1 Contents 1.0 Introduction 1.1 Background 1.2 Objective 1.3 - - PDF document

1

1

2012 National Survey of Canada’s Infrastructure Engineers about Climate Change

Prepared by the Canadian Standards Association, Built Environment for Engineers Canada Engineers Canada

2

Contents

• 1.0 Introduction

– 1.1 Background – 1.2 Objective – 1.3 Methodology

• 2.0 Detailed findings
• 3 0 Summary and conclusions

3.0 Summary and conclusions

3

1.0 Introduction

4

3

1.1 Background

• In 2007, CSA Standards conducted a survey of

Canadian infrastructure engineers to determine a baseline for their level of knowledge and awareness of climate change as it relates to their practice of g p engineering.

• Engineers Canada approached CSA in late 2011 to

conduct a follow-up survey of Canadian infrastructure engineers to help:

– Determine the current level awareness of climate change and its perceived impact on infrastructure engineering perceived impact on infrastructure engineering – Identify what infrastructure engineers are currently doing in their practice to adapt to a changing climate – Determine whether there have been any significant changes since the last survey was conducted in 2007

5

1.1 Background

• The survey, launched in early 2012, was targeted at

engineers from the following five categories of built infrastructure:

W t – Water – Transportation – Energy – Buildings – Resource extraction/processing (new in 2012 survey)

6

4

1.2 Objective

• Overall objective is to identify:

– Engineers’ attitudes and level of knowledge and awareness about the impacts of a changing climate on engineering practice; – To what extent infrastructure engineers consider the changing – To what extent infrastructure engineers consider the changing climate in engineering decision making; – How infrastructure engineers address the changing climate in their practice and which climate change adaptation tools/techniques they are using; – How infrastructure engineers use information on the changing climate and where information is lacking; – Opportunities to increase engineers’ level of awareness of the impacts of a changing climate on the built infrastructure sector; What barriers are preventing infrastructure engineers from

7

– What barriers are preventing infrastructure engineers from addressing the impacts of a changing climate in practice; – Any changes around infrastructure engineering and climate change since 2007;

1.3 Methodology

• Survey targeted at Canadian infrastructure engineers

registered with a provincial/territorial engineering association (i e Professional Engineers) (i.e. Professional Engineers)

• Random sample group of respondents with no limit on

number of responses from each jurisdiction

• Survey hosted online by an independent third party research

company

• Respondents contacted through the provincial/territorial

engineering associations as well as industry associations – championed by Engineers Canada S d i li k i ith N l tt il

• Survey accessed via a link in either an e-Newsletter or email

communication from the engineering associations

• 12 questions total, 10 from 2007 survey, 2 new questions
• Survey available in English and French

8

5

1.3.1 Methodology – Respondent solicitation

• Survey launched Dec 16, 2011 (French Jan 23); closed Feb 21
• Provincial/territorial engineering associations sent a reach-out to their members

via e-Newsletter or dedicated email;

– APEGBC – APEGA APEGA – APEGS – APEGM – PEO – OIQ – APENS – APEGNB – Engineers P.E.I. – PEGNL – APEY – NAPEG

S l di i t d th h i d t i ti i l di

• Survey also disseminated through industry associations including:

– Canadian Water and Wastewater Association, Canadian Public Works Association, CERIU (Quebec), Members of the Public Infrastructure Engineering Vulnerability Committee (PIEVC), and the Expert Working Groups – Limited number of federal and provincial departments

9

1.3.2 Methodology – Sample group composition

Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Responses Responses % % Total Total

B.C

224 6.7%

Alberta

565 16.8%

Saskatchewan

470 14.0%

• National

sample group

• All 13

C di Total North; n = 55

NWT/Nunavut

41 1.2%

Yukon

14 0.4%

Manitoba

193 5.7%

Ontario

1462 43.5%

Quebec

208 6.2%

Nova Scotia

33 1.0%

New Brunswick

39 1.2%

Canadian jurisdictions represented

• 2007 total

responses : n = 2060 (w/ quotas) Total Atlantic;

(Note: SK was grouped with the North in 2007)

