The future demands a system thinking approach
This London Climate Action Week, we caught up with Olivia O'Brien, our new Head of Climate Resilience.
“We wouldn't design a building without understanding the ground conditions, so why would we design one without understanding future climate conditions?”
We sat down with Olivia and explored why that matters, the risks it can create for projects and investors, and why climate resilience needs to be viewed as more than just the latest industry buzzword.
The better we understand climate risks, the better informed our decisions can be - from building systems and site layouts to infrastructure and materials. Ultimately, that helps create places that are better equipped to perform, and thrive, over the long term.
The challenge is lack of consistency.
Today, most organisations have established ways of measuring and reporting on sustainability, carbon and energy performance.
Climate resilience presents a different challenge.
Assessments need to account for site-specific risks, project-specific vulnerabilities and uncertain future conditions.
The challenge is creating greater consistency without losing that nuance.
Why does this matter?
Because climate risk influences real design decisions.
Decisions about:
- Building systems
- Site layouts
- Infrastructure
- Materials
- Long-term operational performance
The better those risks are understood, the better those decisions can be.
Climate resilience will never be one-size-fits-all.
Every project is different.
Every building is different.
Every place faces different climate risks.
That's why climate resilience assessments will always require professional judgement and project-specific thinking.
But flexibility shouldn't mean inconsistency.
We don't need a rigid tick-box exercise, and we don't need more reporting requirements.
What we do need is greater consistency in how climate risks are identified, assessed and communicated.
Enough consistency to build confidence.
Enough flexibility to reflect the realities of each project.
The earlier climate risk is understood, the more useful it becomes.
Before layouts are fixed, before systems are specified, before major investment decisions are made.
The risks inform design, and the design informs resilience.
Climate resilience shouldn't be a late-stage check. It should help shape decisions from the start.
The future demands a system thinking approach.
Climate risks don't sit within a single discipline.
Creating greater consistency won't come from more checklists.
It will come from connecting those decisions earlier, understanding how they affect one another, and assessing climate risk as part of a wider network.
Climate resilience isn't a challenge that can be solved in isolation... It requires system thinking.
