855773667-LEED-v5-O-M-Reference-Guide-Launch-Edition-1 - Page 034

Extracted Content

experiencing rising temperatures, extreme heat may be prioritized due to its impact on material degradation and increased cooling loads.

Once priority hazards are identified, teams must document findings in the USGBC Climate Resilience Assessment Template or submit an equivalent assessment using an external tool.

Assessing hazards After project teams identify two priority hazards, evaluate the impact by specifying the IPCC emissions scenario used in the assessment, which outlines possible future atmospheric greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations. Define scenarios that are both acceptable and appropriate for the project’s geographic location, taking into account local climate action plans to guide their selection. For instance, Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSP) 1-2.6 (Low Emissions Scenario) are recommended for projects aiming to align with ambitious global climate mitigation goals or for those with shorter lifespans (20–30 years), where less severe climate impacts are expected. Conversely, SSP5-8.5 (High Emissions Scenario) is more suitable for projects in high-risk areas, those with longer lifespans (50+ years), or where significant climate impacts are anticipated due to limited mitigation measures or regional vulnerabilities.

Next, teams define the projected service life of the project. For LEED projects, the projected service life refers to the project’s expected lifespan, which could extend to fiscal year 2050 or up to 100 years, during which the assessment of hazard risks remains applicable. Project teams must also evaluate the hazard level and assign a hazard risk rating based on the potential severity and impact. The hazard level reflects the intensity of a specific hazard event, categorized as low, medium, or high. Project teams should report and identify the level of each potential hazard using historical data and future projections. Teams can refer to the IPCC climate projections for historical data or climate projections. The hazard risk rating typically comes from local or regional hazard mitigation plans, and it assesses the likelihood of a hazard occurring. Teams must provide a risk rating for each identified hazard.

Project teams must evaluate the project’s susceptibility to each hazard and consider multiple factors, including exposure, sensitivity, adaptive capacity, vulnerability, and overall risk levels. Exposure refers to the degree to which the project is vulnerable to hazards, such as its proximity to water bodies or seismic zones. Sensitivity indicates how significantly these hazards may affect the project based on factors like materials, structural design, and infrastructure. Adaptive capacity is the project’s ability to adapt, withstand, or recover from the impacts of hazards through resilient design, contingency planning, or technology. A project with backup generators and multiple water supply systems has a higher adaptive capacity compared to one without. [8]

8 R. Askar, L. Bragança, and H. Gervásio, “Adaptability of Buildings: A Critical Review on the Concept Evolution,” Applied Sciences 11, no. 10 (2021): 4483, https://doi.org/10.3390/app11104483.

U.S. Green Building Council LEED v5 Reference Guide for Operations and Maintenance, April 2025 Launch Edition 24