Building Climate Resilient Infrastructure in Canada

43 Pages·2014·0.97 MB·English

1

Building Climate Resilient
Infrastructure in Canada
The Role of Concrete

Note to Reader: This summary has been produced by MDF Associates with research support from staff of
the International Institute for Sustainable Development. It is intended as an internal document to assist
the Cement Association of Canada in its ongoing engagement efforts with stakeholders, and to inform its
members of specific contributions that concrete can make to the building of climate resilient
infrastructure.
DRAFT 2.0
2

Contents
1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 3
2.0 Canadians are extremely vulnerable and the cost of inaction for Canadians is increasing ................... 3
2.1 Canadians are extremely vulnerable ............................................................................................ 3
2.2 The costs of inaction are increasing for Canadians....................................................................... 6
3.0 The concept and use of Climate Resilient Development and Climate Resilient Infrastructure
Strategies ...................................................................................................................................................... 8
3.1 Climate Resilient Development: what is it? ........................................................................................ 8
3.2 Climate-resilient infrastructure: a sub-component of climate-resilient development ...................... 9
4.0 Why are climate resilient infrastructure strategies increasing in both importance and popularity? .. 10
5.0 The role and contribution of construction materials in CRI Strategies ................................................ 14
5.1 Properties of construction materials .......................................................................................... 14
5.2 Characteristics of construction materials ......................................................................................... 15
6.0 Concrete Design Strategy/Product solutions ........................................................................................ 16
7.0 Six case studies that demonstrate the potential role of concrete in building CRI ................................ 20
7.1 Case Study 1: Advanced risk management planning allows hospital to stay dry during storm in
Binghamton, New York, 2011 ................................................................................................................. 20
7.2 Case Study 2: The Hurricane and Storm Damage Reduction System in New Orleans, Louisiana..... 21
7.3 Case 3: Building Bridges Better: Keeping Roads Open with Mitigation ............................................ 23
7.4 Case Study 4: Safe Building Practice Protects Investment ................................................................ 23
7.5 Case Study 5: Construction type serves as a predictor of Sandy’s related damage for buildings .... 24
7.6 Case Study 6: How one Japanese Village defied the 2011 tsunami ................................................. 26
8.0 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................. 27
9.0 Annex 1 Characteristics of concrete, steel, wood and asphalt against specific infrastructure impact 29
Building Infrastructure (public and private buildings) ........................................................................ 29
Land transportation (roads, railways, airports, runaways and bridges) ............................................. 33
Water infrastructure (dams, reservoirs, aquifers, hydroelectric generators) .................................... 35
Marine Infrastructure (ports, canals, docks, wharves, piers, seawalls) .............................................. 36
Wastewater infrastructure (treatment facilities, culverts, sewers, storm drains, pipes)................... 37
10.0 Work Cited ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 39
3

1.0 Introduction
Climate change adaptation has become a rising priority for Canadians as governments, the private
sector and civil society are witnessing first hand the range and acceleration of economic and social costs
associated with a changing climate - due to both iterative changes (e.g. longer growing seasons, sea
level rise) and extreme events (e.g. flooding on the Prairies). Emerging from this movement is a broader
understanding that it is no longer responsible to make long-term investment decisions without
considering the risks associated with climate change; this thinking has been referred to as climate
resilient development.
Climate resilient development (CRD) and relatedly climate resilient infrastructure (CRI) have been
gaining traction and have started to influence national, regional and local conversations about
infrastructure at a time when infrastructure renewal and revitalization is becoming urgent within
Canada. Stemming from this movement is a broad set of CRI strategies that are becoming increasingly
important in the infrastructure development process; from the location of the asset, through the
building of the infrastructure, to its maintenance and eventual retrofitting. Part of this movement
includes a subset of CRI strategies that prioritize the use of various construction materials needed to
support infrastructure design for current and future climate conditions.
This paper has been prepared for the Cement Association of Canada as an internal planning document
that summarizes the current state of thinking on climate resilient infrastructure development, the
impacts of climate change on Canadian infrastructure, and the role of concrete in building climate
resilient infrastructure.

2.0 Canadians are extremely vulnerable and the cost of inaction for Canadians is increasing
The potential manifestations of climate change and its impacts on Canadians have been the subject of
much study over the last few decades. This section describes the current and future potential
consequences currently known to Canadians; both in terms of vulnerability and costs.

