Next Article in Journal
A Novel Earth-to-Air Heat Exchanger-Assisted Ventilated Double-Skin Facade for Low-Grade Renewable Energy Utilization in Transparent Building Envelopes
Previous Article in Journal
Effects of Incorporating Iron-Rich Slag on the Performance of Calcium Sulfoaluminate Cement: Strength Development, Hydration Mechanisms and Microstructure
Previous Article in Special Issue
Scientometric Analysis on Climate Resilient Retrofit of Residential Buildings
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Buildings
Volume 15
Issue 20
10.3390/buildings15203653
buildings-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Developing a National Climate Adaptation Framework for the Design of Moisture-Resilient Buildings

by
Tore Kvande
1,* and
Berit Time
2
1
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), 7034 Trondheim, Norway
2
SINTEF Community, 7465 Trondheim, Norway
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Buildings 2025, 15(20), 3653; https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15203653 (registering DOI)
Submission received: 20 August 2025 / Revised: 29 September 2025 / Accepted: 9 October 2025 / Published: 11 October 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Climate Resilient Buildings: 2nd Edition)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

Risk assessment for moisture safety—particularly in the context of future climate scenarios—is not yet a routine component of building design practices. Key challenges include: (1) uncertainty over who is responsible for conducting assessments, (2) ambiguity regarding the appropriate timing, and (3) a lack of clear guidance on integrating climate data into the process. To meet the challenges, this article explores and evaluates the development of a national climate adaptation framework for designing moisture-resilient buildings in alignment with projected future climate conditions and the requirements of the Norwegian Planning and Building Act. In noteworthy detail the article presents the general approach/steps followed in the research and the qualitative climate risk assessment elements to be considered in the design process of buildings. The framework has been co-produced with the Norwegian construction industry and public sector and introduces structured checklists and division of responsibilities (architects, engineers, etc.) to clarify and operationalize this. The mainstreaming of climate adaptation requires further refinement and broader integration of climate indices into building guidelines. These indices enable more accurate moisture performance predictions and help eliminate unsuitable solutions for specific zones. The framework—reinforced by tools such as the SINTEF Building Research Design Guides (Byggforskserien)—offers a comprehensive, evolving approach to moisture resilience, dependent on ongoing tool development, clarified roles, and wider uptake of climate-sensitive risk assessments.

1. Introduction

A minimum requirement for a building should be that it can withstand being left outside. However, that is not always the case, with rainwater being a central source of building defects in e.g., Sweden [1,2], Belgium [3], Canada [4], and Norway [5]. Climate change, with more rainfall, increases the risk of defects in buildings and shortens their lifespan [6,7]. Further, relying on past experiences with hazards as a reliable measure of risk preparedness overlooks the evolving link between extreme weather events and climate change [8]. As part of adapting buildings to the changing climate, there is a need for a more systematic approach [9]. This includes considering predicted climate changes, carrying out risk assessments, and designing and developing climate-resilient solutions when planning new buildings or upgrading existing ones [10].
Moving forward, there will be a constant need to develop rules and methods that integrate data and projections about future climates (climate scenario data) into the construction industry’s decision-making tools [11]. This will make it easier for developers, architects, consultants, and material producers to take future and local climates into account when planning for moisture management and designing solutions and products.
Climate change also means there is a greater need for risk assessments, uncertainty analyses, and managing uncertainties related to the design and construction of new or upgraded buildings and details [11,12,13,14]. Assessing risks for buildings is also part of the EU Taxonomy (sustainability goals: climate adaptation) and is included in the “Technical Screening Criteria” for buildings [15]. A recent EU report on climate adaptation [16] highlights the need for vulnerability and risk assessments for buildings and points out the lack of tools for this. This area is not yet fully developed, but authorities and the industry are increasingly aware of the need. Initiatives and knowledge projects are being launched to emphasize climate adaptation by creating design methods for buildings that incorporate these factors, such as Climate-ADAPT [17]. Climate adaptation is now also included in environmental certification tools such as BREEAM (international) [18] and the Nordic Swan Ecolabel (Nordic domain) [19]. Both systems require an initial risk assessment. Although these refer to general methods for risk assessment, the construction industry needs more targeted and unified tools to carry out these assessments effectively for buildings [14].
Further, the term “Risk” lacks a universally accepted definition, despite—or perhaps due to—its widespread use. Johansen [20] compiled numerous historical definitions without reaching a definitive one. ISO 31000:2018 [21] defines risk as “the effect of uncertainty on objectives,” while PMBOK [22] refers to it as “the effects of uncertainty on project outcomes.” Rausand [23] frames risk through three questions: What can go wrong? What is the likelihood? What are the consequences? Across definitions, risk generally combines the probability of unwanted events with their consequences. In this article, risk refers specifically to building defects.
A dominant source for building defects is moisture [1,2,3,4,5]. Hence, there exist national systematic methods for moisture safety in the construction process. In Sweden, for example, ByggaF [24] aims to proactively address moisture-related challenges in new construction, renovation, and refurbishment projects. It provides a structured framework for documenting essential activities and measures to ensure a moisture-resistant building. This approach enables early decision-making regarding key systems, material selection, and production methods that influence the building’s moisture safety. The system is designed for the Swedish context and for the time being does not focus specifically on climate change issues. Finland, however, has modified the Swedish ByggaF standard to align with its national regulations, integrating it into real construction projects to enhance moisture safety [25]. Similarly, Denmark has established a voluntary guideline to help ensure compliance with the Danish Building Regulations regarding moisture management throughout the construction process [26]. This framework covers all phases, from initial proposals to project delivery, as well as the one-year and five-year inspections. It includes a system for classifying buildings into humidity risk categories, acknowledging that the potential for moisture defects depends on both exposure during construction and the building’s ability to resist moisture. Additionally, the guideline outlines how moisture-related aspects should be integrated into the industry’s general quality assurance system. However, according to Morishita-Steffen et al. [27], the use of the guidelines is scattered and voluntary. Still, ambiguous legal frameworks and unclear assignment of responsibilities remain significant obstacles to implementing climate change adaptation in the private sector [14]. The situation is further complicated by the fact that, although there are numerous methods for assessing climate vulnerability and risk, few are tailored specifically to the context of buildings [28].
The objective of this article is to document and assess the establishment of a national climate adaptation framework for the design of moisture-resilient buildings to comply with future climate scenarios and the Norwegian outline—i.e., the Norwegian Planning and Building Act [29]. A first approach for a climate adaptation framework was presented and discussed by Lisø et al. [10], which explained the ambition and holistic system. This article aims to describe the fulfilment of the framework founded on the Norwegian traditions, set of rules, regulations, standards, and design guidelines to be implemented within the Norwegian construction industry. Thus, the framework is tailor-made for the existing system of performance-based regulations (the Norwegian outline). The framework intends to highlight national governmental regulatory measures, to address tools that can be useful in verifying solutions and material choices, and to present a systematic way of thinking for conducting climate change adaptation. Novelty of international interest is the collaborative and structured approach by the private–public research aiming for the national climate adaptation framework for the construction industry. Hence, the general approach/steps followed in the research is presented in detail, while the tools and technical solutions used for fulfilling national governmental regulatory measures are not included in the article. Recommendations for useful tools and services to meet the specific/actual regulatory requirements are only included in the full version of the framework [30]. Further, the qualitative climate risk assessment elements identified by the process should be of interest independently of national outlines, although matters concerning building process, organization, and interaction will not be described. The framework is in this manner physically oriented.
Risk assessment can be quantitative or qualitative. Quantitative methods use numerical estimates; qualitative ones rely on descriptive assessments [23]. In Norway, comprehensive quantitative data on building defects is lacking. Existing quantitative studies, e.g., [5,31,32,33,34], rely on limited datasets from single entities like SINTEF, insurers, or legal cases, introducing sample bias. This data gap complicates quantitative assessments, motivating the qualitative risk assessments of the framework proposed in this article.

