Editorial: Climate Change, Codes, and the Structural Engineer’s Standard of Care

Structural engineers have always designed for weather and the physical environment. What is changing is not the existence of natural hazards, but their frequency, intensity, and interaction with the built environment.

Building codes remain largely grounded in historical data, while clients, insurers, regulators, and courts are embracing forward-looking climate science. This creates a practical tension in everyday practice: how to remain anchored in code compliance while responding to evolving expectations about foreseeable conditions.

This editorial is not about rewriting codes or turning structural engineers into climate scientists. It is about understanding how the professional standard of care is evolving when past conditions are no longer a reliable proxy for future extremes.

Many jurisdictions have adopted “modern” building codes—2018, 2021, or even 2024 editions. Yet even the most current codes rely on historical datasets developed decades ago, frequently based on observations from the mid- to late-20th century.

A simple question illustrates the issue: Does the world engineers design for today look like the world of the 1970s or 1980s?

Most practitioners, regardless of their views on climate science, would answer no. This is where the concept of stationarity versus non-stationarity becomes relevant to practice. Stationarity assumes future conditions will resemble the past; non-stationarity recognizes that baseline conditions are shifting. Codes, by necessity, evolve slowly and deliberately. Climate science, by contrast, is forward looking and scenario based.

For structural engineers, this tension appears in familiar areas of practice—wind, flooding, snow, extreme heat, wildfire exposure, and long-term material durability. Engineers are not being asked to abandon codes or design for speculative futures. Increasingly, they are being asked something more modest, more challenging: Have you considered whether historical assumptions fully reflect foreseeable conditions at this site?

That question may come from a client, a client’s insurer, a public agency, or, years later, in the context of a claim following a severe event.

From a professional liability perspective, the standard of care has always been a moving target. Courts do not ask whether an engineer predicted the future correctly. They ask whether the engineer acted reasonably given what was known or reasonably knowable at the time.
That distinction matters because a jury or judge gets the benefit of hindsight. When a loss follows an extreme event, the inquiry may extend beyond simple code compliance to questions such as:

No one expects structural engineers to be experts in climate modeling. But as climate science becomes widely accessible and better understood, ignoring broadly recognized trends can become harder to explain.

Climate models are not predictions. They are scenario-based tools that describe how hazards may change under different assumptions. Different models produce different outputs because they measure different aspects of risk.

As a result, leading firms treat climate data as a screening input. Reviewing two or three credible sources can help engineers understand hazard context without over-relying on any single dataset.

Commonly referenced resources include:

Each of these tools is valuable and has their own limitations and intended purpose. Used together, they help identify which hazards warrant closer consideration.

One of the clearest trends emerging across design practice is the importance of documented conversations. Engineers advise; clients decide.

Reasonable practice increasingly includes acknowledging relevant hazards, explaining what codes do and do not address, discussing optional resilience measures, and documenting assumptions and client decisions. This does not shift responsibility to the engineer; it clarifies roles and preserves professional judgment.

The design professional may not have control over the overall design concept and may have limited direct contact with the owner. Design decisions are often constrained by architectural intent, project delivery method, and budget. Even on projects where engineers have greater design latitude, such as bridges or other infrastructure, cost constraints remain a dominant factor.

Reasonable practice does not require structural engineers to override these constraints or guarantee an outcome. Rather, it involves exercising professional judgment on a project, identifying relevant risks, communicating options and tradeoffs, and documenting decisions when constraints limit solutions.

Recent case law offers early signals worth understanding. Courts have increasingly recognized that where credible science is publicly available, it can be reasonable for decision makers to consider future hazard conditions, particularly for long-lived assets.

Cases involving asbestos exposure, public infrastructure planning, coastal parks, and land-use decisions suggest a consistent theme: reasonableness evolves with knowledge. Engineers are not expected to guarantee outcomes, but they may be expected to demonstrate thoughtful consideration of foreseeable risks.

This is not about raising the bar overnight or designing beyond the code by default. It is about recognizing that code compliance and professional judgment are not mutually exclusive. Engineers who remain thoughtful, engage clients transparently, and document their reasoning are practicing in a way that aligns with where expectations are heading. ■

About the Author

Yvonne Castillo, Esq., is the Director of Risk Advisory and a professional liability risk advisor for Victor’s Risk Advisory, U.S. Group.