What is it like to measure the physical risk of built assets?

Following their involvement in our Physical Risk Labs, Chris Hills from our Programme Partner Hydrock reflects on the process of measuring the physical risk of their portfolio.

Increased flooding, higher temperatures, and more frequent wildfires. The consequences of climate change are ever more apparent. Governments, businesses and asset owners are beginning to recognise the need to assess and manage the consequences of climate change, to reduce their future risk.

Climate risk assessments identify the climate risks, determine the potential impact of these risks, and develop strategies to mitigate and adapt to them. However, conducting an effective climate risk assessment requires a well-defined methodology that takes into account the unique challenges posed by climate change.

The Framework

Image of the University of Nottingham Campus

Acknowledging this gap, the UK Green Building Council launched ‘A Framework for Measuring and Reporting of Climate-related Physical Risks to Built Assets’ in February 2022. The framework seeks to assist asset owners and organisations in preparing for and responding to the impacts of climate change and is an essential first step towards addressing physical risks from climate change within the industry.

The launch of the framework was paired with the ‘Physical Risk Labs’ to discuss and monitor early projects that were utilising it. This was to test stress and highlight any difficulties when using it in practice. Hydrock were a contributor to the ‘Physical Risk Labs’ as project partners with the University of Nottingham (UoN). UoN appointed Hydrock to undertake a climate risk assessment and provide adaptation recommendations for the university’s assets at Jubilee Campus, which included 30 buildings and 14 infrastructure assets.

The framework methodology follows a five-step process and recommends a number of tools and datasets that could be used within risk assessments such as the UK Climate Projections 2018 (UKCP18) dataset, the UK Climate Risk Indicators map and Environmental Agency flood mapping. The primary data used within our assessment was the UKCP18 data.

Observed Limitations

The assessment process highlighted a number of limitations that could lead to challenges and potential inconsistencies between climate risk assessments conducted across the industry when assessing the future risk from physical hazards. The most fundamental limitations identified were:

  • A lack of industry-wide defined thresholds for level of risk for each physical climate hazard.
  • Insufficient easily accessible datasets that are appropriate for detailed asset level climate risk assessments.

Out of the 9 physical hazards assessed at Jubilee Campus at least 4 were difficult to quantify and provide an accurate level of risk.

Out of the 9 physical hazards assessed at Jubilee Campus at least 4 were difficult to quantify and provide an accurate level of risk.

Take wildfire for example. The UKGBC rightly details it as in its infancy for assessments, with the framework recommending the use of the Met Office’s UK Fire Severity Index (FSI). This index assesses how severe a fire could become if one were to start, but not the risk of it occurring. The FSI is also limited to a five-day forecast, which is unsuitable for long-term climate risk assessments. There are other wildfire risk indicators available through the UK Climate Risk Indicators tool, however, similar difficulties arise when using them to quantify wildfire risk at asset level.

When looking at the other physical hazards the same ambiguity was observed. The data required for wind and storm events for instance was caveated in UKCP18 probabilistic data due to it not passing the Met Office’s credibility checks. Until an alternative data set or methodology is made available, assessing the worst case risk of future wind and storm events on assets is frankly inaccurate at best.

The most prevalent physical hazard in the industry is heat stress, for which there is ample guidance available. The framework suggests the use of CIBSE TM52/59 terminology or degree days to evaluate the possibility of heat stress. However, the framework stops short of prescribing specific thresholds for assessing the outputs of the analysis and determining the level of risk. For instance, if a building is halfway towards failing CIBSE TM52/59, does it pose a medium risk? Similarly, it is unclear how many cooling-degree days correspond to a low, medium, or high-risk level.

Limitations were also seen when using the UKCP18 data for the assessment (the preferred source for future climate data in the UK). Although an extremely in-depth and useful data set, acquiring data with a granularity relevant to an asset-level climate risk assessment proved more onerous than one would hope.

Via the UKCP18 dashboard daily data is only available for a single representative concentration pathway (RCP*) instead of all 4 included within the framework. The remaining data must therefore be found elsewhere. In our case, we utilised the Centre for Environmental Data Analysis (CEDA) archive to find data suitable for the assessment.

Call to Action

We need the relevant industry stakeholders to come together now to agree on a standardised methodology for determining the thresholds of physical hazards and what specific datasets are to be used.

Climate adaptation is critical. Action must be taken to ensure climate risk assessments can be conducted effectively. We need the relevant industry stakeholders to come together now to agree on a standardised methodology for determining the thresholds of physical hazards and what specific datasets are to be used. This requires a collaborative effort between industry bodies, engineers, academics, and experts in climate science and risk management.

The thresholds should be based on latest research and available data, taking into account industry practices already in place where applicable, to construct well-founded thresholds that can be utilised across the UK. The data selection process must also be refined. As mentioned, there are several derived data sets available in the CEDA archive that offer greater granularity and cover all RCP scenarios than more accessible UKCP18 data. However, if these are to be used, an industry-wide consensus is needed to specify which data sets should be utilised.

The above will help remove the ambiguity, creating a consistent approach for the industry to continue conducting climate risk assessments.

Regardless of the issues discussed, the framework is a comprehensive tool designed to help the built environment industry improve both its resilience and sustainability. With the framework, UKGBC is pushing the industry in the direction required to close the adaptation gap and make up for the previous decade of lost time. The physical labs and other consultations will help further refine the framework to continue being the industry standard for assessing climate-related physical risk to built assets.

*RCP – a future scenario of greenhouse gas concentration in the atmosphere, leading to different levels of climate change projected across 4 variables.

Hydrock are a UKGBC member and Resilience and Nature Programme Partner. Learn more about what it means to be a member and the opportunities it provides you here.

Interested in learning how to apply the Physical Risk Framework and Reporting Tool to your built assets? UKGBC’s new practical learning programme supports participants to create a physical risk assessment for their chosen asset, and the knowledge and skills to assess the risks to other assets in their portfolio. Find out more and register to join at this page.

Climate Change Adaptation

As the climate crisis intensifies and extreme weather events become more common, the UK’s buildings, cities and critical infrastructure, and the communities that use and occupy these, are in increasing danger. It’s vital to address how our buildings and infrastructure can be adapted to remain fit for the future.
View more
Climate Resilience webinar

Related