There’s a relatively new resource available from the Institute for Catastrophic Loss Reduction (ICLR) for insurers, homebuilders and consumers alike who are interested in incorporating resilient practices and materials into their new home builds, renovation, and post-loss rebuilds.
The first iteration of the building guidelines – tiered residential construction guidelines that allow for incremental adoption of resilience practices – developed in conjunction with the Canadian Home Builders’ Association (CHBA), are now available at ICLR.org/resilient.
The result of a two-year collaboration between the two organizations, the effort was undertaken initially because the institute, in the course of its work, had developed a wealth of knowledge and a library of resources, none of which was being tapped or incorporated during building efforts.
“They got builders and insurers to agree on clear, practical and effective guidance for above-code, resilient construction. That kind of meeting of the minds is rare and it’s necessary,” says Keith Porter, ICLR chief engineer in a recent ICLR webinar on the topic. “It’s necessary if Canada is going to decide as a society to resolve its resilience problems. The leading stakeholders have to agree on technical details and with consensus on technical guidance.”
One foundational issue that the Resilient Homes Task Force looked to overcome was the general lack of awareness of the guidance that is already available. “We know where in Canada that we’re at risk and generally we know the technical guidance, or we have the technical guidance to reduce risk, but we really haven’t been applying it widely,” said Dan Sandink, ICLR’s director of research during the same presentation. “That guidance typically has not been implemented. There’re very few examples.”
Barrier to implementation
One barrier to implementation identified was the technical nature and complexity of the existing standards that had been produced over the past 10 years, as many required input from fire engineers and structural engineers for application. “It’s really not in the appetite of many builders, that they’re telling us anyway, to apply options in this fashion. One of the first things they set us on was a project to prioritize resilience options.”
The important insight gleaned in this instance was the need to produce guidance that could be adopted readily by companies and tradespeople without a lot of interpretation by outside experts.
It was also noted that there is an expectation from builders that the application of resilience options in buildings will directly affect insurance coverage, premiums in particular. “One of the things that we had to work with the builders and the insurers to help communicate that resilience measures for any given policyholder, could affect premiums, but it could also affect deductibles, sub limits, availability of coverage and depreciation schedules,” Sandink says. “You might see an incentive, but not in the form of a clear premium reduction.”
He adds that the institute intends to release simple primers on insurance incentives that outline these mechanisms and the impact resilience measures would have on each in the future. “Unfortunately, it’s difficult to communicate,” he says. “That’s a challenge that we’ll have to continue to address over the coming months and years working with the building industry.”
Sandink’s presentation also discussed pilot studies currently underway at some length, and the lessons derived so far, from each.
Focusing on simplicity
The guides and the checklists themselves are iterative and will be refined over time as the working group receives feedback from users. The current set of materials, informed by the group’s work, are intentionally simple. Core advice from the working group pertained to the presentation of options – the institute was told to use simple language, avoid technical terms and avoid referencing testing standards whenever possible.
The taskforce was also told to assume that users of the guidelines won’t speak English or French – they were encouraged to make the guidelines interpretable using 3D drawings and pictures whenever possible.
Sandink says the taskforce also looked at how to treat some requirements differently – those that were onerous were moved into a different category for consideration. “The goal here is not to have a builder walk away from a resilience project altogether because they can’t achieve a few select practices,” he says. The goal, he adds “was to get these practices on the table to help builders become aware.”
Insurance incentives
Other work the institute wants to pursue in the future is research into the incentives that insurance companies offer, as all work independently and have their own strategies.
He also notes that insurers want evidence before offering such incentives.
“We know that a better continuous load path will reduce risk during a high wind event, based on engineering studies and calculations (but) that information does not translate to an insurance company underwriting department. They need to see information in claims and see a difference between the building in Calgary that had hail protective roof cover and a neighbouring building that didn’t,” he points out.
To that end, the institute is also looking for pilot project sponsors to join the likes of Aviva Canada and TD Insurance who are already sponsoring some of this work.
Finally, he says the simplified introductory materials and checklists created, then correspond with a library of technical sheets which get into reference standards, materials selection, expected loss reduction benefits of each measure, expected costs, installation difficulty and product sourcing.
Going forward, the institute also has plans for work with more manufacturers. “We’ve also heard that people have trouble finding materials,” Sandink concedes. “What they want is demand from the market. If there’s demand from builders, from the building industry, they’ll ship product. The reason why they’re not shipping it is because nobody’s asking for it. We have to help generate that demand.” To that end, the institute plans to work with a videographer to help profile builders and their resilient building practices.
“That’s part of our ongoing strategy here, to make sure these guidelines are actually applied in the field,” he says.
The importance of the work was also alluded to in the discussion: Sandink points out that there are currently working groups convened to incorporate climate adaptation into the 2030 national building codes but adds that the institute doesn’t expect all of the resilience measures being promoted will be incorporated. “And it seems now that wildfire practices could be pushed back even further than the 2030 codes,” he says.
“This work with the building industry, looking for opportunities for voluntary adoption by builders and by insurers looking for opportunities to market resilience still remains an important mechanism over the coming decades in the absence of regulation,” he says. “It signifies the importance of continuing this work.”
