FORMULATION OF SUSTAINABLE ADAPTIVE BUILDING DESIGN

(SABD) ASSESSMENT TOOL FOR FILIPINO ARCHITECTS

Ar. Sylvester Shaun D. Seño, uap
Technological Institute of the Philippines - Manila / Atelier Architecture Review Center

ABSTRACT

Sustainability is considered broad and multi-disciplinary, to which around 600+ measuring tools
for such have been developed across the globe. Foremost of these are the L.E.E.D. Version 3.0 from
the United States, and the local counterpart B.E.R.D.E. currently being formulated by the
Philippine Green Building Council. Attempts have been made by policymakers and professionals to
define the scope of sustainability, which is up to now being contested upon. Recently, with countries
regardless of economic standing, affected by natural disasters, a new concept has emerged, termed
as Sustainable Adaptive Building Design (SABD). SABD does not only consider the building or
site’s impact to its environment, economics and society, but also its natural disaster-resilience
component, with the last not present in other sustainability measuring tools. Thus, this paper
attempts to provide a framework for a qualitative assessment tool that can serve as a guide for both
Filipino architects and students.

Sustainability, Sustainable Adaptive Building Design (SABD), Leadership in Energy and

Environment Design (L.E.E.D.), Building for Ecologically Responsive Design Excellence
(B.E.R.D.E.), disaster-resilience

PAPER OUTLINE

1.0. Introduction
1.1. Brief Evaluation on the Current Sustainability Assessment Tools
2.0. Background of the Study
2.1. The Philippines As One of Natural Disaster Hotspots in the World
2.2. The National Building Code (PD 1096) provisions for Disaster-Mitigating
Building Technologies
3.0. The Emergence of the Sustainable Adaptive Design Concept
3.1. Green Design, Sustainable Design and Sustainable Adaptive Design
3.2. Relationship of Disaster-Resilient Structures to Sustainable Design
4.0. Hierarchy of Sustainability
5.0. The Major Components of the Proposed SABD Assessment Checklist
6.0. Conclusion
7.0. Recommendations and Directions for Future Research
8.0. Reference List
 PART 1. INTRODUCTION

What is sustainability? Originating from the Latin word sustere which means ‘to sustain,’ the
concept of sustainability is not new, whose original form dealt with maintenance of
environmental quality and agriculture (Bell, S. & Morse, S., 2008, p.6) until sustainable
development was officially defined by Brundtland (1987) as “the ability of the present
generation of meeting its own needs without compromising the ability of the future
generations to meet their own needs as well,” and which was further delineated into three
general interdependent and critically intertwined elements - environment, economics and
society (International Union for the Conservation of Nature, 2006). In relation to this, one
of the well-known global summits, namely the Rio de Janeiro 1992 Summit or simply called
Agenda 21, added a fourth one on top of the three elements which was the institutional
aspect of policy development , serving as a framework for the first three elements (Sitaiz, D.,
1993) .

In the light of mankind’s growing concern on the implications of Malthusian laws,

sustainability, a highly controversial topic, has become a much used and abused term by
different parties. Professionals, consultants and organizations, ranging from
environmentalists and policymakers, economists and public officials, and even engineers and
architects have discussed and even “applied” the said concept in their respective field of
disciplines, according to their own operational perception of sustainability.

Therefore, discussions about sustainability on this paper, will be viewed and discussed on an
architectural perspective.

Brief Evaluation On The Current Sustainability Assessment Tools

Numerous attempts were made in identifying the scope, and measure the level of
sustainability, as evidenced by more than 600+ assessment tools that were developed and
being used by different sectors worldwide. Ǿyen & Nielsen (2009) said that comparing
between these tools is complicated, though not an impossible task. The difficulty on
comparing these are due to the nature why these tools were formulated for different types of
buildings at different phases of the life cycle (Haapio, A. & Viitaniemi, P., 2008).
Moreover, the difference in topography, climate and socio-economic conditions of each
country have prompted most of the developed countries to formulate their own sustainability
measuring tools. Notable examples are L.E.E.D. Version 3.0 (United States), Green Star
(Australia), Green Globes (Canada) and HK Building Environmental Assessment Method –
BEAM (Hong Kong, PROC). One of Philippines’ environmentally-oriented private sector
organizations, which is the Philippine Green Building Council, or PhilGBC, is also
developing a local version - B.E.R.D.E., or Building for Ecologically Responsive Design
Excellence.

In a report submitted by the UK-based Building Research Establishment or BRE (2004),

their study findings indicate that majority of these so-called sustainability assessment tools
dealt with categories such as urban planning, design, rating systems (for building
certifications), Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) tools and infrastructure.