2. Methodology

Research practice, funding agencies, and global science organizations suggest that research aimed at addressing sustainability challenges is most effective when ‘co-produced’ by academics and non-academics. Co-production promises to address the complex sustainability challenges better than more traditional scientific approaches [35]. Principles for such knowledge co-production are context-based, pluralistic, goal-oriented, and interactive [35]. The framework has therefore been developed and co-produced with the Norwegian construction industry and public sector actors during the eight-year project period of SFI Klima 2050 [36], following the timeline and workflow as described in Table 1.

2.1. Joint Expert Workshop Series

A series of six joint workshops are conducted involving a wide range of experts within the construction industry. The experts were representing companies and organisations involved in the SFI Klima 2050 project, covering the whole value chain of the construction industry. Included are experts from non-life insurance (building defects), property owners (maintenance, operation, and management), the municipality (planning and construction case management), property developers and home builder companies (marketing), construction product manufacturers (products and systems to the building envelope), consulting (architecture, structural engineering, building physics, and stormwater management), and meteorologists. The participants were pointed out by the involved companies and organisations based on personal interest and knowledge. All the participants were experienced within the field.
The first workshop [38] discussed climate adaptation definitions, branding, and barriers, and pointed out ambitions and directions for further work. The actors representing the construction industry presented their frustration over unclear understanding of climate adaptation and lack of knowledge about how to consider a changing climate in design of buildings. They announced an urgent need for a comprehensive approach to respond to the fragmented and unclear governmental regulatory measures for climate adaptation of buildings. As a following-up of the workshop, the marketing potential for climate adapted buildings was mapped by Vikan in her master’s thesis [39].
The second workshop was prepared by the home builder company Mesterhus, which designed three examples of detached houses that were discussed during the workshop in the context of climate adaptation [40]. The purpose was to establish a common understanding of “climate adapted building” and to identify climate risk elements to be considered. The exercise revealed a need for improved tools and guidelines for sorting of materials’ and building details’ robustness in respect to climate exposure, and a need for agreement on a clear definition of a climate adapted building.
The third workshop [42] was devoted solely to extreme weather events, available data, and discussions of data needs for building design purposes. Relevant data for Norwegian context is presented by the Norwegian Centre for Climate Services (NCCS) [50] to provide decision makers in Norway with relevant information regarding climate change for climate adaptation. The workshop mapped a need for design data for further development of the NCCS database and, hence, relevant combinations of climate exposures to be considered for the climate risk assessment of buildings.
The fourth workshop focused on the challenge of the procurement of actors with sufficient competence in climate adaptation for a project’s planning and construction case. The workshop resulted in a guideline highlighting topics that need to be addressed and tasks that need to be solved, with significance for climate adaptation, in a project’s planning and construction case [43]. The work was a first attempt to sort assessment of climate risk elements on responsible actors in a building process.
A first approach of the framework was discussed in the fifth workshop [44]. In conjunction with the workshop, Danbolt [41] had mapped and evaluated potential tools and guidelines for the design of climate-adapted buildings in her master’s thesis. The workshop [44] concluded with risk element sorted by climate exposures and not e.g., by responsible actor, building component, or geographical location. Further, the qualitative climate risk assessment approach was supported instead of a quantitative assessment. Since it is difficult to quantify most of the risk elements in the building and these vary greatly in nature, the construction industry wanted a colour scale commonly associated with risk assessments—green-yellow-red—to express the range from high to low risk.
The last workshop discussed the use of climate normals, reference periods, and the effect of climate change [47,51]. It was decided to complete the transition to a new normal period (1991–2020) for relevant design tools. For stormwater management climate change factors is recommended. Further, uncertainty treatment and communication in using future climate scenarios were problematized. This issue was followed up by Gaarder et al. [52].
In total, the entire workshop series involved 145 persons.

2.2. Document Studies

Governmental regulatory measures for the climate adaptation of buildings were identified by thorough inspections of the Norwegian Planning and Building Act [29] and the Regulations on Technical Requirements for Construction Works (TEK17) [53]. Further, all relevant SINTEF Building Research Design Guides (Byggforskserien) [54] were scrutinized to reveal relevant thematic documents for climate risk assessment.

2.3. Interviews

Mapping of the marketing potential for climate-adapted buildings was carried out by Vikan [39]. The mapping involved semi-structured interviews with two home builder companies, two contractors, three manufacturers of building components, three property owners, and one municipality. In total, eleven experts in the field were interviewed. Vikan’s findings revealed significant differences in focus areas related to climate adaptation in building design, as well as the diverse opinions, thoughts, and ideas held by various stakeholders in the construction industry regarding future work on climate adaptation. A wide range of suggestions and ideas demonstrated strong engagement and indicated that stakeholders see promising market potential in climate adaptation efforts. In assessing the most critical climate exposure factors, there is a desire to examine the relationship between current building damages and expected future climate changes, and to develop new tools to support this. This is particularly relevant for solutions that ensure robust moisture-resilience in a future climate.
Further, Danbolt interviewed experienced consultants in the field of geotechnics, water and drainage, and building physics [41] in order to map the most useful guidance and tools used for climate adaptation design of buildings. The interview objects were recommended by the expert group participating in the workshop series. The mapping by Danbolt revealed many useful tools for building design, but the selection of tools that address climate change is relatively limited. Additionally, several tools show potential for improvement or further development. There was a desire for support in sorting out which tools are more effective and which are less so. The interviews called for a framework for climate adaptation of buildings, aiming to clarify regulatory requirements and identify relevant tools and resources to meet those requirements. Furthermore, the interviews showed that climate adaptation measures are often deprioritized in projects due to a lack of legal mandates and motivation for implementation. Economic considerations are frequently prioritized over society’s need to adapt to future conditions. It was also recommended that the selection of climate data be improved—both the quality of historical climate data and the quality and accessibility of projected climate data.

