Is Resilient the New Green?

Written by

M O’Ikenegbu

May 2023

 

Introduction

Climate change is a dreadful phenomenon slowly destroying the earth’s ecological structure.  It is increasingly seen as a major issue of global concern and significant efforts have and are still being made by local, national and international organisations to combat its devastating impact.  To date, the proffered solutions developed all over the world have largely bordered around issues of sustainability and climate change mitigation. This means modifying both political policies and everyday practices in such a way that impacts on the ecosystem are reduced to a minimum. Over the course of time, it became more apparent that global warming and the effect of climate change are inevitable. Not only will homes and communities have to adapt to the changing climate, but increasingly, they will also need to be resilient to the impact of global warming over the longer term. Hence, this paper explores the potential in resilient building design. It emphasises the implication that the concept of going green does not guarantee a drastic reverse to preindustrial atmospheric condition and weather pattern. The pernicious damage has accumulated over the years. So, although considerably effective at preventing further damage to the atmosphere, green initiative does not necessarily shield communities from imminent climate change impacts such as floods, hurricanes or tsunamis. This paper explores the justification for resilience as a proven concept, particularly as it relates to counteracting societal strain as a consequence of global warming. It suggests that promoting autarky in the planning and development of communities will go a long way in facilitating resilience. It also discusses design considerations associated with developments that foster resilience.

Resilience in building design involves a paradigm shift away from customary engineering practices and approaches. It requires a deviation from the conventional processes in delivering homes and planning communities. It requires a review of the issues, challenges and solutions involved. It also requires that developments are robust enough to shield communities from the inherent effects of environmental and socio-economic shocks, and are able to spring back to life.

 

 

The Impact of Resilience

Various definitions exist for the word resilience, but the common connection is the theory of elasticity. It is the characteristics or the natural tendency to spring back into shape. One of the definitions of resilience according to Newman et al. (2009) is as follows:

“Resilience is the capacity of a system to absorb disturbance and still retain its basic function and structure.”

Resilience is the capacity to regain form after certain shock or stress. According to Sagara (2018), these shocks and stresses could be geophysical/meteorological, human induced, biological or technological as shown in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1: Shocks and stresses

Source: Sagara (2018)

 

Resilience fosters the ability to live above the threats of global warming and other kinds of shock. A resilient community has autarky in its character. This self-sufficiency in character is expected to filter through various needs of the community such as power, heating, water, waste disposal amongst others even in the face of strains emanating from flooding events and the like. According to van Hinte et al. (2003), using autarkic principles means that homes can be designed to be independent from services and utilities such as gas mains and sewers. In the project example cited by van Hinte et al., 2003, autarkic homes are being designed to get their energy from windmill or solar panels, and from biomass; and their water can come from rain or directly from the photosynthesis process that takes place in trees. The latter is based on collecting water resulting from the chemical process of photosynthesis. Rather than allowing the excess water evaporate, it is collected through a small zeppelin-like device made out of cheap PVC electrical tubing and plastic foil (van Hinte et al., 2003). As presented in the figure below, Wilson (2012) informed that resilience in the community is affected by both anthropogenic/human induced and natural disturbances.

Figure 2: Resilience anthropogenic and natural disturbances

(Wilson, 2012)

 

Resilience can be measured by the extent of disturbance it can withstand and still persevere. According to Newman et al. (2009), resilience is about lasting, it is about surviving the crisis, it is about the strength and strong physical constitution and it has the following benefits:

  • greater physical and emotional health,
  • ease of movement in higher density,
  • mixed-use communities that are walkable and have accessible transit options,
  • better food that is produced locally and is therefore fresher,
  • efficiency of energy resources,
  • greater affordability,
  • healthier indoor environments,
  • easier access to natural environments; and
  • more awareness of the local urban area and its bioregion enabling us to have a greater sense of place and identity.

