8 Rural Critical Infrastructure and Emergency Management Planning to Improve Climate Change Resilience: Insights from Rural Ontario, Canada

Authors

Dr. Brenda Murphy, Wilfrid Laurier University
Dr. Annette Chretien, Wilfrid Laurier University
Mr. Bryce Gunson, Wilfrid Laurier University
Dr. Laura J. Brown, University of Guelph

Keywords

rural, extreme weather events, critical infrastructure, climate change, resilience, Ontario, Canada

Abstract

Rural communities face unique challenges that increase their vulnerability to the extreme weather events associated with climate change (CC), including dispersed populations, aging infrastructure, and inadequate funding. Rural critical infrastructure (RCI) and emergency management (EM) systems are essential overlapping components of adaptation and resilience in rural communities. Findings from a three-year study on RCI and EM in rural Ontario (Canada) indicate that local-level rural EM planning often proceeds without considering these complexities, constraining community capacities to adapt and respond to climate-related events and damage to infrastructure. This limits the opportunities to enhance their community’s resilience to CC. Research indicates that more fulsome consideration of RCIs when devising approaches to EM and climate-resilient development may benefit rural communities.

 

Introduction

Critical infrastructure systems, such as electrical, communication and transportation networks and emergency management response, provide the backbone of the world’s crucial services. The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction, as well as the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, argue that globally aging infrastructures present a growing policy challenge and that in response to increasingly devastating disasters, state governments need to establish resilience-based approaches to safeguard the services provided by the country’s critical infrastructure (OECD 2019; UNDRR 2022). Extreme weather events pose a significant global threat to critical infrastructure, with climate change (CC) exacerbating the intensity and frequency of potential threats (Chappin and van der Lei 2014). Although the world is urbanizing, in 2017, approximately 45% of the global population continued to live in rural areas, with some parts of the world, notably on the African continent and the Indian sub-continent, having higher levels of rural populations (Our World in Data 2019). Currently, the literature focused on the intersection between CC and critical infrastructure is just emerging, and there is even less information about the state of rural critical infrastructure (RCI) and potential CC impacts (Chirisa and Nel 2022; Huddleston et al. 2022).

Simultaneously, at the community scale, there is a need to understand how resilience to CC can be fostered through consideration of locally available RCI within rural emergency management (EM) processes, as well as assessing the factors that mediate the capacity to overcome shocks and adapt to long-term stresses (Carmen et al. 2022). The underlying premise for this chapter is that despite the obvious interdependencies between RCI and EM, especially in the context of CC, it has often been the case that local-level rural EM planning proceeds without consideration of these overlaps, which constrains community capacities to transform and respond to climate-related impacts and limits opportunities to develop or enhance community resilience to extreme weather events. At the broader scale, unless the infrastructure disparities and climate justice inequities that undermine rural community resilience are addressed, these underserved regions will face growing threats and severe impacts from a changing climate (IPCC 2022; Hendricks and Van Zandt 2021).

In 2021, about 84% of people in Canada lived in cities (Statistics Canada 2022). Most of the population is clustered near the American border, with about 80% of Canada’s territory considered lightly or sparsely populated rural, remote, and northern areas. Yet, even in Ontario, Canada’s most urbanized province, 2.8 million people live in rural spaces (ROMA 2022), and 75% of the province’s municipalities are at least partly rural. CC is exacerbating the impacts of extreme risk events in these rural spaces, where there are often aging and underfunded RCI systems (Taylor and Perez 2023). With this context in mind, the following chapter provides the central findings from key informant interviews and a province-wide survey undertaken as part of a three-year project (2014-2017) focused on RCI, EM and the impact of CC in Ontario, Canada. With a grant from the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, the project involved collaborative research with an expert team of academics, students, and a Project Advisory Board. After the literature review, the chapter describes the project’s methodology and results, followed by a discussion and concluding comments.