2.4. Test Cases

An early version of the framework was tested during the design and construction of the SFI Klima 2050 pilot project ZEB Laboratory. The ZEB Laboratory [55] is an office and education building at the Gløshaugen campus of the Norwegian University of Science and Technology in Trondheim, Norway; construction began in May 2019 and it was handed over in October 2020. The moisture safety strategy for the construction of the wood structure is described in detail by Time et al. [46] and the overall climate adaptation measures by Kvande et al. [30].
Further, a first version of the framework was tested by the home builder company Norgeshus and the authors on a planned detached house in the municipality of Øygarden on the west coast of Norway (west of Bergen) [48].

2.5. Evaluation

The final version of the framework was tested by the home builder company Norgeshus during their daily operations (planning, design, and engineering of new buildings) [49].

3. Climate Adaptation Framework

3.1. National Building Regulatory Structure

For the construction of new buildings in Norway, the Planning and Building Act [29] provides general requirements for the building and the area in which the building is to be erected. More specific requirements for technical solutions and the implementation of the construction process are given in TEK17 [53] and the Regulations Relating to Building Applications (SAK10) [56]. The guidance for TEK17 explains the requirements in the regulations and provides “pre-accepted” performances that will meet the requirements. The guidance for SAK10 provides similar explanations of the SAK10 requirements, as well as guidelines on how the requirements can be met in practice. The relationship between TEK17 and SAK10 is that TEK17 sets the technical requirements for buildings to ensure health, environment, safety, energy efficiency, and usability, while SAK10 regulates the public administrative procedures in construction projects, including roles, responsibilities, and documentation.
Figure 1 provides a schematic representation of the relationship between Norwegian government requirements and how they can be addressed. Levels 1, 2, and 3 in the figure encompass the government requirements that all construction projects must satisfy, given in laws, regulations, and guidelines. There may also be requirements that are given in municipal zoning plans, but a review of zoning plans conducted by Riise et al. (2021) shows that hardly any had included requirements for climate adaptation and robustness of buildings [57]. Levels 4, 5, and 6 show the tools and methodologies that can be used to demonstrate that the measures meet the requirements. However, current building regulations do not encompass climate adaptation in its entirety; instead, they establish requirements for the individual components that contribute to climate adaptation (see Figure 2) and can therefore appear unclear. Relevant text from the Norwegian Planning and Building Act (pbl) is quoted in the figure with the given section (§). Additionally, the way in which climate change should be considered is not clarified in the current regulations. It is essential that effective climate adaptation within a single discipline does not compromise the project.

3.2. Klima 2050 Framework for Climate Adaptation of Buildings

The framework for the climate adaptation of buildings was developed and evaluated to assist designers in addressing the climate challenges highlighted by the building regulations. The framework intends to structure and emphasize the regulatory requirements for climate adaptation, to point to tools and services that can be useful for verifying the adequacy of chosen solutions, and to present a systematic approach to conduct climate adaptation. It is physically oriented and does not address process, organization, or collaboration challenges. The framework is positioned in the Norwegian context (as shown in the illustration in Figure 1) and includes:
  • An overarching definition of how to understand climate adaptation,
  • A comprehensive presentation of regulatory requirements for climate adaptation (not fully included in this article due to limited international relevance) to guide the user to relevant paragraphs,
  • Recommendations for useful tools and services to meet the specific/actual regulatory requirements (not included in the article due to limited international relevance), and
  • Risk assessment elements for use in planning and design [30].

3.3. Climate-Adapted Building—Definition

“Climate-adapted building” is traditionally used as a common term for constructions that are planned, designed, and executed to withstand expected local climate stresses from precipitation, snow load, wind, solar radiation, temperature, and floodwater. Today, adaptation to a changing climate must be included in the focus to reduce societal risk and increase resilience [10,15,51]. When designing new buildings, it is not sufficient to look at historical weather conditions.