Ǿyen & Nielsen (2009) reported in their study that one of the findings of the PETUS Project
(Practical Evaluation Tools for Urban Sustainability) – a group of European researchers and
practitioners who investigated the tools used in sustainable design management, stated that
every time these sustainability assessment tools (metrics, models and toolkits) are being used,
the role of the developer of a particular tool, in most cases, becomes the ‘expert” or
‘facilitator’ every time that developer uses such. Moreover, the presence of these 600+ tools
were not being used extensively in most countries, due to cultural barriers, the time and
qualification/skills needed to understand and use these tools and the lack of data that are
needed for using that tool

Roberts (2006) and Jensen and Elle (2007) mentioned in their studies that a multitude of tools
were developed for the past decade, which have somehow addressed partly, but not
completely, sustainable development. None of these were considered to be holistic, or
covering extensively all the three interdependent elements – environment, economics and
society. (BRE, 2004). To add to this, not even one of them addressed the building and site’s
adaptability to climate change (Ǿyen, C. & Nielsen, S., 2009).
 PART II. BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY

In relation to climate change, which is an ever-increasing cause of concern among political

leaders of developing and even developed countries, the world has witnessed the onslaught of
cataclysmic occurrences causing massive loss of human lives, and irreparably damaged
infrastructure, livelihood and livestock. The countries most at risk are developing countries,
which includes The Philippines.

The Philippines As One of the Natural Disaster Hotspots in the World

World Wide Fund (2009) conducted a study on eleven select Asian cities, mostly from
coastal areas (Dhaka, Bangladesh; Jakarta, Indonesia; Manila, Philippines; Calcutta, India;
Phnom Penh, Cambodia; Ho Chi Minh, Vietnam; Shanghai, China; Bangkok, Thailand;
Hong Kong, PROC; Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia and Singapore, Republic of Singapore) and
the WWF findings indicate that Manila, overall, ranks third after Dhaka and Jakarta in terms
of overall vulnerability to natural disasters such as earthquakes, flooding and typhoons in
relation to adaptive capacity (per capita GDP and availability of resources which can be used
to enable immediate recovery after a disaster) and socio-economic sensitivities (people per
city, wealth or GDP and contribution to national GDP).

Last September 2009, the Philippines has experienced the onslaught of typhoon Ondoy
(international name Ketsana), unleashing a month’s worth of rainfall (registering 341.3mm
or 13.44in in PAGASA’s pluviograph) in just six hours which is higher than the historically
highest one recorded last 1967 (335mm), or approximately over 410mm in 24 hours,
causing between short-term to month-long inundation in the total land area of 14.9 square
miles or 85% of National Capital Region (NCR)’s land mass, reported by Department of
Public Works and Highways (DPWH), and as assessed by National Disaster Coordinating
Council (NDCC), Ondoy left approximately over 300 dead, had displaced more than 500,000
individuals and had damaged properties, livestock and agriculture costing between six to
seven billion pesos (De Vera, E., Villas, A. & Antonio, R., 2009)
The Ondoy disaster is no different from the Ormoc tragedy, which happened last November
5, 1991, almost twenty years ago (to the date this paper was prepared). The four-hour
tropical disturbance created flash floods which caused rivers along the coastal areas to
overflow as high as three meters to low-lying areas, particularly Ormoc city, claiming at least
4,081 lives, with 3,020 injured and another 2,500+ missing. The estimated damages to
agricultural crops, poultry and livestock was Php35 million pesos, Php135 million worth of
private properties and Php320 million worth of public infrastructures were either damaged or
destroyed (unadjusted to current valuations). The life and economy of Leyte island was
disrupted. (Environmental Science for Social Change, 2010).

This tragedy pales in comparison with other Asian countries like Myanmar, with the super-
cyclone Nargis decimating at least 138,000 lives last May 2, 2008 with an estimated USD10
billion (unadjusted to current valuations). The hurricane Katrina which battered the United
States’ eastern coast last 2005, was considered the costliest natural disaster with around
USD81 billion and claiming at least 1,836 lives.

Nevertheless, natural disasters do not choose any geographical location nor a country’s
economic standing. It is the equalizer among progressive and financially-struggling nations.
However, given this scenario, the financially-challenged inhabitants, especially in
developing nations are at most risk to the long-term damaging effects of these disasters, given
their limited adaptive capacity and the rapid exhaustion of their limited resources in
rebuilding their lives again after each disaster, due to poor quality of their housing
settlements.. The poverty cycle becomes embedded in their way of living, thereby causing a
strain in the already-strained resources the LGUs and the national government have in
rehabilitating these most vulnerable sectors of the society.