Literature Review

Conceptual Orientation

The meaning of rural varies worldwide, with lower population size and density, agriculture or environment-dependent livelihood activities, and economies focused on primary industries being common characteristics (Chirisa and Nel 2022). Internationally, the literature relating to RCIs, resilience and CC is mainly limited to case studies, including articles from the United States (Macias 2022; Mitchell et al. 2021; Smith and Fliho 2022), Denmark (Sivast et al. 2021), Nigeria (Emmanuel and Fasakin 2015), India (Guglani 2013) and the South Asian region (Murkherjee et al. 2023). A common thread in this literature is that RCI systems are easily disrupted in a disaster because they have limited redundancies (McKibbon et al. 2018, 19). It has also been noted that CC affects rural infrastructure in myriad ways, including damaging structural integrity, reducing its lifespan, disrupting services, increasing maintenance and supply costs, and putting new demands on management authorities (Chirisa and Nel 2022). Frequent problems in rural areas that increase infrastructure vulnerability include long distances and widely dispersed facilities, low maintenance capacity with limited ability to implement needed CC-related upgrades, poor settlement planning, a small tax base and limited financial capacity.

Critical infrastructure networks in both urban and rural spaces are complex, large-scale socio-technical systems that include physical assets, social systems, and institutions necessary to manage the facilities (Charisa and Nel 2022). The networks share several characteristics important in a disaster context: 1) the networks are constructed over generations and not easily replaceable; 2) the systems must be maintained in perpetuity to protect human populations; 3) the assets have high initial/replacement costs; 4) since multiple infrastructure assets are inter-connected, the failure in one system can have cascading effects (Chappin and van der Lei 2014; OECD 2019; Curt and Tacnet 2018).

Within this broader rural context and the nature of critical infrastructure networks, the agency and capacity of rural communities to address threats is paramount since hazards, such as flooding, are often experienced locally, and it is local-level actors who are the first responders to any threat. Therefore, some of the most effective tools for increasing disaster resilience are found at the community scale (Graveline and Germain 2022). This chapter is underpinned by the idea of community resilience, with particular attention to how RCI, EM and CC contribute to or undermine such resilience in rural spaces. Community resilience is “the existence, development and engagement of community resources by community members to thrive in an environment characterized by change, uncertainty, unpredictability and surprise” (Magis 2010, 402). Community resilience is influenced by the interaction between intertwined social and ecological systems, people-place connections and local knowledge where local efforts are supported by higher-level government resources, rules, guidance and national-level policies that address the unique challenges and capacities within rural regions (Berkes and Ross 2013; Chirisa and Nel 2022; Graveline and Germain 2022; Huddleston et al. 2022).

In relation to EM capacities, rural spaces face some unique resilience challenges. Vulnerability tends to be higher due to limited local government abilities and fiscal resources to undertake needed risk mitigation activities and upgrade antiquated public infrastructure. In addition, EM often gets relegated to a backburner issue. Information sharing and timely response during a disaster are hampered by limited broadband and other telecommunication issues. Rural personnel tasked with EM duties often have several other duties, such as firefighting. Making matters worse, police and emergency health services are generally sparse, adding pressure to volunteer fire departments (Almklov et al. 2018; Doke et al. 2021; Kapucu et al. 2013).

Similarly, CC is adding further pressure to the resilience of rural spaces. The IPCC (2022, 9) states that CC, “including more frequent and intense extreme events, has caused widespread adverse impacts and related losses and damages to nature and people…[and] the most vulnerable people and systems are observed to be disproportionately affected.” The IPCC (2022) report asserts high confidence that there is global damage to infrastructure attributable to CC and that these systems will be increasingly vulnerable if design standards are not updated. It also outlines that in rural areas vulnerability will increase due to the high reliance on climate-sensitive livelihoods (IPCC 2022).