3.4. Climate Risk Assessment Elements in Planning and Design

Norway’s climate is highly varied. The topography, with high mountains and deep valleys, is one of the main reasons for large local differences in temperature, precipitation, and wind speed over short distances. Annual variations are also extreme. The country’s long coastline and steep terrain make it particularly prone to experiencing extreme events such as coastal storms, avalanches, and landslides. From the southernmost point (Lindesnes) to the northernmost (Nordkapp), there is a span of 13 degrees of latitude. This results in significant variations in solar radiation throughout the year. The greatest differences are found in Northern Norway, which experiences the midnight sun during summer months and no sunlight at all during winter. The highest annual mean temperatures are found along the southern and western coasts. Vikseå (Rogaland) on the southwest coast has an annual mean temperature of 8.7 °C, while Kautokeino in Finnmark has an annual mean of –1.8 °C. Expressed in frost index F100, values range from 1000 h°C in Bømlo to 70,000 h°C in Karasjok. Annual precipitation is highest along the west coast, where Brekke, at the outer part of the Sognefjord, has a normal annual precipitation of 3575 mm, while Øygarden in Skjåk, located just west of the watershed (less than 200 km in a straight line from Brekke), has the lowest normal annual precipitation at 278 mm. Annual wind driven rain (WDR) amounts vary similarly—from just over 3000 mm on the west coast to as little as 50 mm in some inland areas of Southern Norway near the Swedish border. Generally, large WDR (>800 mm annually) do not appear in cold inland regions [58]. A climate risk assessment must consider these climate variations [50,59].
In the following, we have compiled risk elements (physical risk) related to the climate adaptation of buildings by location/orientation and building part (see Figure 3, Figure 4, Figure 5 and Figure 6). The overview intends to raise awareness of the risks associated with climate impacts on buildings and to serve as a tool to ensure that climate adaptation measures are incorporated into the interdisciplinary planning and design of a project (building). The listed risk element in Figure 3, Figure 4, Figure 5 and Figure 6 is the most central in qualitative climate risk assessment for preventing building damages. Further, the figures cover all climate-related conditions not limited to moisture. While the title and purpose of the present article maintain a focus on moisture, this is because moisture clearly represents the most significant challenge.
The overview given in Figure 3, Figure 4, Figure 5 and Figure 6 has been developed during the working process described in Table 1. The colour scale provides information about physical risk and the need for any additional measures. Green indicates solutions or impacts that pose a low risk of climate-related defects, whilst red indicates solutions or impacts where additional assessment is necessary to reduce the risk of defects. Comments provided under “risk to buildings” include key terms to help convey the nature of the risk. These may relate to aspects such as geometry and building elements, but also to factors involving climate exposure. The complete framework [30] includes references to tools and services that provide the basis for the actual risk assessment.
There was a strong request from the construction industry to create a simple overview with minimal text that could be used in practical work. The use of a red-yellow-green colour scale is commonly applied in practical qualitative risk assessments and is, hence, recognizable. Stakeholders in the construction sector participated in the development and proposed and quality-assured a simplified terminology. For example, roof geometry is described as either simple or complex. Further descriptions of roof geometry can be found in national guidelines.
A gradual chromatic scale is used because there are often smooth transitions from elements with low risk to those with high or significant risk. One example is wood cladding and its distance to the terrain [60]. Another example is exposure to WDR, which in Bunkholt et al. [61] is categorized as low, moderate, and high, with corresponding consequences for the design of ventilated cladding systems. The colour scale in Figure 3, Figure 4, Figure 5 and Figure 6 should therefore be associated with the need for reflection on the risk element, and not be interpreted as a measurement or a fixed value.

4. Discussion

4.1. Building and Plot in Context—Climate Adaptation Across Scales

To ensure effective climate adaptation, it is essential to consider both the building and its immediate surroundings. Acute events such as extreme weather, and chronic changes such as increased temperature and precipitation, demand not only building-specific measures but also coordinated strategies for the site/plot and the near surroundings. An example of an integrated approach is the revised part of the Norwegian Building Code from 2024 [53], which now requires stormwater to be managed on-site through the three-step strategy: retain, delay, and safely discharge excess water [62].
A key challenge in developing guidance and frameworks for climate adaptation is finding the right level of detail. If the recommendations are too detailed and complex, they risk being impractical for use by practitioners and there is a risk that they will become outdated relatively quickly [63,64]. On the other hand, overly general guidance may be perceived as vague and not actionable [63,64]. Our approach was to co-produce the framework with stakeholders and to test it during development, aiming to avoid both extremes. Positive feedback from practitioners, including the home builder company Norgeshus, suggests that this strategy has succeeded.

4.2. A Performance-Based Framework for Moisture Adaptation in Norwegian Construction

A main motivation behind the introduction of the framework for the climate adaptation of buildings has been to reduce societal risks associated with climate change, including increased precipitation and pluvial flood exposure. This is accomplished by guaranteeing that all construction projects in Norway uphold sufficient moisture resilience. In this context, the TEK17 regulations [53] under the Norwegian Planning and Building Act [29] serve as the most influential government regulatory measure for ensuring compliance with building codes and standards. Since 1997, these regulations have been performance-based, marking a gradual shift away from prescriptive codes. The primary motivation for this transition has been to enhance building quality and innovation while reducing construction defects. Notably, the performance-based approach was first introduced in Norwegian building regulations in as early as 1969.
The shift to a performance-based code has increased the demand for supporting standards and design guidelines. One key resource in this framework is the SINTEF Building Research Design Guides (Byggforskserien) [54], which align with performance-based requirements in the building code. These guides serve as a central reference for documented technical solutions. Their main objective is to translate practical experience and research findings into useful guidance for the construction industry. With over 800 entries, the series has been a cornerstone of Norwegian architectural and engineering practice since its first publication in 1958. Widely utilized across construction sites, it has the potential to play a vital role in the rapid and effective climate adaptation of buildings in Norway.
The technical solutions outlined in Byggforskserien are generally designed to ensure reliability across all regions of the country. Although standard solutions can be effective for various climate conditions, climate-specific performance requirements tend to offer the highest level of reliability. In many cases, it is necessary to advise against particular technical solutions or material combinations if the local climate is too severe to ensure an expected lifespan or a reasonable level of reliability, e.g., External Thermal Insulation Composite Systems (ETICS) with rendering [65].
The strong reputation of Byggforskserien within the Norwegian construction industry, combined with performance-based building regulations, plays a crucial role in minimizing societal risks associated with climate change. These measures help to address challenges such as increased precipitation and flood exposure within the built environment. An earlier version of the Regulations on Technical Requirements for Building Works (TEK10) [66] included in its guidelines (§ 13–14) the following phrase (translated from Norwegian by the authors): “Changes in climate necessitate continuous adaptation to prevent moisture-related defects to buildings, structures, and infrastructure in the future. Key climatic shifts, such as increased annual precipitation and more frequent intense local downpours, require greater focus on critical details related to moisture protection. Buildings must be situated and designed to minimize climate stress on both the structures and surrounding outdoor areas…” The requirement was, however, removed in TEK17 [53] due to a lack of commonly available tools for taking climate change into account when designing buildings. However, the Klima 2050 Framework for Climate Adaptation of Buildings, positioned as presented in Figure 1, now represent the missing link by highlighting the latest useful tools and services to meet climate change in design of buildings [30].
TEK and Byggforskserien are updated independently of each other. In TEK, clarifications and regulatory changes are regularly introduced, whilst Byggforskserien can be supplemented with tools and guidelines as laws and regulations are developed. The fundamental structure shown in Figure 1, with the Klima 2050 framework as a clarifying link, has so far proven to be flexible and robust enough to withstand ongoing changes, including new knowledge and new solutions, and to accommodate varying local climate exposures. This includes dealing with uncertainties in climate scenarios and the need for tailored climate and design data, particularly for moisture design and dimensioning.