In the midst of the Philippine government’s effort to sustain the gains made by their
aggressive strategies in expanding the economy through foreign direct investments (FDI),
infrastructure construction and agricultural output improvement, the process of spending
billions of pesos in rebuilding these vital infrastructures over and over again render the
economic growth of the country unsustainable, not to mention the boom-and-bust cycle
which the country’s fiscal managers strive to prevent, amid the ballooning budget deficit.. A
significant chunk of the Philippines’ annual budget (more than one-third) goes to debt
servicing payments alone, thereby plunging the country into prolonged poverty, sacrificing
other more critically-important expenditures like social services and infrastructure
development. . (Department of Budget and Management, 2010). Any natural disasters which
affect the Philippines, causes a dent in the Gross National Product (GNP), rendering these
economic revivalist measures, which requires billions of pesos, unsustainable in the long
term.
The National Building Code (P.D. 1096) provisions for
Disaster-Mitigating Building Technologies

The increasing threats brought upon by natural disasters prompted the National Government
to provide social welfare safety nets for the most vulnerable of the country’s constituents like
site resettlement, and livelihood assistance. However, it is interesting to note, that the Basic
Law and the updated Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of the revised National
Building Code (2007) only provided general qualitative guidelines for building construction.
(Basic Law – Chapter 12: General Design Construction Requirements; and the IRR –
Chapter 2 Rule I, Sect. 104). Specific technical provisions are provided by the National
Structural Code of the Philippines (NSCP). The building code provisions give flexibility to
architects to formulate architectural designs as long as the structural integrity is not
compromised. However, no specific provisions were provided on the building’s resiliency
against the unpredictable climate change.

Given the lack of explicit building code provisions on climate adaptability for Filipino
architects, there is an urgent need to formulate a basic assessment framework which can be
used as a critical input in the architectural design process, which will both address the issues
of both sustainability and climate adaptability/disaster-resiliency for the structures.
 PART III. THE EMERGENCE OF THE SUSTAINABLE ADAPTIVE DESIGN
CONCEPT

The global warming phenomenon contributes to rising climatic temperatures, resulting to

shift in climatic patterns which often leads to natural disasters. This is caused by both
manmade and natural drivers. (Inter-governmental Panel of Climate Change, 2007) Melting
of polar ice caps contribute to the gradual rise of sea levels, which brings most of the coastal
regions most vulnerable to inundation, leading to impending damage to properties and
livelihoods, and diaspora of migrant refugees to safer land. In Asia alone, which is
considered most vulnerable with the least adaptive capacity, WWF (2009) reported that
temperatures have risen between 1 to 3 degrees Centigrade over the last 100 years, impacting
from the national economic security to human health, food production, infrastructure, water
availability and ecosystems. The global climate change caused significant review in building
construction and technology employed in dealing with these natural disasters, and has put
pressure on policymakers, urban/environmental planners and government officials to study
carefully land zoning classifications and allocation of resources.

Traditionally, issues on climate adaptability were treated separately in building design.

However, given the specter of climate change, there is a need for a more inclusive building
design approach which does not only deal with the functional aesthetic qualities and
sustainability of the built environment, but also, it should already consider the building’s
ability to gracefully respond to natural disasters and unpredictable weather conditions. (Ǿyen
& Nielsen, 2009).

At this point, given the increasing urgency of incorporating climate change resiliency in
sustainable building design, Ǿyen and Nielsen (2009) stressed out that a new concept has
emerged, termed as sustainable adaptive design. They also emphasized that it is possible to
fir both climate adaptability and sustainability in the design process, through a holistic
management concept.
The management of a holistic design process towards sustainable adaptive design employs
the sensemaking process – an inclusive design process involving all stakeholders from the
very start of the design process, even during the design conceptualization stage. The
stakeholders involved not includes the client and/or end-users, but also allied professionals
and consultants such as geodetic, structural and mechanical engineers and specialty
contractors. The sensemaking process is different from the traditional linear design process,
since perceived problems and all project-related issues, such as energy issues, economics,
Life Cycle Analysis (LCA), climate change adaptability and other relevant factors and their
implications were already threshed out , discussed and settled by all the stakeholders and
actors during the design conceptualization stage, goals were formulated as a group and an
intensive close-loop collaboration among these actors were in full force until the end of the
project life span.. (Nielsen, S.B., Quitzau, M.B., Elle, M., Hoffmann, B., Rødtnes, M. and
Becht, J.P. 2007). The project life span can be either the submittal of the finalized working
drawings to the client or the project turn-over of a newly-constructed building to the client
and/or end-user.

Similar to the sensemaking process (Nielsen et al, 2007), is the Integrated Design Process or
IDP which was coined by Kibert (2008). The IDP is more complicated compared to the
sensemaking process which involves an impartial moderator to conduct a design charette
among stakeholders from the very start.. The common trait for these two holistic design
strategies toward sustainable design development is that the stakeholders were involved in the
project since the conceptual stage.