10 P.E.I.

22 0.7%

Newfoundland/ Labrador

41 1.2%

Not currently practicing

50 1.5%

Total 3362

100%

n = 135

6

1.3.3 Methodology – Sample group composition

Industry sector Industry sector Number of Number of respondents respondents % Total Total

Engineering Services

1280 38.1%

Resources (e.g. mining oil and gas

413 12 3%

• Sample group

composition by industry

mining, oil and gas, forestry)

413 12.3%

Utilities (including government utilities)

368 10.9%

Manufacturing

278 8.3%

Municipal Government

226 6.7%

Provincial Government

217 6.5%

y y sector (Q2)

11 Government Construction

156 4.6%

Federal Government

102 3.0%

Other

322 9.6%

Total 3362

100%

1.3.4 Methodology – Sample group composition

Infrastructure Infrastructure category category Number of Number of respondents respondents % Total % Total

Energy

678 20 2%

• Sample group

composition by infrastructure

Energy

678 20.2%

Buildings

579 17.2%

Resource extraction and processing

574 17.1%

Water

519 15.4%

Transportation

438 13 0%

category (Q3)

12 Transportation

438 13.0%

Other

574 17.1%

Total 3362

100%

7

1.3.5 Methodology – Sample group composition

Infrastructure Infrastructure category category BC BC (n=224) (n=224) AB AB (n=565) (n=565) MB MB (n=193) (n=193) SK SK (n=470) (n=470) ON ON (n=1462) (n=1462) QC QC (n=208) (n=208) ATL ATL (n=135) (n=135) North North (n=55 (n=55)

)

% Total % Total (n=3362) (n=3362) Energy

18% 20% 21% 19% 23% 12% 14% 20% 20%

• Breakdown of

region by infrastructure

Buildings

19% 12% 28% 16% 18% 12% 27% 21% 17%

Resources

19% 34% 6% 29% 10% 8% 13% 10% 17%

Water

17% 15% 18% 13% 14% 35% 19% 6% 15%

infrastructure category (Q1 with Q3)

13 Transportation 11%

10% 19% 9% 14% 22% 11% 34% 13%

Other

16% 10% 8% 13% 23% 12% 16% 11% 17%

1.3.6 Methodology

• Note on interpretation:

The national results in aggregate are considered to have a – The national results in aggregate are considered to have a margin of error of approx. 2% at the 95% confidence level for both the 2007 and 2012 results shown. – The margin of error for various cross-tabulations for specific categories, questions and regions has more variability and can be in excess of 11%. – Data circled in the charts denotes a significant difference at the 95% confidence level as follows:

• Significant difference:

14

Higher Lower

8

2.0 Detailed Findings

15

• Q4: “For each of the following statements, please indicate your level of agreement” (4 point scale)
• Total national sample (2007, n = 2060; 2012, n = 3362)

70% 74% 76%

2.1 – Perceived acceptance that climate change affects the engineering practice

27%

82% 73% 86%

Strongly

28% 38% 33% 42% 38% 41%

A changing climate has Reducing greenhouse I need more information

42% 58% 35% 40% 27% 38%

2007 2012

Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree

16

A changing climate has already affected or will affect my engineering decisions in the near future. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions would lessen the magnitude of future climate change. I need more information to enable me to address the impacts of a changing climate in my engineering practice.

• Significantly fewer engineers consider CC in their practice than in 2007.
• Significantly fewer engineers believe that reducing GHG emissions will help mitigate CC than in 2007.
• Almost 3 out of 4 engineers still feel that they lack information to address the effects of CC on their practice.

9

2.1.1 – “A changing climate has/will affect my engineering decisions…”

70% 73% 75% 70% 82% 64%

• Q4a; by infrastructure category

42% 43% 48% 42% 41% 40% 39% 28% 39% 27% 28% 32% 19% 25%

59%

Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree

17 Total (n = 3362) Water (n = 519) Transp’n (n = 438) Energy (n = 678) Bldgs (n = 579) Other (n = 574)

• Water infrastructure engineers are significantly more apt to consider CC in their engineering decisions compared to the national

average.

• The resources sector is significantly below the national average in perceiving that CC influences their engineering practice.

