California Air Resources Board

Background

The building sector is a significant contributor to California’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, with a substantial portion stemming from the production and use of building materials. Efforts to decarbonize this sector are critical in the fight against climate change. CARB has been tasked under Health and Safety Code sections 38561.3 & 38561.6 with developing a framework and strategy to reduce GHG emissions associated with building materials by 40% relative to an established baseline (not yet established) by 2035. Additionally, the state has ambitious goals to address its housing crisis by building more housing units, aiming to create 2.5 million new homes by 2031.[1] Balancing these housing goals with the imperative to reduce GHG emissions presents a significant challenge, making it even more critical to adopt sustainable and resilient building practices.

As wildfires grow more frequent and intense due to climate change, California faces mounting pressure to rebuild faster, safer, and more sustainably. Each year, wildfires destroy thousands of buildings annually, particularly in the rapidly growing wildland-urban interface (WUI), where homes and wildland vegetation meet or intermingle. In the aftermath, communities face immense logistical and financial strain, often leading to rebuilding decisions driven by urgency, cost, and other individual values.  Despite the scale of destruction, historical data reveal minimal evidence for adaptive rebuilding, with a significant proportion of structures being reconstructed in the same high-risk areas.[2] This trend has significant implications on California’s climate goals, particularly in the building sector where material choices strongly influence carbon emissions. Understanding how California is rebuilding after these devastating events is critical, especially as climate change is expected to increase the frequency and intensity of wildfires.

Disadvantaged communities bear the brunt of this cycle as they are particularly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change and are most likely to be displaced by wildfires. These communities are disproportionately exposed to wildfire risks and often lack the resources or technical guidance to rebuild with low-carbon or fire-resilient materials and building designs. This leaves these communities more vulnerable to repeated displacement and harm.  At the same time, environmental justice advocates have long asserted that environmental hazards and their health impacts differ by neighborhood, income, and race. Particularly in places like California, evidence points to communities of color and those with lower incomes facing higher exposure to air pollution and air toxics, increasing their health risks. The State of California and CARB have committed to centering community voices in policy development.  One critical step to this goal is understanding how real-world decisions about building materials and building designs are made, especially under post-disaster conditions. It is crucial to understand the values that shape these decisions. Ground-truthing building stock and building attributes using community-based participatory research allows direct engagement with residents, builders, and community groups in disadvantaged communities and communities affected by wildfires will contribute to grounding building sector policies to lived experiences and local knowledge.

Traditional researchers often use methodologically complex techniques developed over years of research to determine the patterns of inequity in order to understand and address these issues but, may overlook the variation in how policies play out on the ground. One effective way to bridge the gap between information gained from technical approaches and the expert knowledge of residents through their lived experience is via community-based participatory research efforts such as ground-truthing.^[1] Ground-truthing involves collecting and analyzing local data by directly engaging with the affected communities, who offer a comprehensive view of actual experienced conditions. By implementing ground-truthing, a more accurate depiction of the environmental burdens on vulnerable populations is obtained, which is vital for enacting more effective protections for public health and safety. Community engaged research is an approach of high interest as it helps ensure state-level strategies reflect the diversity of building contexts, and that climate policies are better aligned with the capacities and realities of those most affected.

This project will support California Air Resources Board’s (CARB) Sustainable Transportation and Communities Division (STCD) efforts to reduce embodied carbon in California’s building sector by engaging and working with community groups to learn about regional differences in use of building materials, building design, and construction practices. The increasing prevalence of wildfires in California, exacerbated by climate change, necessitates a reevaluation of current building practices to anticipate more frequent and severe fire events in a low embodied carbon future.

Objective

This project will ground-truth state-wide data on building sector activity and residential construction in low-income and disadvantaged areas, as well as deepen the Agency’s understanding of patterns of rebuilding and construction practices in the wake of destructive wildfires and other natural disasters. Specifically, CARB is interested in how learnings from the process of rebuilding from wildfire can help to identify and reduce barriers to low embodied carbon (C) construction (materials and design). Equally, how can the State ensure that priority communities benefit from low embodied carbon construction in terms of building quality, costs, and resilience? The primary contractor will identify interested community experts and/or organizations (hereafter, called “Community Partners”). By identifying and working with community groups, the project will aim to compare ground-truth observations with state-wide data on the building sector (e.g. “ground-truthing”). The contractor will then develop materials and support partners in conducting local, informational ground-truth events. Community expertise and additional data should also be collected by the contractor through consultation with community partners who can provide direct observation of local conditions. The contractor will work with CARB and identified Community Partners to support the ground truthing events and document the outputs outlined in the tasks.