Green Design, Sustainable Design and Sustainable Adaptive Design

There has been endless debate about the meaning, scope, and the means of measuring
(qualitative and quantitatively) a sustainable building, which are open to different
interpretations, as evidenced by these numerous sustainability assessment tools. For
example, there is a confusion among architects on the difference between ‘green” and
‘sustainable’ buildings. Green buildings are more oriented towards the physical behavior of
a structure towards its positive impact to the environment, where tropical design is a part of.
These includes primitive (rainwater harvesting) and modern technologies (like photovoltaic
cells), physical planning arrangement, optimal orientation , and effective building envelope
and fenestration usage, just to name a few. Guy and Osborne (2001) presented five co-
existing logics for ‘green buildings’ with their particular design strategies. In these five
logics, the social dimension (under ‘Community’) was already integrated, which is not
present in some sustainability assessment tools, focusing on the resource/energy usage,
embodied energy and resource-based LCA, and/or environment-friendly building design and
technologies. However, Ǿyen and Nielsen (2009) added a sixth dimension, which is
climate change adaptability, as exhibited in Table 1.

Table 1: The Six Dimensions of a Green Building

Adapted by Ǿyen and Nielsen (2009) from
Guy and Osborne (2001)

Incorporating the economic aspects shown in Table 1, this would be considered as a

sustainable adaptive building design, which is a product of a multi-disciplinary-based design
process (sensemaking and/or IDP).

In relation to Table 1 is Figure 1 below, which shows the scope of the Life Cycle Analysis of
a project (Scientific Applications International Corporation, 2006), covering from Raw
Materials Acquisition (Pre-Construction Stage) up to Recycling/Management (Post-
Construction Stage), in terms of inputs and outputs.
 Figure 1: The Life Cycle System Boundaries (SAIC, 2006)

Comparing both Table 1 and Figure 1, it has been observed that item nos. 1 to 3 of Table 1
are covered by Figure 1 of the Life Cycle System Boundaries, while items 4 to 5 are under
social dimensions. However, item no.6 which is Interaction (Climate change adaptability)
was not covered by the scope of the LCA. LCA only covers the assumed and/or computed
natural life cycle of a proposed project or a building, usually the useful or service life (from
pre-construction to building demolition due to obsolescence), without considering the
element of uncertainty for sustainable structures, like the threats posed by natural disasters
which might cause destruction of the built environment or assets. The element of
uncertainty in sustainability was already given mathematical interpretation by Krysiak
(2008).

In the context of Life Cycle Analysis or LCA (from Pre-construction Stage up to the natural
end of Building Life) shown in Figure 2 is the diagrammatic relationship between, and the
scope of green design, sustainable design and sustainable adaptive design. In most cases, a
typical designer is only concerned with the standard structural load requirements which
would meet the building code provisions, and is merely focused with material specifications
versus economics, visual and/or functional aesthetics, basic tropical design knowledge (like
passive cooling), landscape design and building morphology vis-à-vis site context. Specific
physical and structural safeguards for unpredictable implications of climate change and
natural disasters, more often than not, were not considered.

Figure 2: The Scope of, and Relationship Between Green, Sustainable and
Sustainable Adaptive Design Concepts

Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) is originally a financial accounting term, dealing with all the
upstream and downstream costs and benefits of a project’s entire life cycle or popularly
known as ‘cradle-to-grave’ analysis approach in terms of the project’s Net Present Value or
NPV. This is different from Life Cycle Costing (LCC) which evaluates and integrates the
costs associated with sustainable buildings, which can also cover only a part of the
building’s Life Cycle stage (like Facilities Management (FM) or Construction Stage) .
Moreover, the art and science of calculating true life cycle impacts and costs of green
buildings is still being formulated, and not generally practiced. (Kats, 2003).

Relationship of Disaster-Resiliency to Sustainable Design

Therefore, when integrating the element of uncertainty on top of the assumed useful or
service life cycle of a building during the design development stage (IRR of Republic
Act.9266– SPP Document 202), a built structure, will be able to fully maximize its product
life cycle, thereby saving on costs, avoiding exhaustion of natural resources and embodied
energy associated with repair and reconstruction of damaged buildings after each natural
disaster. Studies indicate that more than a third of greenhouse emissions come from energy
usage in buildings – both construction and usage. (United Nations Environment Programme,
n.d.), which could nearly double by the year 2030 due to construction booms in Asia, the
Middle East and Latin America. (IPCC, 2007), all the more causing an increasing pressure
on the environment. The urban poor are at most risk due to the nature of their slum
dwellings.