Resources (n = 574)

2.1.2 – “A changing climate has/will affect my engineering decisions…”

70% 73% 74% 71% 64% 86% 82%

• Q4a; by region

36%

63% 89%

42% 37% 43% 44% 41% 41% 36% 50% 31% 28% 37% 21% 19% 32% 30% 46% 56%

Strongly agree Somewhat agree

18

• Overall the level of agreement is high, however Alberta and Saskatchewan are slightly below average.
• QC, ATL provinces, and the North are significantly above the national average in accepting that CC affects engineering practice.

31%

Total (n=3,362) BC (n=224) AB (n=565) SK (n=470) MB (n=193) ON (n=1,462) QC (n=208) ATL (n=135) North (n=55)

10

2.1.3 – “A changing climate has/will affect my engineering decisions…”

70% 71% 59% 79% 62% 72% 80% 60% 71% 83%

35% 40%

• Q4a; by industry sector

59%

42% 45% 39% 42% 42% 37% 45% 43% 38% 34% 28% 27% 20% 20% 29% 42% 35% 40% 22% 37%

Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree

19 Total (n = 3362)

• Eng. services

(n = 1280) Resources (n = 413) Mfg (n = 278) Utilities (n = 368) Fed Gov (n = 102) Constr’n (n = 156)

• Munic. Gov

(n = 226)

• There is a significant disparity between the level of agreement in the public sector and the resources and construction sectors.
• Public sector is significantly above the national average in perceiving that CC affects engineering practice.

Prov Gov (n = 217) Other (n = 322)

2.1.4 – “Reducing GHG emissions would lessen the magnitude of future CC”

76% 81% 82% 77% 79% 76%

• Q4b; by infrastructure category

43% 48% 38% 36% 34% 41% 44% 29% 45%

63%

Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree

20

38% 43% 36% 37% 34% 31%

• Resources category is significantly below the national average in perceiving that reducing GHG emissions will mitigate future CC

(significantly fewer engineers strongly agree). Total (n = 3362) Water (n = 519) Transp’n (n = 438) Energy (n = 678) Bldgs (n = 579) Other (n = 574) Resources (n = 574)

11

2.1.5 – “Reducing GHG emissions would lessen the magnitude of future CC”

76% 68% 77% 77% 75% 78% 83% 90%

• Q4b; by region

74% 68%

45% 50% 45% 47% 38% 49% 28% 29% 27% 45% 48% 45% 27% Strongly agree Somewhat agree

21

• Reduction of GHG emissions has most support in QC and ATL provinces (48% and 45% strongly agree) & least support in AB.
• Almost half of respondents in BC and QC strongly agree .

38% 28% 40% 45% 33% 35% 45%

Total (n=3,362) BC (n=224) AB (n=565) SK (n=470) MB (n=193) ON (n=1,462) QC (n=208) ATL (n=135) North (n=55)

2.1.6 – “Reducing GHG emissions would lessen the magnitude of future CC”

76% 71% 79% 77% 80% 80% 84% 74% 80%

• Q4b; by industry sector

38% 38% 39% 49% 46% 38% 39% 26% 46% 40% 43% 31% 38% 37% 49%

63%

Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree

22 38% 38% 37% 25% 39% 37% 37% 31%

• More government engineers believe that reducing GHGs will help mitigate future CC. The resources sector is significantly below

the national average in believing that reducing GHG emissions will mitigate future CC. Total (n = 3362)

• Eng. services

(n = 1280) Resources (n = 413) Mfg (n = 278) Utilities (n = 368) Fed Gov (n = 102) Constr’n (n = 156)

• Munic. Gov

(n = 226) Prov Gov (n = 217) Other (n = 322)

12

2.1.7 – “Need more information…to address the impacts of a changing climate”

80% 74% 74% 72% 71% 80% 67%

• Q4c; by infrastructure category

41% 39% 45% 42% 42% 42% 33% 41% 35% 29% 32% 30% 33% Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree

23

41% 39% 42% 42% 42% 34%

• Overall, there is evidence of demand for relevant information directed at engineers across infrastructure categories.