Focusing on coupled human-environmental systems, the IPCC (2022) outlines that climate-resilient development requires attention to human health and well-being, equity and justice, and ecosystem and planetary health. Climate-resilient infrastructure is “designed, built and operated in a way that anticipates, prepares for and adapts to changing climate conditions” (Chirisa and Nel 2022, 385). CC adaptation must consider rapid onset (e.g. flash floods) as well as slow onset events (e.g. heat waves or sea level rise) and undertake ongoing social learning and the development of both short-term adaptive and longer-term transformative structural changes. Although social capital connections in rural spaces are already a key strength, CC adaptation will require further strengthening of the horizontal connections between social groups or policy sectors and the vertical links across social, political, and economic structures. These connections are particularly important to address issues of social power and enhance support and collaboration (Berkes and Ross 2013; Carmen et al. 2022; Chirisa and Nel 2022; Graveline and Germain 2022; Huddleston et al. 2022; Ollerenshaw et al. 2016).

Case Study Background

Since the COVID-19 pandemic, there have been increasing debates regarding the definition of a country’s critical infrastructure and what sectors should be included. In particular, there is a growing consensus that green and socio-cultural infrastructure should be considered (Mohtat and Khirfan, 2023). Cultural critical infrastructure, consisting of intangible systems such as connection to place and local knowledge, is crucial to society’s functioning and an important component of community resilience (see also Mukherjee et al. 2023; Taylor et al. 2022).

Nevertheless, most national approaches remain more traditional, consisting of physical and institutional definitions of critical infrastructure. In Canada, “Critical infrastructure refers to processes, systems, facilities, technologies, networks, assets and services essential to the health, safety, security or economic well-being of Canadians and the effective functioning of government” (Public Safety Canada 2022). Internationally, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States agree that the following five sectors are defined as critical: communications, energy, healthcare and public health and water. In addition, Canada’s approach also encompasses banking and financial services, critical manufacturing, emergency services, food and agriculture, government facilities, and information technology (Public Safety Canada 2021). The success of Canada’s approach to critical infrastructure is limited by market competition dynamics, conflicting institutional cultures, and legal/political constraints, all of which reduce the exchange of information across sectors and the development of trust relationships (Quigley 2013). Further, Canadian infrastructure planning for climate resilience tends to be uncoordinated and ad hoc, determined by a mixture of federal and provincial policies and local initiatives (Chirisa and Nel 2022).

According to the Financial Accountability Office of Ontario report on municipal infrastructure repair, Ontario’s 444 municipalities own and manage the majority of the province’s public infrastructure, which is more than the federal and provincial governments combined (FAO 2021). In 2020, the current replacement value of some key infrastructure was $484 billion, with stormwater, wastewater, potable water, roads and bridges comprising 82% and other transit, buildings and facilities the remaining 18%. About 45% of these assets were deemed to be in poor repair, with a backlog of about $52 billion in capital spending needed to repair existing assets. Generally, more highly urbanized economic regions across the province have higher states of good repair (up to 52-62%), whereas more rural and northern regions have lower rates of good repair (39-51%). Similarly, the repair backlog is also higher in rural and northern spaces (14-20%) as compared to urban landscapes (9-15%) (FAO 2021).

The Rural Ontario Municipal Association (ROMA 2022), which represents rural Ontario municipal interests across the province, outlines in a recent report that rural Ontario produces $321 billion in goods and services from such sectors as manufacturing, agriculture, forestry, and mining. Despite their economic contributions, rural community needs have been underrepresented by urban-centric policymaking that does not reflect the reality of rural life. One example is the need to develop healthcare and social services in rural areas to act as base stations for rapid community response. The report acknowledges the Ontario government’s recent efforts to adjust the infrastructure funding mechanism to reflect the needs of smaller communities (Province of Ontario 2021) and recommends further fine-tuning of this approach. Given that transportation infrastructure often constitutes a rural community’s largest capital and operating expenditure, ROMA (2022) advocates for new ways to address transportation infrastructure requirements, including the need to maintain extensive, older, poor condition and less safe road networks with a small tax base (Good Roads 2024).