4.3. Risk Assessment

Moisture safety design involves ensuring that building structures are protected against moisture-related defects, such as rot, mould, and leaks. Climate-adapted moisture planning takes this a step further by explicitly considering both current local climate conditions and future changes in climate exposure during the design process. In practice, risk assessments of climate change effects in moisture planning are rarely conducted today [11,14]. This is partly because it is difficult to determine whether solutions that work now will remain robust over the next 50 years, and it is challenging to assess the extent to which local climate conditions must be considered. Experience from this study also shows that those responsible for planning struggle to understand which climate conditions should be considered, by whom, and at what stage of the planning process. The elements of climate risk assessments presented in Figure 3, Figure 4, Figure 5 and Figure 6 explicate this. Norgeshus has incorporated these risk assessment elements into its checklists, with clear assignments of responsibility for different disciplines (architect, structural engineer, building physicist, and stormwater management). See Section 4.4. Further, the full version of the framework [30] includes references to useful tools and services to conduct the risk assessments.
Byggforskserien already includes some good examples of linking climate index values to the suitability of specific solutions, which is referred to in the full version of the framework [30]. One such example is the solutions for different levels of wind-driven rain exposure (low, moderate, and high) [58]. If climate adaptation is to become the norm in moisture protection efforts, such recommendations should become more common and detailed. This requires further development of climate indices and increased use of these indices when assessing suitability. Such an advancement in Byggforskserien would ensure that designers are equipped with effective tools to evaluate the climate adaptation needs for each individual project. The use of climate indices as tools for moisture planning has been discussed by Gaarder et al. [67,68].

4.4. Experiences

The home builder company Norgeshus designs and constructs as many as 1000 homes each year. Furthermore, they are responsible for the creation of numerous cabins. Their projects are spread across the entire country, reaching all of Norway’s climate zones—including mountainous regions. Their experience with the framework is that it has given the company a greater focus on adaptation and a more holistic understanding of the issues [49]. Their assessment is that it further demonstrates and enhances project value and is likely to result in reduced moisture-related defects, as the framework emphasizes regulatory requirements and links them to climate adaptation. To operationalize the climate risk assessment, Norgeshus has anchored responsibilities for key risk factors given by Figure 3, Figure 4, Figure 5 and Figure 6 in accordance with how they organize their operations, see Table 2. Examples of measures implemented based on the framework include avoiding floor-level windows where snow accumulation is expected, providing better wind protection for entrances in exposed locations, adding roof overhangs to shield patio doors where driving rain poses a challenge, improved rain tightness solutions for window insertion, and improvements in knowledge about stormwater solutions and responsibilities.
A key factor in fully realizing the value of the framework has been the integration of the physical climate risk factors into Norgeshus’s internal quality system, using checklists. The checklists reference relevant sources for practitioners—Byggforskserien and other established technical resources—thereby ensuring that adaptation measures are grounded in current standards and norms, whilst allowing necessary adaptability at both building and site scale. However, it needs to be mentioned that another organisation of the design process is likely to give another distribution of responsibility than shown in Table 2 for Norgeshus. e.g., is the architect at Norgeshus responsible for risk elements that engineer specialized in building physics (RiByFy, see Figure 2) and engineer specialized in plumbing (RiVa, see Figure 2) may cover in other companies or in projects with another workflow.

5. Conclusions

Risk assessment for moisture safety, especially under future climate scenarios, is not yet consistently practised in the moisture design of buildings. The current challenge lies in: (1) lack of clarity around who conducts assessments, (2) how and when they should be done, and (3) how climate data should be used. The Klima 2050 Framework for Climate Adaptation of Buildings introduces structured checklists, a risk assessment tool, and division of responsibilities (architects, engineers, etc.) to clarify and operationalize this. However, to make climate adaptation the norm, it is essential to further develop climate indices and integrate them more broadly into building guidelines. These indices can help to predict moisture performance more reliably and identify unsuitable solutions for specific climate zones.
In essence, the presented climate adaptation framework, especially when supported by tools such as Byggforskserien, represents a comprehensive and evolving effort to future-proof Norwegian buildings against moisture-related climate challenges. It is a dynamic system, and its success hinges on the continued development of tools, clarification and accountability of roles in the construction process, and wider adoption of climate-specific risk assessments.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, T.K. and B.T.; methodology, T.K. and B.T.; investigation, T.K. and B.T.; writing—original draft preparation, T.K.; writing—review and editing, T.K. and B.T.; visualization, T.K. and B.T. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by The Research Council of Norway through the following two projects: ‘SFI Klima 2050’, grant number 237859, and ‘Norgeshus–Verktøykasse for klimatilpasning av boliger’, grant number 309400.

Data Availability Statement

The original data presented in the study are openly available as given by the literature references.

Acknowledgments

The collaboration with the Norwegian construction industry and public sector actors through the research projects ‘SFI Klima 2050’ and ‘Norgeshus–Verktøykasse for klimatilpasning av boliger’ is grateful acknowledged. The authors would like to extend a special thanks to Lars Gullbrekken for his contribution in identifying risk assessment elements for use in planning and design and to CAD operator Remy Eik.

Conflicts of Interest

Author Berit Time was employed by the company SINTEF Community. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