Similarly, as obtainable in the case of green buildings, it is important to promote the concept of resilience in building design, particularly amongst stakeholders. It is primarily governments and governmental agencies that would have the authority and jurisdiction to enforce sustainable behaviours and practices (Van der Heijden, J. 2014). It is therefore paramount that all stakeholders are properly incentivised including through initiatives like renewable heat incentives, capital allowances and related green tax incentives, in order to contribute to the promotion and implementation of resilience in the built environment. There are a number of challenges considered to be factors affecting the development of green or sustainable buildings in a property sector. These factors outlined below, according to Joachim et al., (2017) are considered to also apply in the case of resilient buildings:

  • Developers’ expected rate of return
  • Market strategy benefits
  • Life-cycle, cost-saving motivations
  • Green tax incentives
  • Availability of green skills
  • Government policies and green certification

Grierson and Moultrie (2011) reviewed the key design principles of sustainability or green architecture, namely social, environmental and economic. Their review was based on four texts that related to building and sustainability, and they provided the following matrix:

 

Table 1: Design categories and principles

Source: Grierson and Moultrie (2011)

 

The preceding table gives an insight into what may be missing in strictly green buildings. Grierson & Moultrie (2011) highlighted the need for buildings to be resilient to climate change, rather than just being less destructive to the environment. Therefore, rather than just going green, resilience should be at the forefront of design and planning concepts for buildings and community developments.

Environmental and socio-economic considerations

A lot of considerations are expected when designing for resilience. For example, Newman et al. (2009) suggested that design of resilient communities would include: solar homes, with access to parks, stores and the like through cycle paths and near car-free streets; longer distances will be journeyed through free trams; existence of solar office buildings with businesses engaging in resource productivity, sustainability technology investments, and water/waste management systems. Although these considerations are more suited for urbanised cities, certain characteristics such as the ones described below could be applied in rural communities.

Newman et al. (2011) presented seven key features of a resilient city which are discussed below:

  • Renewable energy: The need to run developments on sustainable energy is here to stay. No matter the source – wind, solar, geothermal, biomass, waves/tides etc., as long as it is naturally replenished efficiently, it is the way forward. Most significantly, there are opportunities in exploiting solar and wind energy. Around the world, different strategies are being applied to advance renewable energy with high emphasis on solar. The expectation is that the resilient community will generate the energy it uses through renewable sources; therefore, the energy generation will be integrated into the community design.
  • Carbon-neutral: This involves reducing carbon footprint to little or nothing. It can be achieved by reducing the use of energy to the barest minimum. To make enormous progress, the reduction could easily be targeted at transportation and energy requirements in buildings. Another way of reducing carbon footprint is by utilising alternative energy at all cost. Also as being advocated in contemporary times, carbon trading is another avenue – carbon dioxide emissions can be compensated by buying carbon credits. In many cases, sustainable measures such as tree planting can be adopted.
  • Distributed: This involves the departure from long distance power, waste/water connection and distribution systems. It involves adopting the distributed energy generation mechanism which entails producing energy at the location of consumption commonly called on-site energy generation. It could be through larger scale means such as wind farms to smaller scale setups such as micro wind turbines and PV panels on roof tops, or even small biomass systems. Other than in power generation, decentralised system should be applied in water and waste management. Recycling systems are to be decentralised to give way for measures such as rainwater harvesting or anaerobic digestion in waste to energy procedures.
  • Biophillic: This involves the integration of food and fibre production potentials. Use of plants as biofuel has been proven to be a promising alternative energy source. It is necessary to not just grow greenery but to also develop farms for both the production of crops for food and crops for fuel. The advocacy in this is for maximum utilisation of space by introduction of landscape that can feed the community and supply fuel for potential generation of power. Fallow lands are therefore not encouraged but should be utilised for sustainable production of food crops, fuel crops and beautiful green scenery that will encourage health and well-being.
  • Eco-efficient: This fosters the principle of not putting “waste to waste”. The built environment gives rise to would be unwanted materials such as solid and liquid waste. Resilience consideration would require that such materials are re-engineered for use as alternative energy source and in other possible areas. This does not only save the environment whilst ridding it of the waste, but also increases the potential for energy generation within the locality.
  • Place-based: This emphasises on the need for localised capacity building and community development. Resilience points to sustenance, strong and robust society that can stand the test of time. A durable and close knitted community with concerted effort to withstand the imminent challenges associated with climate change. Local businesses, industries, productions, jobs, opportunities and organised interest groups are therefore of importance in building a cohesive community with the sense of identity to outlive the modern-day challenges to their immediate environment.
  • Sustainable transport: Transportation is a key factor in designing for resilience. Sustainable transport therefore calls for redefined walking and cycling systems that completely or nearly void the need for automobile commute. It calls for the need to phase out motorways with the introduction of congestion taxes. The resultant tax fund is then channeled to traffic calming schemes and other sustainable transport measures. The shift to electric vehicles is a welcomed approach that is proven to reduce noise pollution, fuel consumption and by extension greenhouse gas emissions. It is therefore encouraged that electric cars should be the sort after alternative in driving. Other measures exist such as statutory requirements, transit systems like light rail with capacity greater than average traffic speed; and ensuring viability of new transit systems by promoting dense settlements.