Emergency management falls primarily within provincial jurisdiction for non-Indigenous people in Canada. The federal government may sponsor specific funding initiatives or assist when the capacities of the provincial response are overwhelmed, but otherwise, it is the provinces that determine how EM is handled. The Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act of 1990 guides policies and regulations in Ontario. The law requires every municipality to have an EM plan reviewed each year and a designated Community Emergency Management Coordinator (CEMC). Each community must also undertake a Hazard Identification Risk Assessment (HIRA) process and yearly training to exercise their EM plan. No funding is provided to meet these mandated activities. Ten field officers are available to provide some assistance, but each is responsible for a vast geographic area and between 40 and 50 communities. Emergency Management Ontario (EMO), which ostensibly provides oversight of the province’s EM approaches, was subsumed under the Office of the Ontario Fire Marshall in 2013 and is now part of the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services. The Auditor General for Ontario Annual Report (2017) determined that weaknesses in EMO’s oversight could make Ontario vulnerable to threats. Some of these deficiencies include: 1) within the broader ministry, EMO competes for funding and has experienced significant staffing, budget and program cuts, 2) HIRA processes are insufficient to ensure the province’s EM programs address all areas of concern and do not consider the potential impacts of CC, and 3) the province focuses mainly on preparedness and response, with little emphasis on risk prevention/reduction and recovery.

Canada’s climate is warming at about twice the global average, and Canadian local spaces are already experiencing CC impacts on their infrastructure and well-being (Douglas and Pearson 2022; Lulham et al. 2023; Public Safety Canada 2021). In Ontario, the projected impacts of CC vary and are related to both physical and built environment characteristics. Between 1948 and 2016, Ontario’s mean annual temperature increased by 1.3°C while precipitation increased by 9.7%. Flooding, caused by intense rainfall, rapid snowmelt and ice jams, has been the most frequent hazard and has incurred the highest economic cost. The southern part of the province is the most urbanized while the central portions tend to be forested, less populated and more dependent on natural resources, and the north is sparsely populated and consists mainly of peatlands and permafrost (Douglas and Pearson 2022). Warming in the north will be the most significant concern, leading to melting permafrost and sea ice losses. Although the warming is expected to be more limited in southern areas, other climate-related issues are prevalent, such as enhanced shoreline erosion, shipping and hydroelectricity generation disruptions, and impacts on water quality and quantity, agriculture, and tourism. Across the province, increased summer temperatures are projected to escalate the area burned by wildfires eightfold by 2100 (Douglas and Pearson 2022). In 2023, the impacts from wildfire smoke had province-wide health and economic impacts (Yu et al., 2024). Milder winter temperatures are expected to increase pest and disease outbreaks. Increased frequency and magnitude of extreme weather events will also lead to increased illness and mortality, especially among vulnerable populations (Douglas and Pearson 2022). Levels of CC adaptation, planning and implementation remain limited within the province due to barriers such as the lack of expertise and tools, inadequate data, financial limitations, limited political will and a lack of, or inconsistent guidance from, provincial and federal authorities (Douglas and Pearson 2022).

 

Methodology

Drawing from the larger study entitled Ontario Rural Municipal Emergency Management and Critical Infrastructure: Enhancing Planning and Preparedness Capacities for Climate Change Resilience, this chapter analyzes the initial key informant interviews and a comprehensive, province-wide survey that provided a broad overview of the RCI and EM resiliencies and challenges in managing extreme events across rural Ontario communities. The project also involved two case studies, and some of the results from the case study work can be found in Russo et al. (2021). The entire project was reviewed and approved by Wilfrid Laurier University’s Research Ethics Board (REB# 4368).

Informed by an extensive literature review and feedback from our Project Advisory Board, the project team developed the initial survey and interviewed ten subject matter experts (two academics; four EM community specialists; one EM/public works consultant; one Ontario government EM specialist; and two government meteorologists) to help refine the survey. The interviews were all about 45 minutes in length, conducted and recorded by phone and then transcribed. The interviews were analyzed to identify dominant ideas organized around the survey’s themes.