Thus, putting into primary considerations the uncertain factors such as natural disasters in
buildings, would reflect sustainable design, in its most ideal sense. The NPV of the structure
as an investment increases (due to less exposure to uncertain risks such as earthquakes,
flooding and typhoons), while the embodied energy and green house emissions associated
with new construction is significantly reduced. Sustainable adaptive design can also be
applied to public infrastructures, with the aid of sufficient environmental hazard information
such as 100-year flood level, precipitation levels, wind patterns, soil profile, earthquake fault
lines, and vulnerability index (Lantada, N., Pujades L, & Barbat, A, 2007).
 PART IV. HIERARCHY OF SUSTAINABILITY

Sustainable Adaptive Design meets the hierarchy of sustainability as proposed by Marshall

(2004). Marshall based the differing levels of the said hierarchy from the increasing threats
brought upon by ‘what are considered unsustainable’ as it goes higher. Moreover, the said
hierarchy is analogous to Abraham Maslow’s (classic) Hierarchy of Needs, who asserted
that humans are motivated by unsatisfied needs and that certain lower needs must be
satisfied before higher needs can be. Marshall’s hierarchy of sustainability, which
treats human being as an organism, who should live in harmonious coexistence with
the other species of the universe, are as follows:

Figure 3: Hierarchy of Sustainability (Marshall, 2004)

Each level addresses various issues, with Levels 1 and 2 dealing with man’s survival and
basic health. Level 3 addresses species extinction and human rights, like the settlers’
displacement from their original dwelling due to sea-level rise on low-lying regions brought
upon by a tsunami. While the last level covers values which are not covered by previous
three levels, is not covered within the confines of sustainability.

PART V. THE COMPONENTS OF THE PROPOSED

SUSTAINABLE ADAPTIVE BUILDING DESIGN (SABD) ASSESSMENT TOOL

A Philippine non-governmental organization, Philippine Green Building Council or PhilGBC

- a conglomeration of professionals and various sectors from local construction industry, , is
currently formulating their own version of sustainability metric tool, which covers to date (as
of October, 2010), seven (7) areas, namely, Energy Efficiency, Water Efficiency,
Environmental and Site Protection, Indoor Environmental Quality, Green Innovations,
Materials and Resources, Philippine Architecture and Preservation of Cultural Heritage. This
is similar, and inspired by the one continuously being updated (currently version 3.0.) by
the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) which is the Leadership in Energy and
Environmental Design (L.E.E.D.). The L.E.E.D. on the other hand covers six (6) areas,
namely, Sustainable Sites, Water Efficiency, Energy and Atmosphere. Materials and
Resources, Indoor Environmental Quality, and Innovation and Design Process. The reason
why these two sustainability metric tools were chosen in this paper is their simplified
approach in quantifying the level of sustainability in terms of their points system. LEED is
also considered as one of the more popular resources in measuring sustainability in terms of
their Certified, Silver, Gold and Platinum ratings to which U.S.-based buildings strive to
covet their certification for marketing purposes and for tax incentives for ‘green buildings,’
which in turn is one of the cornerstone policies of the incumbent U.S. President Barack
Obama. It has been observed that the main underlying issue which these tools strive to
address is “how will the buildings and site affect the environment and resources?” but not
including the issue “how will the buildings and site respond to climate change/natural
disasters?” Again, the element of uncertainty, which forms an integral part of the Life Cycle
of a building, was not integrated in these metric tools alongside with the rest used in other
countries.

In response to this uncovered area, the framework of the proposed Sustainable Adaptive
Building Assessment Tool was formulated, and shall cover six (6) important areas, shown
below:

SUSTAINABLE ADAPTIVE BUILDING DESIGN ASSESSMENT CHECKLIST

AREA A: Integrated Design Process (IDP)

Area A.1. All Stakeholders are involved, ensuring closed loop collaboration from pre-
design
to building commissioning
Area A.2. All possible issues with regards to society, environment , economics and
natural disaster-resilience were threshed out and settled

AREA B: Climate Change Adaptability / Natural Disaster Resiliency (REQUIRED)

This shall be discussed separately in detail on the succeeding parts of this paper.
AREA C. Societal Aspects of Sustainability (REQUIRED)

Area C.1. The site should not affect any heritage structure nor site. The site should not be
currently covered under National Historical Institute or if ever is qualified to be
placed under NHI marking, should not be disturbed.
Area C.2. The site should not affect nor displace any tribal minority/tribal group. The site
should not be declared as ‘ancestral domain’ by the Commission on National
Cultural Minorities.
Area C.3. The proposed project should not cause displacement nor loss of legitimate livelihood
of legal settlers, unless the resettlement site would provide them with equal or
greater economic opportunity.
Area C.4. The proposed project will not impair nor discriminate, nor show bias when it comes
to gender sensitivities and physically-challenged (Batas Pambansa 344)

AREA D: Building Usage and Occupancy

Area D.1. Multiplicity of Uses – ability to be used and reused for the longest period of time,
for various purposes without the need for reconstruction.