Summary

Resilience is the ability of an institution to withstand disturbance and remain stable in its basic function and structure (Newman et al., 2009). Principles of resilience which take into account environmental, economic and social considerations can help ensure buildings and communities are robust and able to withstand human induced or natural disturbances such as flooding events and the like. It is therefore paramount that all stakeholders are properly incentivised including through green tax incentives, in order to contribute to the promotion and implementation of resilience in the built environment.

It is important to prepare, plan and design for the worst-case scenario. Resilient design should entail implementation of well thought out design that is capable of fostering cohesiveness. It should be all-inclusive as well as able to protect all aspects of the community including lives and properties. In a society where climate change impact, as well as other socio-economic shock are imminent and threaten lives and properties, efforts should be made to shift towards alternative, resilient measures which will enable the society live above the impacts. Hence, it is necessary to consider the following factors when designing for resilience: land use, flooding, water, waste, energy, transport, biodiversity as well as thermal comfort, well-being, quality of life.

References

Grierson, d., & Moultrie, C. (2011). ‘Architectural Design Principles and Processes for Sustainability: Towards a Typology of Sustainable Building Design’, Design Principles and Practices: An International Journal, Illinois: Common Ground Publishing.

Joachim, O. I., Kamarudin, N., Aliagha, G. U., Mohammed, M. A. H., & Ali, H. M. (2017). Green and Sustainable Commercial Property Supply in Malaysia and Nigeria. Geographical Review 107(3), 496–515. https://doi.org/10.1111/gere.12221

Newman, P., Beatley, T., & Boyer, H. (2009). Resilient Cities: Responding to Peak Oil and Climate Change. Washington DC: Island press.

Newman, P.; Rauland, V.; & Holden, D. (2011). Creating Resilient Cities: How a new generation of tools can assist local governments in achieving their carbon abatement goals. In Proceedings of State of Australian Cities National Conference, Melbourne, Australia, 29 November–2 December 2011. Retrieved from: http://soac.fbe.unsw.edu.au/2011/papers/SOAC2011_0226_final.pdf

Sagara, B. (2018). Resilience Measurement Practical Guidance Note Series 2: Measuring Shocks and Stresses. Produced by Mercy Corps as part of the Resilience Evaluation, Analysis and Learning (REAL) Associate Award. Retrieved from: https://spark.adobe.com/page/rSG16suIleW7d/

Van der Heijden, J. (2014). Governance for Urban Sustainability and Resilience: Responding to Climate Change and the Relevance of the Built Environment, 31-33. Retrieved from: https://spark.adobe.com/page/rSG16suIleW7d/

van Hinte, E., Neelen, M., Vink, J., & Vollaard, P. (2003). Smart Architecture, Rotterdam: 010 Publishers.

Wilson, G. A. (2012). Community Resilience and Environmental Transitions, London: Routledge.