Total (n = 3362) Water (n = 519) Transp’n (n = 438) Energy (n = 678) Bldgs (n = 579) Other (n = 574) Resources (n = 574)

2.1.8 – “Need more information…to address the impacts of a changing climate”

74% 82% 74% 72% 72% 78% 64% 83%

• Q4c; by region

87% 64%

41% 42% 42% 50% 41% 50% 47% 33% 32% 39% 36% 32% 31% 28% 33% 40% Strongly agree Somewhat agree

24

• More engineers from the ATL provinces, the North, and MB claim to need more info to incorporate CC into engineering practice.

QC engineers express lower need for additional info.

41% 42% 33% 42% 41% 36%

Total (n=3,362) BC (n=224) AB (n=565) SK (n=470) MB (n=193) ON (n=1,462) QC (n=208) ATL (n=135) North (n=55)

13

2.1.9 – “Need more information…to address the impacts of a changing climate”

74% 72% 71% 79% 62% 76% 75% 69% 79% 78%

• Q4c; by industry sector

41% 41% 41% 37% 43% 40% 40% 38% 43% 40% 33% 35% 30% 25% 29% 39% 35% 41% 35% 29%

62%

Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree

25

37% 38%

• Engineers from all levels of government consistently lack relevant information while those in manufacturing show a significantly

lower than average need for additional information. Total (n = 3362)

• Eng. services

(n = 1280) Resources (n = 413) Mfg (n = 278) Utilities (n = 368) Fed Gov (n = 102) Constr’n (n = 156)

• Munic. Gov

(n = 226) Prov Gov (n = 217) Other (n = 322)

2.2 – Familiarity with CC impacts

• Q5: “For each of the following suggested impacts, please indicate your level of familiarity as

these relate to infrastructure”; (4 point scale)

• Total national sample (2007, n = 2060; 2012, n = 3362)

45% 23% Changes in seasonality and type of Somewhat Very

2012

68%

44% 31% Somewhat Very

75%

2007

34% 39% 43% 37% 43% 45% 14% 18% 20% 21% 25% 23% More frequent and severe water shortages Changes to historical climatic loads such as wind, snow, and ice Changes in freeze/thaw cycles depending on region Changes to peak energy demand magnitudes and seasonality … More frequent and intense storms precipitation

68% 58% 63% 57% 48% 68%

38% 38% 39% 38% 42% 44% 25% 26% 28% 30% 32% 31%

75% 74% 68% 67% 64% 63%

26 26% 28% 33% 12% 14% 16% Sea level rise Thawing permafrost in northern climates Increased coastal and river flooding

49% 42% 38%

34% 33% 36% 24% 26% 26%

62% 59% 58%

• The level of familiarity with CC impacts is systematically lower in 2012 than in 2007, largely accounted for in the reduced number
• f engineers who are very familiar with CC impacts.

14

2.3 – Familiarity with CC adaptation tools

43% 17%

Increase the magnitude of design parameters or safety factors

Somewhat Very

2012

60%

38% 15% Somewhat Very

2007

53%

• Q6: “For each of the following tools and techniques…for adapting to a changing climate, please

indicate your level of familiarity”; (4 point scale)

• Total national sample (2007, n = 2060; 2012, n = 3362)

39% 38% 38% 34% 32% 21% 12% 17% 13% 11%

safety factors Perform a formal risk assessment and carry out risk management Review existing practices and use entirely new solutions Develop contingency plans for infrastructure failure Identify infrastructure that is at risk because of a changing climate, and retrofit priority assets Consider increased deterioration rates in design and maintenance plans

60% 50% 55% 47% 43%

36% 37% 31% 29% 27% 17% 16% 18% 12% 10%

53% 53% 49% 41% 37%

27 29% 29% 30% 10% 10% 9% Consider different climate change scenarios or models for design, maintenance, or planning Identify locations that may be vulnerable to climate change impacts and avoid them … Design infrastructure that can be modified over time as the impacts of a changing climate occur

39% 39% 39%

27% 26% 26% 9% 9% 7%

36% 35% 33%

• Familiarity with CC adaptation tools is systematically higher in 2012 than in 2007 despite less familiarity with the impacts of a changing climate.
• Familiarity with tools profiled more to water engineers (83%) and transportation engineers (74%) as well as QC and ATL provinces.