References

  1. Zalejska Jonsson, A.; Hungria Gunnelin, R. Defects in Newly Constructed Residential Buildings: Owners’ Perspective. Int. J. Build. Pathol. Adapt. 2019, 37, 163–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Wu, P.-Y.; Johansson, T.; Mundt-Petersen, S.O.; Mjörnell, K. Predictive Modeling and Estimation of Moisture Damages in Swedish Buildings: A Machine Learning Approach. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2025, 118, 105997. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Vos, J.; Blommaert, A.; Bossche, N. Statistical Analysis on Belgian Building Defects. In Proceedings of the XV International Conference on Durability of Building Materials and Components, Barcelona, Spain, 20–23 October 2020. [Google Scholar]
  4. Xiao, Z.; Wang, L.; Ge, H.; Lacasse, M.A.; Defo, M. Assessing the Moisture Resilience of Wood Frame Wall Assemblies. Buildings 2024, 14, 3634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Bunkholt, N.S.; Gullbrekken, L.; Time, B.; Kvande, T. Process Induced Building Defects in Norway—Development and Climate Risks. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2021, 2069, 012040. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. NOU 2010:10 Adapting to a Changing Climate—Norway’s Vulnerability and the Need to Adapt to the Impacts of Climate Change; Ministry of Climate and Environment (Norway): Oslo, Norway, 2010.
  7. Lacasse, M.A.; Gaur, A.; Moore, T.V. Durability and Climate Change—Implications for Service Life Prediction and the Maintainability of Buildings. Buildings 2020, 10, 53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Jayasinghe, A.D.; Le Compete Forsyth Stewart, P. Level of Preparedness of the Residential Building Industry in Australia to Climate Change Adaptation: A Case of Residential Building Companies in Brisbane, Queensland. Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Change 2022, 27, 28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Lacasse, M.A.; Ge, H.; Hegel, M.; Jutras, R.; Laouadi, A.; Sturgeon, G.; Wells, J. Guideline on Design for Durability of Building Envelopes; National Research Council of Canada: Ottawa, ON, Canada, 2018; Volume viii, 35p. [Google Scholar]
  10. Lisø, K.R.; Kvande, T.; Time, B. Climate Adaptation Framework for Moisture-Resilient Buildings in Norway. Energy Procedia 2017, 132, 628–633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Gaarder, J.E.; Høien Clausen, R.; Næss, R.; Kvande, T. Barriers to Climate Adaptation in Norwegian Building Projects—Insights from Moisture Safety Designers’ Perspective. Clim. Risk Manag. 2024, 43, 100590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Andenæs, E.; Time, B.; Muthanna, T.; Asphaug, S.; Kvande, T. Risk Reduction Framework for Blue-Green Roofs. Buildings 2021, 11, 185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Moure, M.; Jacobsen, J.B.; Smith-Hall, C. Uncertainty and Climate Change Adaptation: A Systematic Review of Research Approaches and People’s Decision-Making. Curr. Clim. Change Rep. 2023, 9, 1–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Henke, L.; Knoth, K.; Sandberg, E. Climate Change Adaptation in Norwegian Businesses − Awareness, Integration and Barriers. Clim. Risk Manag. 2024, 45, 100647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. EU Taxonomy Navigator, Construction of New Buildings, Ec.Europa.Eu/Sustainable-Finance-Taxonomy/Activities/Activity/350/View. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/sustainable-finance-taxonomy/activities/activity/350/view (accessed on 19 August 2025).
  16. European Commission. Directorate General for Climate Action. EU-Level Technical Guidance on Adapting Buildings to Climate Change; Publications Office: Brussels, Belgium, 2023; Available online: https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2834/558395 (accessed on 19 August 2025).
  17. Climate-ADAPT. Available online: https://Climate-Adapt.Eea.Europa.Eu/En/about/about-Climate-Adapt (accessed on 19 August 2025).
  18. BREEAM. Available online: https://breeam.com/ (accessed on 19 August 2025).
  19. Svanemerket. Available online: https://svanemerket.no/En/ (accessed on 19 August 2025).
  20. Johansen, A. Project Uncertainty Management: A New Approach—The ‘Lost Opportunities’ Practical Uncertainty Management Seen from a Project Joint Perspective. Doctoral Thesis, NTNU, Trondheim, Norway, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  21. ISO 31000:2018; Risk Management—Guidelines. International Standardization Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2018.
  22. PMBOK. A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK Guide), 5th ed.; Project Management Institute: Newtown Square, PA, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  23. Rausand, M. Risk Assessment: Theory, Methods, and Applications; Statistics in Practice; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2013; ISBN 978-0-470-63764-7. [Google Scholar]
  24. Fuktcentrum, Lund University. Industry Standard ByggaF—Method for Moisture Safety of the Construction Process; Fuktcentrum, Lund University: Lund, Sweden, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  25. Mjörnell, K.; Gustavsson, T. ByggaF—A Method to Include Moisture Safety in the Construction Process. In Proceedings of the 40th AIVC—8th TightVent—6th Venticool Conference, Ghent, Belgium, 15–16 October 2019; p. 8. [Google Scholar]
  26. De Place Hansen, E.J.; Møller, E.B. Guidelines on the Prevention of Built-in Moisture; Lund University: Lund, Sweden, 2014; pp. 1022–1029. [Google Scholar]
  27. Morishita-Steffen, N.; Laukkarinen, A.; Lewis, T.; Wolny, S.; Peuhkuri, R.; Vinha, J.; Bednar, T. CIB W040: International Surveys Considering Moisture Safety in Buildings During Design and Construction. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2021, 2069, 012042. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. European Commission. Directorate General for Climate Action. EU-Level Technical Guidance on Adapting Buildings to Climate Change. Best Practice Guidance; Publications Office: Brussels, Belgium, 2023; Available online: https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2834/585141 (accessed on 19 August 2025).
  29. Norwegian Planning and Building Act. 2008. Available online: https://lovdata.no/dokument/NL/lov/2008-06-27-71?q=pbl (accessed on 19 August 2025).
  30. Kvande, T.; Time, B.; Gullbrekken, L.; Sivertsen, E.; Gaarder, J.E.; Elvebakk, K. Rammeverk for Klimatilpassing Av Bygningar; Klima 2050 Report 40; SINTEF Community: Trondheim, Norway, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  31. Forcada, N.; Macarulla, M.; Love, P.E. Assessment of Residential Defects at Post-Handover. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2013, 139, 372–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Buys, F.; Le Roux, M. Causes of Defects in the South African Housing Construction Industry: Perceptions of Built-Environment Stakeholders: Review Articles. Acta Structilia J. Phys. Dev. Sci. 2013, 20, 78–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Gullbrekken, L.; Kvande, T.; Jelle, B.; Time, B. Norwegian Pitched Roof Defects. Buildings 2016, 6, 24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Lisø, K.R.; Kvande, T.; Thue, J.V. Learning from Experience—An Analysis of Process Induced Building Defects in Norway. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Building Physics Conference—Research in Building Physics and Building Engineering, Montreal, QC, Canada, 27–31 August 2006; Taylor & Francis: Montreal, QC, Canada, 2006; pp. 425–432. [Google Scholar]