2.1 Canadians are extremely vulnerable
Canadians are exposed to many natural hazards including, floods, droughts, ice storms, tornadoes, hail,
1
wildfire, heat and cold waves, hurricanes, earthquakes, tsunami and landslides. Today, more than half
of Canadians live in areas prone to earthquakes, one third of Canada’s coastlines are moderately or
highly sensitive to rising sea levels, 80 per cent of the country’s cities are located in a flood plain, and

1
A natural hazard is a threat of a naturally occurring event that would have a negative effect on humans. When
the hazardous threat actually happens and harms humans, the event is called a natural disaster.
4

populations of communities
prone to wildfires are steadily increasing
(Adams et al., 2008; Stanton et al., 2010;
Dotto et al., 2010). Canada’s increased
exposure to natural disasters is being driven
by a combination of things, most notably
climate change, urban migration,
population growth and development in
higher risk locations (e.g. coastal zones).
Further, our risk is continuously being
compounded by our citizens increasing
dependence on infrastructure and services, our country’s ageing infrastructure system and our failure to
push and or afford good and current climatic guidance for engineering codes and standards.
The number of hazards that adversely affect Canadians is on the rise. Public Safety Canada’s (PSC)
online database suggests that Canadian’s have gone from an average of less than five weather related
disasters per year to an average of approximately 15. Over the last 10 years alone Canadians have
experienced over 203 significant natural disasters, that have affected over three million citizens; led to
2
the evacuation of over 200,000 people, injured over 9,000 people, and killed over 700 people (PSC,
Canadian Disaster Database).
To make matters worse, the majority of Canada`s infrastructure has been designed based on historical
climate information, assuming that the past will
Figure 1: Building claims versus peak gust speed showing
adequately represent conditions over the future
disproportionate increase in claims cost from small
lifespan of the structure. While this assumption has increases in peak gust speed (Coleman, 2002)
worked in the past, it is becoming more and more
problematic as the climate changes. Regions where
climate trends are encroaching on design limits will
require increases in climatic design values for new
structures and reinforcements to existing structures
that have been identified a ``at risk` (Auld et al.,
2006b).
Studies are also demonstrating that “even small
increases in weather and climate extremes have the
potential to bring about large increases in damage”
(Munich Re, 2005; Swiss Re, 1997; Coleman, 2002).

2
Note that the last decade refers to the time period 2002 to 2012, the latest records of PSC. Therefore the totals
highlighted are likely highly underestimated as a result of large quantities of unknown data linked to these events.
5

For example, an investigation of claims by the Insurance Australia Group (IAG), illustrated in Figure 3,
indicated that a 25 per cent increase in peak wind gust strength, above a critical threshold, could
generate up to a 650 per cent increase in building claims (Coleman, 2002). Similar studies have
demonstrated comparable results for flood and hailstone damages (Freeman & Warner, 2001; Munich
Re, 2005; Swiss Re, 1997).
Barring substantial behavioural adjustments and or adequate preparation, the frequency and damage
associated with Canadian natural disasters are only expected to continue going forward.
Canadians are not prepared for climate change or climate change impacts. Although the frequency of
climate related disasters is expected to increase, Canadians are far from prepared to adequately
understand or withstand climate related risks. This vulnerability stems not only from the inadequate
availability of appropriate climate data but also from a lack of capacity, and a lack of systems to properly
address climatic risks. For instance, a report called, “Assessing the Viability of Overland Flood Insurance:
The Canadian Residential Property Market,” discovered that most flood maps in Canada were created in
response to a project that started in the 1970s and that the updating of these maps was abandoned in
1992 (Feltmate & Thistlewaite, 2013). As expressed by Feltmate in an article from the Globe and Mail,
“We need new flood-plain maps that take into account not the historical weather but the weather that
can be expected going forward.” In response to the data gap in flood maps, the Federal Public Safety
Department has ordered a new study to be released in March 2014, which will survey flood-mapping in
six countries, including a flood mapping assessment in Canada. While this study is an important step,
and may ultimately lead to better-placed infrastructure in anticipation of future flooding, Canada needs
to expand this proactive identification and assessment of risk to other climate-related factors.
Not only are Canadians behind in collecting and communicating adequate data for anticipating future
events, but Canadians are also behind in developing adequate capacity in communities to deal with such
3
events. The National Municipal Adaptation Project has found that 65 per cent of small towns have no
climate change plan – even though roughly half have experienced damage from flooding or extreme
rainfall in the last decade. In addition, of the cities that do have climate change plans, many of them
have ignored specific recommendations on how best to prepare for extreme events due to the costs of
implementation. Examples include:
• Alberta. In 2006, a provincial report titled ``Provincial Flood Mitigation Report: Consultation and
Recommenders`` was prepared following Alberta`s flood in 2005– a flood that was named
Environment Canada`s top weather event of the year. The report made 18 recommendations,
some of which involved prohibiting inappropriate development in flood risk areas; completion