2.4 – Consideration of CC impacts in decision-making

• Q7: “To what degree do you consider the impacts of a changing climate in your current

engineering decisions?” (4 point scale)

• Total national sample (2007, n = 2060; 2012, n = 3362)

2012 2007

Always consider 10% Mostly consider 18% Sometimes consider 46% Never consider 26% Always consider 9% Mostly consider 18% Sometimes consider 45% Never consider 28% 28

• A total of 74% of respondents consider CC in their engineering practice, but only 10% do it always.
• No change since 2007.

15

2.5 – Perceived acceptance vs. action

• Q4 vs. Q7
• Total national sample, n = 3362

10%

74% 70%

46% 18%

Always consider Mostly consider Sometimes consider

42% 28%

Strongly agree Somewhat agree

29

Q7: To what degree do you consider the impacts of a changing climate in your engineering decisions Q4a: A changing climate has already affected or will affect my engineering decisions in the near future.

2.6.1 – Consideration of CC impacts in engineering decisions

• Q7; by infrastructure category
• Total national sample, n = 3362

10% 10% 8% 9% 13% Always consider

74% 85% 76% 76% 75% 66% 67% 46% 49% 48% 48% 45% 45% 39% 18% 26% 20% 19% 17% 13% 17%

8% 11% Mostly consider Sometimes consider

30

• Significantly more water engineers consider the impacts of CC in their decisions than the national average.
• Significantly fewer resource extraction/processing engineers consider the impacts of CC in their decisions.

39%

Total (n=3362) Water (n=519) Transport'n (n=438) Energy (n=678) Bldgs (n=579) Resources (n=574) Other (n=574)

consider

16

2.6.2 – Consideration of CC impacts in engineering decisions

• Q7; by region
• Total national sample, n = 3362

26% 12% 10% 8% 6% 12% 8% 20% 68% 72% 71% 73% 82% 92% 92% 78% 74% 46% 47% 44% 51% 50% 44% 41% 58% 44% 18% 21% 16% 13% 15% 18% 29% 29% 12% 8% 8% 6% 11% Always consider Mostly consider Sometimes consider

31

• Significantly more engineers in the North and ATL provinces consider the impacts of CC in their decisions. 20% of engineers in the North always consider.
• Fewer AB engineers consider the impacts of CC in their decisions.

Total (n=3,362) BC (n=224) AB (n=565) SK (n=470) MB (n=193) ON (n=1,462) QC (n=208) ATL (n=135) North (n=55)

2.7.1 – Use of CC adaption tools/techniques

• Q8: “Which…tools and techniques are you presently using in your practice to respond to the

impacts of a changing climate?”

• Total national sample, n = 3362
• The most popular adaptation

tools/techniques being used are:

41% 59%

Not currently using any adaptation tools or techniques Currently using adaptation

q g – Increase the magnitude of design parameters or safety factors – Perform a formal risk assessment and carry out risk management – Develop contingency plans for infrastructure failure

32

adaptation tools

• The percentage of respondents who

are familiar with these same tools/techniques (Q6) is above 55%.

• There is no tool/technique that is not

being applied.

17

2.7.2 – Familiarity vs. use of adaptation tools/techniques

43% 16% 15%

Review existing practices and use entirely new solutions Consider increased deterioration rates in design and maintenance plans

• Q8 vs. Q6: Familiarity of CC adaptation tools and techniques vs. use of adaptation

tools/techniques; Total national sample, n = 3362

47% 39% 39% 39% 50% 18% 18% 17% 17%

Identify infrastructure that is at risk because of a changing climate and retrofit priority assets Consider different climate change scenarios or models for design, maintenance, or planning Identify locations that may be vulnerable to climate change impacts and avoid them altogether or modify designs accordingly Design infrastructure that can be modified over time as the impacts of a changing climate occur Review existing practices and use entirely new solutions Action Action Familiarity 33

60% 60% 55% 47% 26% 25% 23%

Perform a formal risk assessment and carry out risk management Increase the magnitude of design parameters or safety factors Develop contingency plans for infrastructure failure climate, and retrofit priority assets