The types of building sector data to be assessed through this study could include but are not limited to local building material use, building stock estimates, building design attributes, development or trends in land use, and use of construction practices or equipment. Building stock refers to the collection of all buildings within a defined area, andencompasses all residential, commercial, industrial, and public buildings of all types.Building attributes are the specific characteristics or features that define and describe individual buildings within the building stock; examples include but are not limited to: year of construction, history of major retrofits, architectural style, building area, building height, location, site characteristics including transportation accessibility or parking, and occupancy status. Development trends refer to the evolving patterns in the design and construction of buildings, and could include the replacement of older homes with larger residences, increased housing density, challenges posed by the Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI), or modifications driven by updated building codes, particularly in response to natural disasters like wildfires. Construction practices include all processes related to new building construction, examples include: site preparation, transport of materials, operation of off-road equipment, waste management, and impact mitigation practices such as dust reduction. Assessing building design attributes and community values (cost, quality, resilience, familiarity, speed) that drive reconstruction decisions will help identify patterns that drive high CI material use and inform strategies for lower embodied carbon footprint.

The Contractor shall reserve a minimum of 13% of the project budget to fund community groups to organize local events and compensate community members (partners) for their expertise.  Providing compensation for community expertise from local residents in ground-truthing is crucial for several reasons. First, it acknowledges and values the unique insights and knowledge that local residents bring to the table, which are often indispensable for accurate and context-specific data collection. Second, it fosters trust and collaboration between researchers or project developers and the community, ensuring that the process is inclusive and respectful. Third, fair compensation can enhance the quality and reliability of the data collected, as it motivates residents to actively participate and contribute their best efforts. Equitable engagement with Community Partners identified through the project will hopefully lead to a more successful and impactful project.

Scope of Work

Task 1 – Community and Stakeholder Engagement Plan

Develop a comprehensive Community and Stakeholder Engagement Plan that centers the voices of communities impacted by wildfires and those classified as disadvantaged, addressing their unique needs and challenges in the context of wildfire recovery and rebuilding efforts. This plan should include community-based participatory methods (CBPM), or approaches that actively involve community members in the project development process, to ensure that the outputs of this project are relevant to the community's needs.

• Develop a list of proposed communities and community partners 
  • Leverage tools like CalEnviroScreen, to identify disadvantaged communities in areas with environmental justice concerns, wildfire exposure and/or embodied carbon intensive development (e.g. intensive active/ plans for new construction and/or local impacts from production of building materials). Identify and list communities and stakeholders to engage, ensuring representation across geographic diversity (urban-wildland interface), wildfire recovery stages (in progress, completed, rebuilding stalled), priority populations (low-income, tribal, communities of color, aging communities), and role in construction (builders, architects, contractors).
  • Identify stakeholders or leverage existing relationships with local community groups, non-profits, agencies, builders, and developers that can offer their perspectives on potential approaches to identifying community groups and surveying community concerns, with a particular focus on those involved in wildfire recovery efforts.
• Work with CARB to define stakeholder collaboration process, including resource requirements and compensation protocol for community expertise. 
  • Work with CARB staff on soliciting and selecting community groups to lead local community ground-truthing events (Community Partners).
  • Ensure Community Partners are sufficiently representative of California’s geography, climate, and demography, with an emphasis on those affected by wildfires and classified as disadvantaged communities. 

Deliverable 1A: A detailed community engagement plan with a timeline for outreach and engagement activities 

Deliverable 1B:  A memo listing all selected community partners and compensation plan(s)

Task 2 – Ground-Truthing Methodology and Data Collection

Develop a tailored Ground-Truthing Methodology Guide and data collection strategy to assess construction patterns in wildfire affected and disadvantaged communities.

• Conduct a literature review to identify existing best practices while honoring effective approaches tested and explored with identified community partners.
  • Synthesize existing literature on ground-truthing methodologies, with a focus on those applied within EJ communities.
  • Evaluate the effectiveness of various ground-truthing approaches, considering the unique challenges and requirements of low-income and disadvantaged communities.
  • Include potential for different approaches for different types of buildings, such as commercial, industrial, or residential, or types of construction, such as timber, concrete, or metal structures.
• Develop training and presentation materials to support planning for and execution of ground-truthing events, including a plan to incorporate input from community partners.
  • Review studies, reports, and existing data on local building stock, neighborhood design characteristics, and construction practices within EJ communities. Data could include but are not limited to building age, building materials, history of building maintenance, construction time, land use planning, local attractions, internet connectivity, and accessibility. This should also include the relationship between building stock characteristics, neighborhood design and environmental health impacts.
  • Develop or identify communication materials that frame embodied carbon within the context of promoting social equity, highlighting how low-income and disadvantaged communities are affected by policies and practices related to carbon-intensive building materials.
• Develop an initial data set for ground-truthing events and protocols for additional community-based data collection, ensuring consistency and reliability of the data gathered.  
  • Conduct an independent analysis of identified data sources related to building stock, building material use, construction practices, and other existing building sector data and present findings to CARB staff. Work with CARB staff to develop a draft data set which can serve as the basis for ground-truthing exercises.
  • Develop a plan to identify barriers and levers for integrating low embodied carbon options in post wildfire reconstruction, which is reflective of input from builders, architects, contractors as well as community members/groups.
  • Create training materials and protocols for additional community-based data collection which can supplement, augment, or address gaps in existing data, ensuring consistency and reliability of the data gathered.

