fire code • Plumbing Code • Building by-laws • Zoning regulations • Official Community Plan (OCP) • Neighbourhood regulations • Other regulations  Note any codes and regulations that may potentially impact mitigation and/or adaptation strategies AR, SC, ST, ME, LA, PL     © 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved.  IBAMA Refence Guide – Version 1.0 13 Section 1 – Project Information 1c.  Location, Site and Building Features Parameter Notes Completed by Describe all relevant site and infrastructure features. Append a site analysis drawing that includes information listed. i. Site Features • Soil & topographical conditions • Water bodies and watershed • Landscape features • Adjacencies (Neighbouring buildings, features) • On-site food cultivation opportunities • Contamination and remediation needs • Air and noise quality  ii. Infrastructure • Location of utilities serving the site • Roads, sidewalks and access • Transportation (bus, rail, bicycle, etc.)       Cross reference information compiled in this section to findings from Section 4 - Neighbourhood Resilience. AR, SC, LA Describe desired building features.  iii. Building Design Features • Materials • Structural systems • Mechanical systems • Landscape features • Other (social, age-related, services, amenities)  If u