2.8 – Seeking info on a changing climate

61% 51%

• Q9: “How likely are you to seek specific information on a changing climate as it relates to

engineering practice in the next 12 months?”; (4 point scale)

• Total national sample, n = 3362

30% 34% 35% 31% 30% 17% 27% 16% 13% 17% 11% 15% Very likely Somewhat

47% 44% 47% 35% 41%

34

30% 30% 24% 26% Total (n=3362) Water (n=519) Transport'n (n=438) Energy (n=678) Bldgs (n=579) Resources (n=574) Other (n=574) likely

• Significantly more water engineers are likely to seek info about CC.
• Significantly fewer resource extraction/processing engineers are likely to seek info on CC.

18

2.9 – Receiving info on a changing climate

7% Online resources (including dedicated websites Peer interaction

• Q10: “How would you prefer to receive information on a changing climate as it relates to

engineering practice?”

• Total national sample, n = 3362

12% 28% 10% 8% 23% Scholarly articles in engineering publications or Published guidelines and best practices Conferences or webinars Training workshops Online resources (including dedicated websites and/or links to websites) 35 4% 10% 12% Classroom continuing education Online continuing education (e‐Learning) journals

2.10.1 – Familiarity with PIEVC

• Q11a: “Engineers Canada has developed a procedure known as the PIEVC Engineering

Protocol that evaluates the engineering vulnerability of infrastructure and the risks associated with the impacts of current and future climate change at a screening level; Please indicate your level of familiarity with this tool”

• Total national sample, n = 3362

9% 5% 2%

Not at all familiar Not very familiar Somewhat familiar 36

84%

Very familiar

19

2.10.2 – Use of PIEVC

1% 2% 2% 1%

Lack of awareness or familiarity with this tool Unsure of the benefits/value of an

• Q11b: “If you have not used the PIEVC Engineering Protocol, please indicate the main reason

why”

• Total national sample, n = 3362

67% 8% 1% 14%

/ engineering vulnerability assessment Lack of training for this tool Unsure how this tool could fit into my practice/job Lack of adequate climate data to use this tool No requirement for an engineering vulnerability assessment Lack of funds to perform an engineering

37

67% 3% 2%

Lack of funds to perform an engineering vulnerability assessment Already using other tools and techniques to assess engineering vulnerability I intend to use this tool but have not yet had the opportunity I have already used the PIEVC Engineering Protocol

2.11 – Barriers to addressing climate change in engineering practice

16%

I am currently addressing the impacts of changing climate on infrastructure

• Q12: “If you are not already doing so, what is the main reason preventing you from addressing a

changing climate and its impact on infrastructure?”

• Total national sample, n = 3362

7% 12% 18% 4% 1% 6%

Lack of support from clients/owners/management Sceptical attitute towards climate change Lack of requirements in codes, standards, or policy Cost cannot be justified Lack of available time Other 38

17% 5% 13%

A changing climate has no effect on my practice Lack of adequate climate data Lack of information and resources

20

3.0 Summary and conclusions

39

3.1 Summary and conclusions – Climate change and engineering decisions

• The majority (70%) of engineers agree that CC has or will affect

their engineering decisions; 42% strongly agree. The level of agreement in 2012 is significantly lower than in 2007 (82%);

– Agreement profiled more towards water infrastructure (82%). Resource extraction/processing engineers consider CC in engineering decisions extraction/processing engineers consider CC in engineering decisions significantly less (59%) than the national average – Agreement is higher in QC, ATL and the North – Agreement is higher in the public sector and lower in the resources and construction sectors – The resources group (new in 2012) does not significantly influence the aggregate results

Th j it (74%) f i f t t i id th i t

• The majority (74%) of infrastructure engineers consider the impacts
• f CC in their engineering decisions; unchanged from 2007;

– Profiled more towards water infrastructure (85%) and less towards resources (66%) – Profiled more towards QC, ATL, and the North and less towards AB

40

21

3.2.1 Summary and conclusions – Climate change information

• The majority (74%) of infrastructure engineers feel they need more

information to address CC in their practice; unchanged since 2007;