3
The National Municipal Adaptation Project seeks a) to improve understanding of Canadian municipal
government’s adaptation planning, b) to generate applied knowledge to help advance preparation and resiliency,
c) to identify government needs and policy options; and d) develop case studies of best practices. See
http://www.localadaptation.ca/
6

of flood risk maps for urban areas in the province; a program to ensure those maps were
updated; the identification of priority rural flood risk areas that require flood risk mapping; and
making historical flood information available to the public on a website (Groeneveld, 2006). The
plan came with a price tag of $300 million dollars and consequently was ignored for six years
before being released in 2013. Unfortunately, by the time it was released it was too late and
Alberta`s 2013 flood took a toll on the province. Alberta`s former Municipal Affairs Minister Ray
Danyluk blamed the lack of mitigation funding from Ottawa for the PC government`s failure to
implement the $300 million recommendations of flood mitigation. (Henton, 2013)
• Toronto. A 2008 city report titled “Ahead of the Storm” made 29 recommendations to reduce
Toronto’s vulnerabilities to extreme weather, including creating an inventory of susceptible
infrastructure, incorporating climate change preparedness in all city divisions’ planning, and
devising strategies to help vulnerable populations cope with extreme weather (City of Toronto,
2008). The goal was to implement the recommendations by 2011, but few were implemented.
Councillor Mike Layton argues that the city might have been in a better position during its pre-
Christmas 2013 ice storm that left over half a million people without power, if it had been
quicker to act on protecting itself from climate change (Spur, 2014).
Infrastructure is aging and requires urgent attention. A close examination of the data supplied by the
123 municipal governments that participated in Canada’s first report card on municipal infrastructure
reveals troubling trends in the condition and management of Canada’s most essential public assets:
drinking-water systems, wastewater and storm water networks, and municipal roads. The overall report-
card ratings for the four asset categories show that a significant amount of municipal infrastructure
ranks between “fair” and “very poor." The replacement cost of these assets alone total $17.8 billion
nationally. The report also found that under current practises (investment, operations, maintenance),
most infrastructure, even if in good-to very-good conditions, will require ever-increasing investment as
it ages (Felio, 2012).

2.2 The costs of inaction are increasing for Canadians
The costs of climate change are increasing. According Figure 2. Estimated damage (US $billion) caused
by reported natural disasters 1900-2007 (NRTREE,
to the Centre for Research in the Epidemiology of
2011)
Disasters, the cost of Canadian natural disasters has
risen 14-fold since the 1950s (See figure4) and is
expected to continue to escalate over time. The National
Round Table on the Environment and the Economy
(NRTEE) predicts that climate change impacts will cost
Canadians an average of $5 billion per year in 2020 and
7