AREA E: Building Life Cycle – Environmental Aspects (energy usage, resource extraction)

Area E.1. Building Material – Sourcing/Extraction), Transport and Delivery, Extensive

Use of Indigenous Materials, Recycled and Recyclable Materials
Area E.2. Building Construction – Installation, Waste generation, Usage of resources
(utilities like water, power, etc.)
Area E.3. Building Morphology – fenestrations, envelope and planning with regards to
energy usage, resource usage and environmental impact
Area E.4. Building Operations – Judicious usage of resources (water, power , etc.), Indoor
Air Quality. Noise and Light Pollution-free
Area E.5. End of Life Cycle (after structural obsolescence) – Demolition Wastes, Recycling
Area E.6. Building vis-à-vis Environment – Minimum criteria is that the proposed
development should not disturb the present ecological balance of the site, or if
possible, improve the current biodiversity and restore it to achieve ecological
balance.

AREA F: Economic Aspects

Area F.1. The proposed development should enable considerably fast return on investment
(ROI) (no more than 5 – 10 years, which is 1/5 of the useful life) for additional
expenses spent during construction (if any) for green building technologies (PV
cells, biogas digester, etc.) versus the cost savings incurred due to utilities savings

Area F.2. The proposed project will give priority employment (if applicable) to local residents
in the area.

Area F.3. The proposed project will use indigenous materials (if applicable) that were locally
produced by the residents within 10 kilometer radius from the site.
In the proposed SABD Checklist, the Climate Change Adaptability/Natural Disaster
Resiliency (Area B), which is a new feature and not present among other Sustainability
Assessments tools, metrics and frameworks, and Societal Aspects of Sustainability (Area C)
were considered pre-requisite requirements. Another new component is the Integrated
Design Process (Area A) which would serve as the prime mover of the entire sustainable
adaptive design process, and Economic Aspects (Area F).

Under Area B (Climate Change Adaptability/Natural Disaster Resiliency), these shall be used
on a case-to-case basis, given the varying geo-climatic conditions of the different parts of the
Philippines. Area B require these pre-requisite data and be acquired from Philippine
Atmospheric, Geophysical and Astronomical Services Administration (PAGASA), Bureau
of Soils and Water Management (BSWM), Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (DENR), Philippine Institute of Volcanology and Seismology (PHIVOLCS) and
National Mapping and Resource Information Authority (NAMRIA).

Area B (Climate Change Adaptability/Natural Disaster Resiliency) was adapted from the
United Nations – International Strategy for Disaster Reduction with the World Bank and
Inter-agency Network for Education in Emergencies (INEE) (2009) assessment checklist for
safer school building constructions in disaster-prone Asian countries:. The detailed content
of Area B are as follows:

AREA B. Climate Change Adaptability / Disaster-Resiliency

AREA B.1. Site Profile and Characteristics ((Primary Hazard)

sub-questiB.1.1. The subsoil should be sufficiently dense to prevent liquefaction

due to an earthquake
B.1.2.The water table is deep enough to prevent water-logging and
ensure timely drainage.
B.1.3.Natural wind blockades (such as trees, earth formation, etc.) exist
to diminish wind loads on the structure.
B.1.4. The slope has not been stripped of vegetation by logging, slash-
and-burn (kaingin) or farming, which would make it more
susceptible to a mudslide.
AREA B.2. The Site vis-à-vis the Adjacent Sites (Secondary Hazards)

B.2.1. Adjacent industrial facilities and chemical plants will not accidentally
release toxic materials during inundation/flooding.
B.2.2. Nearby vulnerable structures will not fall and potentially damage the
proposed project after an earthquake
B.2.3. The site did not previously experience storm surge flooding during
coastal wind events.

AREA B.3. During and Post-Disaster Scenarios

B.3.1. The site provides for effective and safe evacuation routes.
B.3.2. The site is easily accessible by emergency response personnel
during and after each disaster

AREA B.4. Future Building and Site Development vis-à-vis Disaster Vulnerability

B.4.1. There is sufficient space for future expansion without increasing

the proposed project’s vulnerability
B.4.2. The future land use or development in surrounding areas will not
pose greater risks to the proposed project