– Profiled slightly more towards water and transportation infrastructure – Profiled more towards MB (82%) ATL provinces (83%), and the North Profiled more towards MB (82%) ATL provinces (83%), and the North (87%); less towards QC (64%) – Profiled less towards manufacturing engineers (62%)

• The impacts that were most familiar in 2007 are the most familiar in
• 2012. These are:

– Changes in seasonality and type of precipitation (68%); more frequent and intense storms (68%);

• These impacts are experienced first-hand by most people across the country

These impacts are experienced first hand by most people across the country

• Familiarity is low for impacts that typically go unobserved by the general

population

– Familiarity is generally lower in 2012 than in 2007;

• The resources group (new in 2012) does not significantly influence the aggregate

results

41

3.2.2 Summary and conclusions – Climate change information

• Almost half of infrastructure engineers are likely to seek

info on CC in the next 12 months;

– Water infrastructure engineers are most likely (61%) – Resource extraction/processing engineers are least likely (35%)

• The most preferred way to access information on CC is

from published guidelines/best practices (28%) and

• nline resources (23%)
• 13% of engineers are prevented from addressing CC in

th i ti d t l k f i f ti d their practice due to lack of information and resources

42

22

3.3.1 Summary and conclusions – Climate change adaptation tools and techniques

• The adaptation tools/techniques that engineers are most

familiar with are:

– Increase the magnitude of design parameters or safety factors (60%) P f f l i k t d t i k t – Perform a formal risk assessment and carry out risk management (60%)

• Familiarity is lowest for:

– Consider different climate change scenarios or models for design, maintenance, or planning (39%) – Identify locations that may be vulnerable to climate change impacts and avoid them altogether or modify designs accordingly (39%) Design infrastructure that can be modified over time as the impacts – Design infrastructure that can be modified over time as the impacts

• f a changing climate occur (39%)
• 59% of engineers are currently using adaptation tools in their

practice;

– The most used tools are the ones that are most familiar

43

• Other tools and techniques suggested by respondents:

– Adjust designs based on increased safety factors; perform risk analysis/risk management and develop contingencies based on specific needs; design infrastructure with increased flexibility; – Adapt designs based on the newest technical data and research available;

3.3.2 Summary and conclusions – Climate change adaptation tools and techniques

Adapt designs based on the newest technical data and research available; consider economic factors when designing infrastructure; use models to predict climate change impacts and adjust designs accordingly; monitor infrastructure continuously and adjust accordingly; – Expand the scope of planning and preparation; – Take direction from policy‐makers and refer to prevailing codes and regulations; promote information sharing; – Use an infrastructure vulnerability assessment tool such as the PIEVC Protocol; – Avoid infrastructure that is vulnerable; Avoid infrastructure that is vulnerable; – Mitigate climate change through the use of green technologies; design infrastructure for energy efficiency; implement sustainable practices; – Do not use tools or techniques to adapt infrastructure to a changing climate due to skeptical attitude towards climate change;

44

23

3.3.3 Summary and conclusions – Climate change adaptation tools and techniques

• 16% of infrastructure engineers are familiar with the

PIEVC Protocol; 2% are very familiar; 84% not at all familiar

• 3% of respondents have used or intend to use the

PIEVC Protocol

• Main reasons for not using the PIEVC Protocol are:

– Lack of familiarity (67%) – No requirement for an engineering vulnerability assessment (14%) (14%) – Unsure how PIEVC fits into practice (8%)

45

3.4 Summary and conclusions – Barriers to addressing climate change in engineering

• The main reasons why infrastructure engineers are not

addressing climate change in their practice are:

– Lack of requirements in codes, standards, or policy (18%) Climate change has no effect on practice (17%) – Climate change has no effect on practice (17%)

• 16% of infrastructure engineers are currently addressing

climate change in practice

• 12% of infrastructure engineers are skeptical about climate

change;

– Breakdown across infrastructure categories: 26% resources, 25% energy, 16% building energy, 16% building

• 13% of infrastructure engineers cite a lack of

information/resources as a barrier to addressing climate change in their practice;

– Breakdown across infrastructure categories is more or less even

46