4
anywhere from $21 billion to $43 billion per year by 2050 (NRTEE, 2011).
Internationally, the consensus is similar and reports such as the one produced by the Economics of
Climate Adaptation Working Group, expect that climate risks could cost nations up to 19 per cent of
their GDP by 2030 (Economics of Climate Change Working Group, 2009). Further, as populations and
urbanization increases worldwide and economies become increasingly linked through commercial
supply chains and remittance flows, the impacts of disasters are no longer confined to their place of
occurrence and thus have wider regional and international repercussions. This will undoubtedly increase
the expected costs of climate change for all nations, including Canada.
Insurance costs are rising. Losses from climate variability (short term) and climate change (long term) in
Canada have been rising and as a result claim payouts have doubled every five to ten years, since the
1980s according to the Insurance Bureau of Canada. (IBC, 2012) From 2006 to 2012, the amount of
insured damage resulting solely from extreme weather grew seven fold; from less than $200 million to
$1.2 billion. And for the third time in four years (2010-2014), losses in insurance damage have reached
the billion-dollar level. Climate-related events are now the top source of insurance claims and Canadian
insurance companies are not only warning people of the unequivocal evidence of climate change but are
also strongly urging the public and governments to take the changing weather patterns seriously (CBC,
2012).
Prices in the insurance industry have already responded to rising natural catastrophic costs and
advocates are warning that homeowners could see significant increases in insurance in the future (CBC,
2014; Sturgeon, 2013). Intact Financial Corp (TSX:IFC), one of Canada’s largest property and casualty
insurers, raised premiums by 15 to 20 per cent in the past few months as catastrophic losses and
weather-related claims have risen (CBC, 2014). Deductibles have also increased in most provinces, with
the base deductible rising from $500 to $1,000 in 2014 (MacLean’s, 2014). In the United States the
Biggert Watters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012 attempted to force coastal property owners to pay
full market rates for their flood insurance to lower insurance companies risk to expected climate
variations. However, on January 30, 2014, the United States Senate agreed to advance the Homeowner
Flood Insurance Affordability Act, a bill that would delay implementation of the new premium for four
years. This decision will further erode the financial position of the National Flood Insurance Program
(NFIP), which is already $24 billion in debt (Ferraro, 2014). It is unclear how long the U.S, as well as
others, will be able to continue subsidizing insurance going forward, particularly as it is clear that the
financial resources required to do so are only going to increase.
Businesses and business sectors are at risk. Businesses and business sectors are particularly vulnerable
to climate change if they are currently affected by weather events, and/or make long-term investments,
especially in climate sensitive infrastructure. According to the Tampa-based Insurance Institute for
Business and Home Safety (IIBHS), at least one-quarter of small businesses impacted by a natural
disaster never reopen (IIBHS, 2013). The smallest businesses (i.e. enterprises with fewer than 10

4
Note: There is a 5 per cent chance, according to NRTREE, that the costs could exceed $91 billion in the high
climate change, rapid growth scenario.
8

employees) are especially vulnerable as few have the resources or knowledge needed to assess disaster
risks and develop comprehensive mitigation and recovery plans. To anticipate and/or respond to the
changing climate, businesses may need to adapt to change however, more than two-thirds of small
businesses have not created a disaster and or climate change plan, and nearly half don’t have an
alternative place they could work from if their work place becomes a disaster zone (IIBHS, 2013). Given
that small businesses account for approximately 27 percent of Canada`s GDP, continued procrastination
from small businesses will increase the expected climate change costs to Canadians.
Overall, climate impacts will place immense strain on public sector budgets. The federal government
has already identified the rising cost of natural disasters and the financial burden on Ottawa as one of
the country’s biggest public safety risks (Stone, 2013). And municipalities are slowly realizing that
securing relief from the federal and provincial governments is no guarantee. For instance, last year the
Ontario government rebuffed the city of Toronto`s first request for help with the cost of summer
rainstorm damages, and staff aren`t optimistic that the ice storm will qualify Toronto for the Ontario
Disaster Relief Assistance program (Spur, 2014). As the cost of infrastructure maintenance and
replacement increases, economic losses from climate change could ultimately translate into reduced tax
revenues. In response, public officials may need to raise taxes, cut services, or introduce some
combination of both in order to bear this increased burden.
3.0 The Concept and Use of Climate Resilient Development and Climate Resilient
Infrastructure Strategies
Given the current and future potential consequences climate variability (short term) and climate change
(long term) will have on Canadians - both in terms of vulnerability and costs – decision makers are
starting to realize that it is no longer responsible to make decisions without considering the risks
associated with climate change. This section describes the concept of climate resilient development
(CRD) and climate resilient infrastructure (CRI) and how it is that these concepts are being used to
increasingly guide investment decisions while simultaneously responding to the challenges and
opportunities posed by climate change.

3.1 Climate Resilient Development: what is it?
The term climate-resilient development (CRD) stems from the integration of two separate strategies:
adaptation and development. It can be best understood as the consideration of climate change in
strategic planning, finance, program design, and project implementation across a wide range of sectors
including health, education, energy, tourism, infrastructure, agriculture, transportation, etc. While the
integration of the two strategies is nothing new, what is new is the recognition that pro-active
development planning – across a wide range of development sectors – is pivotal in enhancing the
resiliency of the economy; where resiliency in this context describes the capacity of a system to absorb
and quickly rebound from climate shocks and stresses. Fundamentally, climate-resilient development is
an approach to finding new ways to rebuild smarter, stronger, and safer pro-actively across all
development sectors, in an effort to better mitigate and manage climate related impacts in the future.
9