  35. Norström, A.V.; Cvitanovic, C.; Löf, M.F.; West, S.; Wyborn, C.; Balvanera, P.; Bednarek, A.T.; Bennett, E.M.; Biggs, R.; De Bremond, A.; et al. Principles for Knowledge Co-Production in Sustainability Research. Nat. Sustain. 2020, 3, 182–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Time, B. (Ed.) SFI Klima 2050|Final Report; Klima 2050 Report 46; SINTEF Community: Trondheim, Norway, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  37. Time, B. (Ed.) SFI Klima 2050|Research Working Plan 2015–2016; Klima 2050 Note 1; SINTEF Community: Trondheim, Norway, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  38. Kvande, T. Temasamling|Klimatilpassa Bygning Som Mogleg Markesfortrinn; Klima 2050 Note 5; SINTEF Community: Trondheim, Norway, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  39. Vikan, T.K. Klimatilpasning Av Bygninger—Kartlegging Av Markedspotensiale Til Klimatilpasning Blant Partnere i SFI Klima 2050; NTNU: Trondheim, Norway, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  40. Kvande, T. Temasamling|Klimatilpassa Enebolig; Klima 2050 Note 22; SINTEF Community: Trondheim, Norway, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  41. Danbolt, J.S. Klimatilpasning Av Bygninger—Aktuelle Hjelpemidler for Prosjektering; NTNU: Trondheim, Norway, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  42. Hygen, H.O.; Tajet, H.T.T. Temasamling|Ekstremnedbør; Klima 2050 Note 62; SINTEF Community: Trondheim, Norway, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  43. Sivertsen, E.; Elvebakk, K.; Kvande, T.; Time, B. Klimatilpasset Bygning. Anvisning for Anskaffelse i Plan- og Byggeprosessen; Klima 2050 Report 12; SINTEF Community: Trondheim, Norway, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  44. Time, B. Temasamling|Klima 2050 Rammeverk for Klimatilpassa Bygning; Klima 2050 Note 76; SINTEF Community: Trondheim, Norway, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  45. Time, B.; Engebø, A.; Christensen, M.; Dalby, O.; Kvande, T. The Design Process for Achievement of an Office Living Laboratory with a ZEB Standard. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2019, 352, 012053. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Time, B.; Andenæs, E.; Karlsen, T.; Geving, S.; Kvande, T. Moisture Safety Strategy for Construction of CLT Structures in a Coastal Nordic Climate. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2023, 2654, 012041. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Kvande, T. Temasamling|Klimanormalar, Referanseperiodar & Konsekvensar Av Klimaendringar; Klima 2050 Note 127; SINTEF Community: Trondheim, Norway, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  48. Kvande, T.; Time, B. Utprøving Av Risikoverktøy Hos Norgeshus; 102022142; SINTEF Community: Trondheim, Norway, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  49. Bjørkum, S. (Ed.) En Kvalitativ Oppsummering og Vurdering av Prosjektet Verktøykass for Klimatilpasning av Boliger; Resultatrapport 309400; Norgeshus: Melhus, Norway, 2025. [Google Scholar]
  50. Norwegian Centre for Climate Services (NCCS). 2024. Available online: https://klimaservicesenter.no/kss/om-oss/nccs?locale=en (accessed on 19 August 2025).
  51. Hanssen-Bauer, I.; Førland, E.J.; Haddeland, I.; Hisdal, H.; Mayer, S.; Nesje, A.; Nilsen, J.E.Ø.; Sandsven, S.; Sandø, A.B.; Sorteberg, B.; et al. Klima i Norge 2100. Kunnskapsgrunnlag for Klimatilpasning Oppdatert i 2015 [Climate in Norway 2100. Knowledge Base for Climate Adaptation Updated in 2015]; NCCS Report No 2/2015; Norsk klimaservicesenter: Oslo, Norway, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  52. Gaarder, J.E.; Hygen, H.O.; Bohne, R.A.; Kvande, T. Building Adaptation Measures Using Future Climate Scenarios—A Scoping Review of Uncertainty Treatment and Communication. Buildings 2023, 13, 1460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Regulations on Technical Requirements for Construction Works (‘TEK17’). 2017. Available online: https://Lovdata.No/Dokument/SF/Forskrift/2017-06-19-840 (accessed on 19 August 2025).
  54. SINTEF Building Design Guides (Byggforskserien). Available online: https://byggforsk.no/Side/278/English_informasjon_paa_engelsk (accessed on 19 August 2025).
  55. Nocente, A.; Time, B.; Mathisen, H.; Kvande, T.; Gustavsen, A. The ZEB Laboratory: The Development of a Research Tool for Future Climate Adapted Zero Emission Buildings. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2021, 2069, 012109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Regulations Relating to Building Applications (‘SAK10’). 2010. Available online: https://Lovdata.No/Dokument/SF/Forskrift/2010-03-26-488 (accessed on 19 August 2025).
  57. Riise, E.M.; Sondell, R.K.S.; Solli, J.; Time, B.; Bø, L.A. Klimatilpasning i Arealplanlegging. Eksempler Fra Trondheim; Klima 2050 Rapport 29; SINTEF Community: Trondheim, Norway, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  58. Kvande, T.; Tajet, H.T.T.; Tunheim, K. Klimadata for Dimensjonering Mot Regnpåkjenning; Byggforskserien 451.031; SINTEF Community: Oslo, Norway, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  59. Lisø, K.R.; Kvande, T. Klimatilpasning Av Bygninger; SINTEF Akademisk Forlag: Oslo, Norway, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  60. Bunkholt, N.S.; Bøhlerengen, T. Liggende Og Stående Trekledning; Byggforskserien 542.101; SINTEF Community: Oslo, Norway, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  61. Bunkholt, N.S.; Time, B.; Kvande, T. Luftede Kledninger. Anbefalinger for Klimatilpasning; Klima 2050 Report; SINTEF Community: Trondheim, Norway, 2021; ISBN 978-82-536-1692-6. [Google Scholar]
  62. Lindholm, O.; Endresen, S.; Thorolfsen, S.; Sægrov, S.; Jakobsen, G.; Aaby, L. Veiledning i Klimatilpasset Overvannshåndtering; Norsk Vann Rapport 162; Norsk Vann: Hamar, Norway, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  63. Andenæs, E. Risk Assessment of Blue-Green Roofs. Doctoral Thesis, NTNU, Trondheim, Norway, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  64. Andenæs, E.; Time, B.; Kvande, T.; Lohne, J. Surpassing the Limits to Human Cognition? On the Level of Detail in the Norwegian Building Design Guides. J. Civ. Eng. Archit. 2021, 15, 103–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Kvande, T.; Bakken, N.; Bergheim, E.; Thue, J.V. Durability of ETICS with Rendering in Norway—Experimental and Field Investigations. Buildings 2018, 8, 93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Regulations on Technical Requirements for Building Works (‘TEK10’). 2010. Available online: https://Lovdata.No/Dokument/SFO/Forskrift/2010-03-26-489 (accessed on 19 August 2025).