Deliverable 2A: A ground-truthing methodology guide which includes discussion of relevant literature, strategies for determining barriers and opportunities for the use of low embodied carbon material post wildfire, and an annotated bibliography

Deliverable 2B: A comprehensive set of communication/presentation materials for use during the ground-truthing exercise

Deliverable 2C: Ground-truth data plan and community data collection protocol

Task 3 – Plan Ground-Truthing Events

Build capacity for ground-truthing events by working with Community Partners to refine planning and presentation materials to ensure they are locally representative and culturally appropriate. 

• Refine and customize the presentation materials for specific communities based on input from partners.
  • Work with the Community Partner to provide clear and accessible materials, allowing for straightforward understanding and engagement.
  • Ensure community partners have sufficient training on tools and/or resources required to participate in events.
  • Work with CARB staff to develop capacity of community partners to engage in strategy development for measuring and mitigating embodied carbon.
• Apply the community data collection protocol.
  • Work with Community Partners on identifying any additional (local) data collection opportunities/interests for use in ground-truthing events
  • Develop a plan for executing supplemental community data collection in advance of or commensurate with events.
• Work with Community Partners to develop outreach and engagement plans for community events
  • Ensure local or impacted residents, builders, architects, contractors, or others who interact with the building sector are aware of and can participate in events.

Deliverable 3A: A schedule of community events, meeting agendas, and communication plans developed with Community Partners.

Task 4 – Conduct Community Meetings

Work with selected Community Partners to conduct a series of community events aimed at ground-truthing data, discussing local building practices, and enhancing community understanding and advocacy related to embodied carbon. 

• Plan events at times/locations most convenient for community members, ensuring CARB representatives are available to foster a dialogue that is informative, effective, and appropriately sensitive to the unique challenges of communities recovering from wildfires.

• Work with Community Partners to ensure that participation in these events does not place undue preparation burdens on the residents, respecting their time constraints and resources availability.
• Have a minimum number of events in communities recovering from wildfires and those located in the WUI, where the danger of wildfires is significantly higher.
• Identify and discuss local initiatives that could influence or enhance the effectiveness of the agency’s work to reduce embodied carbon.
• Encourage feedback on data gathered and inquire about alternative approaches to collecting data, outreach and engagement, or types of communication media that might be more impactful.
• Document the specific concerns of WUI communities, including what is locally representative and culturally appropriate.
• Document strategies and process of rebuilding and recovery, including barriers and levers for integrating low embodied carbon options in post wildfire reconstruction

Deliverable 4A: A report which summarizes learnings from community events, analyzes findings and discrepancies from ground-truthing data of state-wide estimates, and highlights key insights gained from wildfire-impacted and disadvantaged communities.

Deliverable 4B: Memo summarizing barriers and opportunities for the use of embodied carbon materials post wildfire construction

Task 5 – Reports and Knowledge Sharing

Compile findings from Tasks 1 to 4, including literature review, data collection, community engagement activities, and learnings from events into a comprehensive final report.

• Prior to conducting the ground-truthing events, an interim report will be delivered, summarizing the draft community engagement plan and ground-truthing methodology from Tasks 1 and 2, pinpoint any gaps, including the initial data, and draft plans for community events and summary of materials (Deliverables 2A, 2B, and 2C). This interim report will be shared with CARB staff to inform and refine the ongoing process at the end of Year 1.
• A final report will be produced, offering an exhaustive account of the literature review process, including the criteria for inclusion and exclusion, the scope of the review, the final ground-truthing methodology, outputs of the ground-truthing exercises including a comparative analysis of building data (4A & 4B), and a record of stakeholders and engagement (3A).
• Create and distribute additional communication materials based on project findings to inform wider audiences.
  • Contractor will solicit community feedback on developing additional effective external communication materials from outputs of the ground-truthing exercises and community engagement events to share. Examples could include but are not limited to: additional media, fact sheets, infographics, educational videos, maps, interactive tools, webinars, or newsletters.

Deliverable 5A: An interim report summarizing tasks 1 and 2, literature review findings, draft engagement plan, and draft methodology.

Deliverable 5B: A final report detailing the project methodology, data analysis, community engagement outcomes, and recommendations.

Deliverable 5C: A suite of communication materials designed for community education and broader knowledge sharing.