AREA B.5. Earthquakes

B.5.1. The site is far as possible from known earthquake fault lines.
B.5.2. The site minimizes or prevents potential harm due to earthquake-
Induced landslides.
B.5.3. The site is composed of firmest sub-soil available.
B.5.4. The ground water level is well below the foundation level
B.5.5. There is sufficient space between buildings (depending on building
Technology employed)
B.5.6. In tsunami-prone areas, the selected site at elevation is above that of
maximum potential wave height.
B.5.7. The potential easily-accessible evacuation and access routes for
Emergency services were identified
B.5.8. The structures in surrounding areas may serve as a shelter for those
displaced in emergencies.
B.5.9. The structural elements were designed to be symmetrical and evenly
spread over the building plan (depends on the building technology
and material used)
B.5.10. The building is designed to be vertically regular with respect to lateral
stiffness and weight distribution (depends on the building technology
and material used)
B.5.11. All structural elements are securely connected together.
 B.5.12. Building is designed to resist lateral loads from all directions.
B.5.13. The resiliency of structure was increase through use of ductile
technology and materials
B.5.14. The building structural elements transfer loads directly to the
ground.
B.5.15. The building is designed to resist uplift loads

AREA B.6. Windstorms

B.6.1. The site, if possible, has the least exposure to windstorms.

B.6.2. The site decreases proximity of potentially unsafe structures and
potentially damaging debris during disaster.

B.6.3. The site’s elevation is greater than highest flood levels in prior
storm surges.

B.6.4. The building foundation is sufficiently large and heavy to resist

uplift force on building.
B.6.5. The foundation is designed, and at a depth, to resist erosion
by potential storm surge.
B.6.7. All structural elements are securely connected together and
firmly anchored to the foundation.
B.6.8. The structural elements transfer loads directly to the ground.
B.6.9. The connections between roof structure and walls were sufficiently
reinforced
B.6.10.Very low and very steep sloped roofs were avoided (depending
upon building construction and materials)
B.6.11. The use of wide roof overhangs were avoided (depending upon
building construction and materials).
B.6.12. The corners and edges of all sides of the buildings were reinforced.
B.6.13. The exterior surface irregularities were minimized (depending upon
building construction and materials)
B.6.14. The building is designed to resist lateral loads from all directions.
B.6.15. The building envelope is designed to resist damage by wind-borne
debris.
.
 AREA B.7. Floods

B.7.1. The site at elevation is above that of expected flood levels.

B.7.2. Other site selection criteria for other identified hazards such as floods,
landslides and earthquakes were also considered.
B.7.3. The site have best drainage potentials and existing drainage systems
were also assessed.
B.7.4.The site has natural erosion deterrents such as trees and ground cover
B.7.5. The emergency access and evacuation routes were identified.
B.7.6. Stable fills were constructed to raise site during expected flood elevation.
B.7.7. Earthen or concrete flood barriers were constructed on site or at source
of flood.
B.7.8. All building elements are securely fastened together and firmly anchored
to the foundation.
B.7.10.Building components were designed to resist lateral loads.
B.7.11.If the expected flood level is to meet building foundation, the foundations
were designed to equalize external and internal water pressure (like
weepholes, etc.).
B.7.12. Shear walls, columns, or fill to elevate building were designed in such a
way that the plinth level rests above the expected flood level,
accomplished by building on columns, piles or earth-compacted fill.

B.7.13. The building is designed to be waterproof , thru building materials,

and construction technologies.
B.7.14. Electrical, mechanical and plumbing systems, and any other valuable
equipment were to be elevated above the expected flood level.

AREA B.8. Landslides (with flooding)

B.8.1.The site should avoid the base of slopes in a land/mudslide zone.

B.8.2.Deep cuts into a hill were avoided. (If applicable)
B.8.3.The retaining walls were provided for .(if applicable)
B.8.4.There is adequate vegetation cover on nearby slopes (if applicable)
B.8.5. Channels and drainage systems were provided for to decrease water level
and divert drainage from site
Part B of the proposed SABD Assessment Checklist shall be used discretely, depending on
the local site condition. Each site has varying earthquake, flooding and other type of natural
disaster vulnerability levels, thus, if a site, for example, is considered to be earthquake-prone,
only the criteria under this particular aspect is applicable.

For Area E (Building Life Cycle – Environmental Aspects (energy usage, resource
extraction), the criteria contained under this area serves as a general framework for any
sustainability assessment resource which can be used (like the L.E.E.D. or the proposed
B.E.R.D.E.). However, plans are underway for the formulation of a detailed checklist for
this portion.
PART VI. CONCLUSION

In every building design and site planning, whether tackling sustainability or not, the issue of
anticipating unforeseen fortuitous events should be taken into account. The life cycle of the
building should not only include the expected useful or service life of a structure, but also
include the elements of uncertainty. Every natural disaster poses a threat to any of the three
intertwining elements of sustainability – environment, society and economics (livelihood and
building asset), therefore with the formulation of Sustainable Adaptive Building Design
(SABD) Assessment Checklist, this can serve as a comprehensive guide for Filipino
architects, and even BS Architecture students, not only in their building design but also in site
planning. If the proposed assessment tool was integrated in site planning for Design
subjects in the BS Architecture curriculum, the holistic concept of Sustainability will already
be inculcated in the students’ mindset, molding them to be constructive movers of
tomorrow’s safer and sustainable communities