  67. Gaarder, J.E.; Andenæs, E.; Astrup, I.; Lacasse, M.; Time, B.; Kvande, T. Comparing Canadian and Norwegian Moisture Indices for Building Climate Adaptation. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2023, 2654, 012013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Gaarder, J.E. Implementing Climate Adaption in Building Moisture Safety Design. Doctoral Thesis, NTNU, Trondheim, Norway, 2025. [Google Scholar]
Buildings 15 03653 g001
Figure 1. Regulatory requirements and verification. Positioning of the SFI Klima 2050 Framework for Climate Adaptation of Buildings. Source: Authors own work.
Figure 1. Regulatory requirements and verification. Positioning of the SFI Klima 2050 Framework for Climate Adaptation of Buildings. Source: Authors own work.
Buildings 15 03653 g001
Buildings 15 03653 g002
Figure 2. Climate adaptation in the Norwegian Planning and Building Act (pbl), sorted according to the elements ‘area’, ‘plot’, ‘building’, and ‘climate change’. Source: Authors own work.
Figure 2. Climate adaptation in the Norwegian Planning and Building Act (pbl), sorted according to the elements ‘area’, ‘plot’, ‘building’, and ‘climate change’. Source: Authors own work.
Buildings 15 03653 g002
Buildings 15 03653 g003
Figure 3. Climate risk assessment elements according to plot and orientation of the building. Source: Adapted from [30].
Figure 3. Climate risk assessment elements according to plot and orientation of the building. Source: Adapted from [30].
Buildings 15 03653 g003
Buildings 15 03653 g004
Figure 4. Climate risk assessment elements regarding foundation and construction against the ground. Source: Adapted from [30].
Figure 4. Climate risk assessment elements regarding foundation and construction against the ground. Source: Adapted from [30].
Buildings 15 03653 g004
Buildings 15 03653 g005
Figure 5. Climate risk assessment elements regarding roof. Source: Adapted from [30].
Figure 5. Climate risk assessment elements regarding roof. Source: Adapted from [30].
Buildings 15 03653 g005
Buildings 15 03653 g006
Figure 6. Climate risk assessment elements regarding wall/façade. Source: Adapted from [30].
Figure 6. Climate risk assessment elements regarding wall/façade. Source: Adapted from [30].
Buildings 15 03653 g006
Table 1. Workflow developing a national climate adaptation framework for design of moisture-resilient buildings.
Table 1. Workflow developing a national climate adaptation framework for design of moisture-resilient buildings.
StepActivityDescriptionRefs.Year
1Launching ideaThe activity was incorporated in the research working plan for SFI Klima 2050[37]2015
2Joint workshopExploring definitions and branding related to climate adaptation, and highlighting the goals, barriers, and future directions for continued efforts[38]2016
3InterviewsMapping the marketing potential for climate-adapted buildings[39]2016
4Joint workshopDiscussing detached houses in the context of climate adaptation using buildings from a manufacturer as examples [40]2016
5Interviews, document studies, and literature reviewMapping the extent and quality of existing tools for climate adaptation in design of buildings[41]2017–2018
6Joint workshopState of the art concerning extreme precipitation, stormwater, and rain-driven events in design of buildings[42]2018
7Joint workshopDeveloping a comprehensive interdisciplinary guideline to assist in the procurement of actors for a project’s planning and construction case[43]2018–2019
8Joint workshopDiscussing the first approach of the climate adaptation framework[44]2019
9Test casePartly testing the framework during design and construction of the ZEB Laboratory[30,45,46]2018–2020
10Joint workshopDiscussing the use of climate normals and scenarios in the design of buildings[47]2021
11Test caseTesting the framework for a detached house designed to be built in the municipality of Øygarden on the southwest coast of Norway[48]2023
12ReleaseNational framework published[30]2023
13EvaluationEvaluation of the framework after one year of daily use by the home builder company Norgeshus[49]2024
Table 2. Norgeshus’s list of responsible technical disciplines in respect of key climate risk elements given in Figure 3, Figure 4, Figure 5 and Figure 6.
Table 2. Norgeshus’s list of responsible technical disciplines in respect of key climate risk elements given in Figure 3, Figure 4, Figure 5 and Figure 6.
Check Point/
Risk Assessment Element		Responsible 1Check Point/
Risk Assessment Element		Responsible 1
Plot and orientation of the building, see Figure 3
Precipitation (snow and rain) + wind:
Localization of buildingARKBuilding shapeARK
Entrance areaARKOutdoor areasARK
Precipitation:
Drainage and stormwater managementARK/LARKLandslide riskARK
Sun:
Outdoor areasARKBuilding orientationARK
Wind and snow:
Structural designRIB
Foundation and construction against ground, see Figure 4
Stormwater:
Drainage (surface water runoff)ARKSubsurface drainageRIB
Groundwater:
Water pressureRIB
Frost amount:
Frost safetyRIB
Roof, see Figure 5
Precipitation (snow and rain) + wind:
Roof geometryARKCapacity of roof outlet/drainsARK
Overflow drainsARKGuttersARK
Penetrations (chimneys, pipes, etc.)ARKBlue-green roofPM
Driving rain (precipitation + wind):
Roofing tightnessARKParapet flashing designARK
Ridge designARKRoofing underlayPM
Precipitation/moisture + temperature:
Material selectionARK
Snow:
Structural design—change in snow loadsRIBProtruding building parts (e.g., roof protrusions, balconies)RIB
Roof ventilationARK
Snow + wind:
SnowdriftARK
Wind:
RoofingRIBRoof shapeRIB
Roofing underlayARK
Sun:
Locations of rooms (cooling need)ARK
Wall/façade, see Figure 6
Driving rain (precipitation + wind):
Cladding tightnessARKCladding ventilationARK
Design/Distance to terrainARKWindow placement and moisture exposureARK
Rain resistance of wind barrierARK
Precipitation and temperature:
Material selectionARKWindowsARK
Snow:
Design and distance to terrainARK
Sun:
Solar shading of windowsARK
Wind:
Facade claddingRIBSolar shading systemARK
1 ARK = Architect. LARK = Landscape architect. RIB = Structural engineer. PM = Project manager.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Kvande, T.; Time, B. Developing a National Climate Adaptation Framework for the Design of Moisture-Resilient Buildings. Buildings 2025, 15, 3653. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15203653

AMA Style

Kvande T, Time B. Developing a National Climate Adaptation Framework for the Design of Moisture-Resilient Buildings. Buildings. 2025; 15(20):3653. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15203653

Chicago/Turabian Style

Kvande, Tore, and Berit Time. 2025. "Developing a National Climate Adaptation Framework for the Design of Moisture-Resilient Buildings" Buildings 15, no. 20: 3653. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15203653

APA Style

Kvande, T., & Time, B. (2025). Developing a National Climate Adaptation Framework for the Design of Moisture-Resilient Buildings. Buildings, 15(20), 3653. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15203653

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop