Baseline Assessment of Climate-Resilient Infrastructure Guidance Implementation in Canada - Executive summary

Baseline Assessment of Climate-Resilient Infrastructure Guidance Implementation in Canada - Executive summary

Objectives and methodology

Housing, Infrastructure and Communities Canada (HICC) has developed and supported a wide range of climate-resilient guidance for infrastructure projects across Canada. In this context, climate resilient infrastructure is predictable, reliable, and secure, meeting the needs of communities fairly and equitably, including those with existing gaps in infrastructure and those with infrastructure at highest risk of climate impacts^{Footnote 1}. As HICC continues to develop and support programs and guidance for climate-resilient infrastructure, these initiatives must complement existing efforts, drive climate risk assessment and treatment, and incentivize the development of housing and infrastructure that is sufficiently resilient to a rapidly changing climate.

WSP completed a baseline assessment of available guidance for climate-resilient infrastructure in Canada (the “project”) to achieve the following five objectives:

1. Create an inventory of Canadian guidance for climate-resilient infrastructure.
2. Identify target end-users, their level of awareness, and their use of the climate-resilient guidance.
3. Assess the most frequently used and effective guidance, and any existing gaps and challenges.
4. Demonstrate the benefit of the guidance through evidence and examples of how it has increased climate resilience.
5. Provide case studies of municipalities that have adopted climate-resilient codes and standards for their infrastructure work.

The project scope included the following infrastructure asset types:

• Buildings, including residential housing
• Water, including drinking water, wastewater, and stormwater
• Transit, prioritizing roads, highways, bridges, light rail, and rapid transit infrastructure when part of a public transportation system (e.g., subways, buses) or active transportation system^{Footnote 2}
• Protective infrastructure, built specifically to protect people and property (e.g., berms, dykes, and embankments)

The project scope also included nature-based solutions (NBS), which have been considered across the four infrastructure categories listed above.

To achieve the project objectives, WSP developed an approach to identify and solicit climate guidance information. WSP conducted a literature review of existing guidance that was publicly available online, distributed an online survey to targeted stakeholders^{Footnote 3}, and hosted subject-matter expert workshops to gather end-user experience and observations.

Analysis and observations

In total, WSP assembled an inventory of 158 guidance documents for climate-resilient infrastructure across different jurisdictions and asset types in Canada. Of the 158 documents, 47 apply to all sectors, 63 to buildings, 35 to water, 20 to transit, 8 to protective infrastructure, and 10 to natural assets. The project also identified an ancillary list of 156 related resources, including relevant documents, tools, platforms, hubs, and databases, that did not meet all the criteria for inclusion in the inventory. The inventory and ancillary lists of resources were compiled in an Excel workbook. Each entry provides multiple fields of metadata including the title, publication year, URL, author name, jurisdiction and jurisdiction type, end-users, asset type, considerations of nature-based solutions, applicable climate hazard(s), and brief description.

Available guidance

There has been an upswell of guidance published in recent years, most of the guidance documents are national in scope, and there are more guidance documents with considerations pertaining to flooding than other hazards. Despite the abundance of guidance documents, there is a notable lack of guidance for operations and maintenance, and gaps for guidance in some regions (e.g., prairies) by some jurisdictions (e.g., municipal guidance in coastal and northern regions). The inclusion of climate resilience considerations in many guidance documents that are not primarily focused on climate issues adds to a complex landscape of guidance that is challenging to assess.

In addition to the gaps identified through the inventory, subject matter experts identified the following gaps by asset type:

• Buildings: climate-resilient guidance on specific hazards (e.g., permafrost, floods, heatwaves) and regional guidance (provincial/territorial and municipal)
• Water: climate-resilient water infrastructure guidance with a high level of detail specifically for practitioners and designers
• Transit: climate-resilient transit guidance for cold-weather climates
• Protective infrastructure: municipal, regional, and provincial guidance for protective infrastructure and specific data on, for example, permafrost thaw, fires, and flooding in Canadian environments
• NBS: lack of detailed, practical guidance about implementation and long-term operations and maintenance of NBS

Guidance navigation and implementation

Experts also identified challenges and opportunities common to all asset types including:

• More support would help end-users navigate the complex environment of climate-resilient guidance and resources that currently exist.
• Regulatory direction would enable climate-resilient projects by justifying additional costs.
• Risk assessments are often required to meet funding requirements but are often not completed early enough in the project lifecycle to influence the design, or there is no requirement to implement the recommendations arising from the risk assessment.

Case studies

WSP compiled four case studies to showcase successful guidance implementation for each asset category in various communities across Canada:

1. Supply System used Public Infrastructure Engineering Vulnerability Committee (PIEVC) Protocol and Ontario Regulation 588/17: Asset Management Planning for Municipal Infrastructure to adapt water infrastructure to their communities’ changing climate. This water infrastructure-focused case study showcases the use of the PIEVC Protocol as a commonly used tool, and the value of requiring climate considerations in asset management, to support the development of resilient infrastructure.
2. Providence Health Care used Climate Resilience Guidelines for B.C. Health Facility Planning and Design to integrate climate resilience measures into its facility planning and design. This building-focused case study showcases climate resilience considerations throughout an entire design process.
3. Government of Northwest Territories used Transportation Association of Canada (TAC), Guidelines for Permafrost Regions and Government of Northwest Territories, Department of Transportation’s Erosion and Sediment Control Manual (ESCM) to develop a permafrost protection plan for the Prohibition Creek Access Road. This transit infrastructure-focused case study showcases climate resilience for complex hazards in a northern context and includes consideration for infrastructure operations and maintenance.
4. Annapolis Royal used the PIEVC Protocol and CLIMAtlantic’s Climate Risk, Responsibility, and Liability for Municipalities to develop climate-resilient infrastructure actions to protect the community from coastal flooding. This protective infrastructure-focused case study showcases the use of novel funding strategies and adaptive planning in supporting the development of climate-resilient infrastructure.

Conclusion and recommendations

Gaps in guidance availability

The assessment found that, although existing guidance produced for specific regions and asset types is beginning to integrate climate change consideration, in many cases there is also new guidance focused specifically on climate-resilient infrastructure. End-users are still becoming familiar with new and updated guidance that reflects these changing conditions. Over the last two decades, there has been marked evolution in guidance to assess climate risk; however, greater emphasis is now needed to ensure robust guidance for asset and/or hazard-specific climate risk reduction measures.

No guidance documents qualitatively stand out within or across infrastructure types as ‘top’ or most-used guidance. No guidance document was mentioned repeatedly in the expert workshops or case studies; however, the PIEVC Protocol is a widely used climate risk assessment tool.

Overall, review of the guidance inventory and expert insights found that there are gaps in available guidance, a lack of awareness of guidance, and barriers to guidance uptake and implementation. To overcome these gaps, WSP recommends to:

• Integrate climate considerations into existing guidance rather than developing new stand-alone documents because integration represents a favourable cost-benefit investment and may support greater uptake in projects by practitioners familiar with previous versions of the guidance.
• Continue supporting guidance development for regions and topics for which no or insufficient guidance exists (e.g., northern regions where permafrost thaw, fire, and flooding are rapidly changing the environment).

Challenges in navigating the guidance landscape

There are many other supports beyond technical ‘guidance’ that are used and important in building climate-resilient infrastructure. These items are included in the ancillary list and highlighted in the case studies. Despite calls from subject matter experts and practitioners for more guidance specific to some asset types and climate hazards, there is a substantial amount of guidance for climate-resilient infrastructure in Canada.

The landscape of guidance can be difficult to navigate because there is a high volume of documents, there are updates and new guidance documents developed over time, users employ guidance as well as other supports (such as manuals and best practices) in supporting climate resilient infrastructure, and guidance is authored and provided by many parties across jurisdictions with no central repository. Further, more guidance does not always equate to better quality of guidance or easier implementation of resilience measures. WSP recommends the following strategies to manage the complexity of the guidance landscape and support end-users:

• Provide education and outreach to key stakeholders, such as municipal associations and provincial engineering organizations, to help navigate the guidance environment.
• Continue developing the guidance inventory by adding more resources, as they become available, to create a centralized collection, aiding end-users in navigating evolving guidance. Consider making the inventory available on the Climate Insight platform to enhance accessibility and ultimately understanding, use, and efficacy of guidance.

Challenges in implementation of guidance

In addition to developing improved guidance and assisting end-users in navigating the guidance landscape, more support is needed for end-users to finance and implement climate resilient infrastructure projects. To date, most funding requirements are connected to climate risk assessments and not to the actual development of climate-resilient infrastructure. To be effective, asset owners, planners, and designers need a clear understanding of the cost-benefit of integrating resilience measures throughout project phases and asset lifecycles. Explicit requirements for climate considerations enable resilience actions in instances where climate considerations may not otherwise occur due to funding or other resource limitations.

Realities of limited budgets at the provincial, territorial, municipal levels, and particularly small, rural and Indigenous communities, can hinder implementation of climate-resilience in infrastructure projects, especially when the long-term cost-benefit is uncertain. WSP recommends that HICC:

• Ensure funding programs require projects to demonstrate how climate resilience has been incorporated into planning and design phases.
• Support better understanding and reduction of implementation barriers for end-users. This may include conducting broader surveys or additional focus groups with end-users focused on the cost-benefit analyses and business cases to implement guidance and enable development and maintenance of climate-resilience infrastructure.
• Consult with municipal and Indigenous governments, provinces and territories to align government funding structures and regulations with municipal realities.
• Support owners in conducting the cost-benefit analyses to identify the long-term value and avoided costs associated with climate-resilient infrastructure. Simplified or accessible cost-benefit analyses can support the value proposition for municipal councils or funding programs, for example, to justify the up-front costs of climate-resilient infrastructure.
• Work with regulators to develop and implement more regulatory mechanisms that support climate resilient infrastructure. This approach can make it easier for stakeholders to justify adherence to regulations, even with limited funds.

Looking forward, it is important that guidance documents and climate-resilient infrastructure initiatives keep pace with the changing climate as well as the needs of end-users and communities across Canada. It is recommended that HICC continue understanding and validating the perspectives presented in this assessment through further engagement with end-users and those involved in all phases of supporting climate-resilient infrastructure. By addressing these limitations and implementing these recommendations, Canada can enhance the effectiveness of its climate-resilient infrastructure initiatives.

Case studies

The four case studies included in this report showcase the practical application of existing guidance documents for both climate risk assessment and climate resilient infrastructure development. They outline national, provincial, territorial, and regional guidance supporting communities facing acute and chronic climate change hazards, particularly for aging infrastructure crucial to community services and safety. The case studies underscore the value of tailored guidance and support to incentivize and implement climate-resilient projects effectively. They showcase communities and organizations that have moved beyond short-term thinking focused on initial capital construction costs. A summary of the case studies is provided below.

Project 1. Union Water Supply System adapts water and wastewater infrastructure to communities’ changing climate

Infrastructure type	Community	Province or territory	Community type (population)	Relevant climate hazards
Water	Water Essex County (Leamington, Kingsville, Essex, Lakeshore)	Southwestern Ontario	180,000 people	Extreme weather events

Key take-aways

• Use available frameworks and expertise: The PIEVC Protocol and Engineers Canada consulting expertise were provided to UWSS at no cost. This protocol and its case studies are freely available to municipalities across Canada, making it accessible for other communities to conduct climate risk assessments, providing a basis for climate-resilient infrastructure.
• Leverage existing asset management plans: UWSS benefited from having a smaller and less diverse asset inventory focused on drinking water. The existence of asset management plans for member municipalities made assessing vulnerabilities more manageable.