In the last decade, there has been a marked spike in interest surrounding this approach and
corresponding with this, an increasing number of political leaders, international intuitions and
practitioners are attempting to integrate the tenets of climate-resilient development into their work to
guide investment decisions (ECA, 2012). Emerging from this movement is a broader understanding that
it is no longer responsible to make long-term investment decisions into core national development
planning without considering the risks associated with climate change. It seems likely that this mindset
and approach will only become further entrenched, as on March 2015, an international agreement
called the Hyogo Framework for Action – which is based off the tenets of climate resilient development-
will be adopted by over 8000 people including, heads of state, government ministers, parliamentarians,
academics, NGOs and other civil society representatives. This agreement will have significant
implications for both private and public actors with respect to investment decisions.
3.2 Climate-resilient infrastructure: a sub-component of climate-resilient development
Climate-resilient infrastructure (CRI) is a sub-component of CRD and can be best understood as the
incorporation of long-term climate change adaptation and immediate disaster risk management into
policies for planning, design, construction (including retrofitting and reconstruction), operation and
maintenance of infrastructure. More generally, CRI strategies can be described as proactively building
smarter, stronger, and safer infrastructure in an effort to better mitigate and manage climate related
impacts. Similar to CRD, CRI is becoming a more prominent approach in guiding infrastructure
investment decisions in response to climate change.
This high-level understanding of the need to enhance the climate resilience of infrastructure is
increasingly being translated to practical actions. In the United States, President Obama has included a
Climate Resilience Fund as part of his proposed budget for 2015 that would see $1 billion, of his $3.9
trillion, invested in research, physical preparation, breakthrough technologies and resilient
infrastructure that will help communities across the country better prepare for the effects of climate
change. The fund could translate into anything from shatter-resistant windows for hospitals in Tornado
Alley to upgrades to wastewater plants (Lehmann, 2014).
CRI strategies are also starting to become part of provincial and local development plans in Canada. For
instance, British Columbia’s most recent CRI strategies include measures such as updated official
community infrastructure plans, updated floodplain mapping, increasing flood construction levels,
raising dike elevations and related flood protection structures, installing artificial reefs and public
education measures in order to deal with the increasing risks of rising sea levels and floods. Similarly,
Toronto has recently introduced a number of CRI strategies aimed to make their buildings and
infrastructure more resilient to extreme weather including: increasing the size of storm sewers and
culverts to handle greater volumes of runoff, using rain barrels to reduce runoff and capture rainwater
for reuse, installing permeable surfaces (rather than asphalt) to reduce runoff from heavy rainfalls,
installations of basement backflow preventers and window well guards to reduce flooding risk, and
using cool/reflective materials on the roofs of homes and buildings to reduce the urban heat island
effect, among many others (City of Toronto, 2008).
10

The private sector has also started to engage by implementing CRI strategies such as, conducting
infrastructure vulnerability assessments, strengthening or relocating vulnerable infrastructure,
deploying more CRI technologies, and improving existing infrastructure. Although some of these
measures may be costly, there is a growing recognition among the private sector that the cost of
inaction would be greater.
Whether efforts to enhance the
resiliency of infrastructure are
being put forward at the
national, sub-national,
community or private level, the
types of CRI strategies being
proposed are broad-based and
can be applied at each and
every stage of a normal
infrastructure life cycle—from
the location of the asset,
through the building of the
infrastructure, to its
maintenance and eventual
retrofitting. For instance, hazard
mapping is a CRI strategy that
prioritizes the placement of different infrastructure components in light of potential climate risks. In
contrast, retrofitting is a CRI strategy that improves an older system so that it may better withstand
climate change impacts.
Table 1 provides a framework for examining where in the life cycle of an infrastructure project one
might expect to introduce climate resilience as a factor into decision-making. The balance of this paper
will concentrate on the construction and establishment phase and more specifically on CRI strategies
that prioritize the use of various construction materials needed to support infrastructure design for
current and future climate conditions.
4.0 Why are Climate Resilient Infrastructure Strategies increasing in both importance and
popularity?
As described in the previous section, CRI strategies are becoming increasingly important in the
infrastructure development process. From the location of the asset, through the building of the
infrastructure, to its maintenance and eventual retrofitting, CRI strategies can be integrated at all stages
of infrastructure development. As the impacts of climate change continue to rise, the implementation of
these strategies will become increasingly important, particularly when it comes to long-term
infrastructure-related projects. This section highlights some of the strategic reasons as to why these
strategies are increasing in both importance and popularity.