Community Resilience to Climate Change: Theory, Research and Practice

68 A content analysis was performed on the eighteen building resilience documents and the strategies proposed. The analysis consisted of coding the text and strategies based on the research objectives including climate change hazards addressed (resilience to what?) and the resilience academic domain adopted within each tool (ecology, engineering, disaster risk reduction, and social sciences). Examining the Table 2. Characteristics of climate change resilience tools for buildings. variety of climate change hazards addressed provides a better understanding of the scope of hazards that are prioritized by the building sector. This theme builds on research that argues hazards which have resulted in visible physical and fiscal damage are prioritized in climate change responses [34]. The resilience academic domains adopted are examined to gain a better understanding of how resilience is shaped within the building sector. This was conducted by coding all building strategies proposed based on the intended outcome of that strategy. For example, resilience strategies that addressed social cohesion and community empowerment were coded as social sciences resilience and as bouncing-forward resilience, while strategies for bracing reinforcements and roof strengthening were coded as engineering resilience and bouncing-back resilience. The tools were thus categorized according to the four academic domains identified in the literature section, engineering, ecology, disaster risk reduction, and social sciences. 3. RESULTS 3.1. Resilience to What? A total of 724 resilience strategies were identified from eighteen building climate change resilience tools. To examine the climate change hazards addressed, strategies were grouped into 12 hazard categories based on the coding results (Table 3). The documents ranged from being hazard specific (developed to address one or two types of hazards) to having an all-hazard approach in which a vulnerability assessment was part of the resilience building process. Only three documents were developed to address a specific context including BOSTON (Boston), NYSERDA (New York State), and BRLA (Los Angeles). This means that the resilience strategies proposed within those documents were developed to address the climate change hazards specific to a region. Five resilience documents (LEED, PEER, RELi, ENVISION, and B-READY) address climate change hazards as part of a vulnerability assessment, or all-hazards approach. The documents provide guidelines on the process of conducting a vulnerability assessment to inform the development of appropriate resilience strategies. Resilience strategies in these tools were considered as pathways that support a building’s resilience regardless of the projected hazards or expected risks. For example, strategies such as maintaining backup