PART VII. RECOMMENDATIONS AND DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

This paper attempts to provide the basic framework for the Sustainable Adaptive Building
Design Assessment Checklist. A user-friendly points system can be integrated into this
assessment tool, by using a language which is easily understandable by both Filipino
architects and BS Architecture students.
Moreover, the SABD Assessment Checklist can be more easily used if the national
government, thru the National Disaster Coordinating Council (NDCC), can formulate a
vulnerability index and natural disaster vulnerability maps for each local government unit
(LGU). These standardized vulnerability maps will replace those multitude of separate maps
showing different site attributes (like soil, water tables, earthquake faultlines, etc.) coming
from different government agencies. In this way, it will be more efficient for architects to
formulate sound judgment when it comes to site planning and building design with regards to
natural disasters.

PART VII. REFERENCE LIST

Bell, S. & Morse, S. (2008). Sustainability indicators: measuring the immeasurable? UK:
TJ International Ltd.

Building Research Establishment Ltd. (2004). BRE Subcontract Assessment of Sustainability

Tools. Report No.15961. UK.

Department of Budget and Management. (2010). Manila

Department of Public Works and Highways. (2009). Manila.

De Vera, E., Villas, A. & Antonio, R. (2009, September 28). Flood blamed on record
rainfall. Manila Bulletin. Retrieved from http://www.mb.com.ph/articles/222285/
flood-blamed-record-rainfall

Environmental Science for Social Change. (2010). Quezon City. Retrieved from
http://essc.org.ph/images/ESSC/Publications/Ormoc_Tragedy/chapter%201%20the%
20ormoc%20city%20tragedy.pdf

Foz, V. (ed.). (2007). National Building Code of the Philippines (P.D. 1096). Quezon City:
Philippine Law Gazette (revised)

Kats, G. (2003). The Cost and Financial Benefits of Green Buildings. Ca. USA: A Report to
California’s Sustainable Building Task Force. California.

Krysiak, F. (2008). Sustainability and its relation to efficiency under uncertainty. 41: 297-
315. Economic Theory. Switzerland: Springer Science+Business Media (DOI
10.1007/s00199-008-0397-x)
Haapio, A. & Viitaniemi, P. (2008). A critical review of building environmental assessment
tools. Vol.28, Issue 7 Environmental Impact Assessment Review. Helsinki. 469-482.

International Union for the Conservation of Nature . (2006)

IPCC (2007) Summary for policymakers. In: Solomon, S., Qin, D. Manning, M., Chen, Z.,
Marquis, M., Averyt, K.B., Tignor, M. and Miller, H.L. (eds), Climate Change 2007:
The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.

Kibert, C. (2008). Sustainable Construction: Green Building Design & Delivery. 2nd ed. John
Wiley & Sons, Inc., USA

Lantada, N., Pujades, L. & Barbat, A. (2008). Vulnerability index and capacity spectrum
based methods for urban seismic risk evaluation. A comparison. 51:501–524.
Natural Hazards. Switzerland: Springer Science+Business Media (DOI
10.1007/s11069-007-9212-4)

Ǿyen, C., and Nielsen, S. (2009). Architectural Management Tools for Sustainable and
Adaptive Building Design. Chap. 7. In: Emmitt, S. , Prins, M. and Otter, A. (eds.)
Architectural Management International Research and Practice.

Marshall, J. (2004). Framing the Elusive Concept of Sustainability: A Sustainability

Hierarchy. American Chemical Society. California USA. (DOI:
10.1021/es040394k)

National Disaster Coordinating Council. (2009). Manila.

Nielsen, S.B., Quitzau, M.B., Elle, M., Hoffmann, B., Rødtnes, M. and Becht, J.P. (2007)
Integrated sustainable urban infrastructure in building projects. Paper presented at
IFHP World Congress 2007, Copenhagen

Professional Regulation Commission. (2010). Prescribing the Standards of Professional

Practice (SPP) For Architects As Supplemental Implementing Rules and Regulations
(IRR) of Republic Act No. 9266,. Known As “The Architecture Act of 2004.”
Resolution No. 03. Manila

Roberts, P. (2006) Evaluating regional sustainable development: approaches, methods and the
politics of analysis. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 49(4),
515–532.

Scientific Applications International Corporation. (2006). Life Cycle Assessment: Principles

and Practice.
Sitaiz, D. (1993). Agenda 21: The earth summit strategy to save our planet. US Colorado:
EarthPress

United Nations Environmental Programme. (n.d.)

World Wide Fund. (2009). Mega-Stress for Mega-Cities: A Climate Vulnerability Ranking
of Major Coastal Cities in Asia. (Report). Switzerland.