Minimum Expectations and Application Process and Requirements

Information on required material and process during the preproposal phase and expectations on the contract are found on the Solicitation landing page.

Timeline

This project is anticipated to be completed in 36 months from the start date. Cost shall not exceed $750,000.

Scoring Criteria

Responsiveness to the goals and objectives outlined in the pre-proposal solicitation(15 points)

Proposers should demonstrate a clear understanding of the policy objectives and research needs that CARB aims to address with this project while highlighting their expertise on the subject. The pre-proposal should consider various aspects of the need and identify or acknowledge any potential biases. It should outline, in sufficient detail, the proposed approach to meeting the requirements of the Solicitation. The pre-proposal must detail work that aligns with the objectives outlined in the Contract Solicitation: The project should provide a ground-truthed refinement of statewide estimates of building stock and building attributes in disadvantaged and low-income communities that can inform and enhance the agency’s building material and building benchmarking. The project should create a forum for community voices and enhance the capacity of community stakeholders to meaningfully participate in the regulatory development process as well as capture diverse voices from different regions across the state.

Policy relevance/benefits to the state(10 points)

Does the pre-proposal describe how the project will provide data, information, and/or products to support CARB in achieving its mission?

Assembly Bills AB 2446 (2022) and AB 43 (2023), codified in HSC 38561.3 and 38561.6, require CARB to develop a framework for measuring and reducing the embodied carbon of building materials, specifically:

• Develop a reporting regulation to collect data from the 2026 calendar year
• Develop a baseline from which the 40-percent net reduction shall be assessed
• Develop a comprehensive reduction strategy by the end of 2028, and
• Achieve a 40-percent net reduction in GHG emissions from building materials used in the state by 2035

CARB is currently developing an Embodied Carbon Reporting Regulation responsive to statutory goals. This contract will support development of future actions, including the comprehensive strategy and potential future regulations required to achieve reduction targets.  

Previous work (15 points)

Do the researchers have relevant experience in this area? Is the team composed of a multi-disciplinary team of experts? Do they discuss how they will build on previous relevant work funded by CARB, other state agencies, and any other appropriate organizations such as the Department of Housing and Community Development, regional planning authorities, or local groups.  The relevant contractor should describe prior experience in community engagement and provide letters of support, references or a community impact statement detailing how their previous work has benefitted communities. Five points will be reserved for project teams that meet at least one of the following criteria:

1. The project team is multi-disciplinary.
2. The project team includes members from various universities, non-academic institutions, or community-based organizations.
3. The project team includes one or more members who will contribute significantly to the project (e.g., a principal investigator, co-principal investigator, or co-investigator, contributing 25% or more of their time) who have not worked with CARB in the past 5 years.

Technical merit (25 points)

Describe the technical strengths and/or weaknesses of the pre-proposal. Proposers should demonstrate the logic and feasibility of the methodology and technical approach, outline the sequence and relationships of major tasks, and explain how the work will be carried out. The proposal should also explain how the proposed methods are robust and how the results will be validated. Consider how well the draft proposal addresses these areas:

1. Is the proposed measurement approach appropriate? Are the technologies being considered suitable, and will the proposed analysis yield relevant results?
2. Does the proposed work address all the deliverables outlined in the “Deliverables” section? If not, the proposal should not be considered for funding.
3. The review team will select only one pre-proposal for development into a full proposal. If this pre-proposal shows potential, what areas or topics should be prioritized or further explained in the full proposal?

Level and quality of effort to be provided(15 points)

Does the pre-proposal allocate time and resources effectively to ensure the study objectives are met? Is the supervision and oversight sufficient to keep the project on schedule? Is the distribution appropriate for activities such as research, evaluation, analysis, data reduction, computer simulation, report preparation, meetings, and travel?

Cost effectiveness (20 points)

Is the cost appropriate for the proposed work? Does the proposed work appear feasible within the requested budget? Projects that include co-funding should be evaluated more favorably.

Scoring Criteria Scoring Guidance

91-100 points. Exceptionally strong. The submission is technically strong, meets stated research objectives, is cost-effective, and has a high potential to be successfully completed.

81-90 points. Strong. The submission is technically sound.

71-80 points. Mixed. The submission has either strong technical merit or strong policy significance, but not both.

61-70 points. Weak. The submission is not sufficiently linked to the needs of the Board and offers limited technical merit.

60 points or below. Unacceptable. The submission is not linked to the interests or needs of the Board and lacks technical merit.

[1] Based on Regional Housing Needs Assessments for the 6^th cycle of Annual Progress Reporting, retrieved from: https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planning-and-community-development/annual-progre…

[2]https://www.fs.usda.gov/nrs/pubs/jrnl/2018/nrs_2018_mockrin_001.pdf