---

Project 2. Providence Health Care's use of climate resilience guidelines for the new St. Paul’s Hospital planning and design

Infrastructure type	Community	Province or territory	Community type (population)	Relevant climate hazards
Buildings	Vancouver, Sechelt, Squamish, Powell River	British Columbia	15,000 people	Extreme weather events (heatwaves, floods), sea level rise

Key take-aways

• Consider climate resilience from the start: An initial assessment of climate change hazards and site-specific and building scale vulnerabilities was able to guide the design team in creating tailored and efficient strategies to address and mitigate climate risks during detailed design.
• Be flexible and proactive in an evolving guidance landscape: By continuously adopting new and customizing existing guidance, the New St. Paul’s Hospital successfully built on proven practices in an evolving policy landscape.
• Leverage existing regulatory requirements: The project drew from several best practices, including CSA Z8000 (2018) for occupant comfort, infection control, and indoor air quality during wildfire smoke events and the National Building Code of Canada (2022) for integrated measures that bolster resilience to both seismic events and climate-related hazards. This is a good example of how codes and standards can be leveraged to incorporate climate resilience measures into projects.
• Engage stakeholders: Stakeholder input was gathered through virtual workshops, which significantly strengthened the climate risk assessment process and informed design strategies that responded to and mitigated the associated climate risks.

---

Project 3. Prohibition Creek Access Road permafrost protection plan

Infrastructure type	Community	Province or territory	Community type (population)	Relevant climate hazards
Transit	Colville Lake Dene, Deline Dene, Fort Good Hope Dene, Fort Good Hope Metis, Norman Wells Metis, Tulit’a Dene, and Fort Norman Metis	Northwest Territories	Northern, 2,500 people	Permafrost degradation

Key take-aways

• Conduct comprehensive risk assessments: Assess local permafrost conditions, including depth, thickness, and temperature. Use available guidance documents, data, local case studies, and engage experts to help identify vulnerable areas and predict future impacts with accuracy.
• Use adaptive management strategies: Implement a system that links site observations and ground temperature monitoring with response actions to mitigate permafrost degradation. Use case studies and guidance to establish specific triggers for action and regularly evaluate the effectiveness of management strategies to support long-term success.
• Integrate climate resilience into planning and maintenance: Incorporate best practices from established guidelines and design infrastructure with resilience in mind. Regular maintenance routines should address issues like drainage, erosion, and road settlement promptly to prevent long-term damage.
• Share data and best practices with other projects: Document and share findings from permafrost monitoring and management activities. Collaborate with neighboring communities to exchange knowledge and experiences, fostering a collaborative approach to climate resilience. Provide training for local staff and stakeholders on the importance of climate resilience and the specific measures being implemented.

---

Project 4. Developing climate-resilient infrastructure actions to protect Annapolis Royal from coastal flooding

Infrastructure type	Community	Province or territory	Community type (population)	Relevant climate hazards
Protective	Annapolis Royal	Nova Scotia	Coastal, 500 people	Flooding

Key take-aways

• Use novel funding strategies: Annapolis Royal has assessed the financial costs versus benefits to support its chosen course of action, and it has rationale for a sensible adaptive pathway that can minimize potential loss of services, damage to properties, disruption to businesses, and displacement of people. Annapolis Royal has acknowledged that it will require non-conventional infrastructure funding strategies including contributions from the insurance industry and community property owners.
• Use adaptive planning: Consider adaptation as a process instead of a one-time intervention or action. The assessments conducted enabled focus on adaptation actions that can be integrated into Annapolis Royal’s existing context and initiatives to support long-term sustainable service delivery, including activities to remove the barriers to proper adaptation that currently exist.
• Consider multiple futures: The Town’s adaptive adaptation plan includes actions to remove barriers to adaptation, that can be taken immediately with available financial resources and are not solely based on a worst-case scenario and options that “should” be done. A plan with only actions based on the worst-case scenario was not practical for Annapolis Royal given the Town’s limited financial resources.
• Engage the public: Informing the community of key costs and risks allowed for an assessment tailored to local community needs. Although the plan requires major infrastructure investment that will require novel financing strategies, Annapolis Royal now has robust, practical, and community-informed direction for climate-resilience infrastructure to protect the Town from the known high risk of coastal flooding.