The survey consisted of four themes and a total of 30 questions: 1) Weather Experiences and Expectations (6 questions), 2) Climate and Emergency Management Planning (13 questions), 3) Emergency Management Planning Processes (4 questions), and 4) About You (6 questions).

The finalized survey was distributed online to rural Ontario mayors through a list developed by the project team. Since many rural communities do not post their CEMC’s contact information, the survey was distributed online to these individuals by several Ontario field officers. The survey was sent via email on June 4^th, 2015, with a follow-up email two weeks later on June 18^th, 2015. The survey was posted online in coordination with the Laurier Institute for the Study of Public Opinion and Policy (LISPOP), who handled data collection of the online survey.

The survey was sent to 438 mayors and ~300 CEMCs. The number of CEMCs is approximated because they were contacted by their field officers. Of the 738 survey invitations distributed, 100 surveys were completed. Before analysis, 16 were removed during data cleaning because these surveys were substantively incomplete and had no useable data. Thus, 84 surveys were available for analysis, representing a response rate of about 12%. Given the respondents’ and community characteristics, the survey results broadly reflect the rural municipal landscape in Ontario, suggesting that the views expressed by participants are likely generalizable. Nevertheless, we were cautious with the small sample size to not extrapolate beyond the data. We also limited our analysis and reporting to descriptive statistics.

51% of respondents were CEMCs, 21% were elected officials, and 27% were from other administrative positions such as fire chief, planner, and treasurer. The 63 respondents who answered questions about their community’s population illustrated the diversity of rural Ontario community sizes, with 13% from municipalities of less than 999 people, 42% from municipalities of 1000-9,999, 35% from the 10,000-99,999 range, and 1% from the mostly urban centres that had small rural areas and populations from 100,000 to greater than 500,000. Most respondents (79%) indicated that their municipality was 20-80% rural, with the remainder specifying that it was 81-100% rural. 66% indicated their population density was consistent with rural spaces at less than 150 people per square kilometre. About 33% stated that they were located more than 50 km from a major metropolitan centre and that their economy was predominantly resource or agrarian-based. About 75% responded that they were located in non-metropolitan regions and at least an hour from the nearest major hospital.

 

Findings and Solutions

The study’s results are divided into four survey sections, with insights from the key informant interviews integrated with the statistical analysis. All survey and interview comments are anonymized and paraphrased to comply with our ethics board permissions.

1. Weather Experiences and Expectations

This section explores the views of the key informants and the survey respondents concerning the predominant weather-related extreme events recently experienced, the impacts on their RCI systems and whether prior EM planning had anticipated these impacts.

Key informants pointed out that, as in any disaster, resilience will vary by the type and severity of the event, the local capacities and vulnerabilities (e.g. frail seniors in a nursing home) and the key RCI at risk (e.g. rail line supporting important manufacturer). In line with Douglas and Pearson (2022), one informant stated Ontario experiences four seasons of weather, and CC will likely contribute to more devastating extreme events throughout the year. Within that context, the interviewees pointed out there are distinctive characteristics that affect rural capacities to deal with extreme weather events. First, one interviewee emphasized that RCI sectors in rural spaces are more likely to be dominated by one key player, such as a main employer, making it even more essential to plan for contingencies in an emergency. Second, as also experienced by other rural communities worldwide (Chirisa and Nel 2022), virtually all informants commented on rural isolation, particularly related to the dispersed, limited transportation networks (e.g. roads, bridges) and patchy internet and cell service and the vulnerability of these RCIs to floods and other hazards such as ice storms or wildfires. Third, compromised access to, or egress from, rural areas impacted by an extreme weather event was top-most on everyone’s mind. Interestingly, it was mentioned that rural spaces often have logging roads and trails that could enhance their egress planning. Yet conventional planning tools, usually designed for urban spaces, often ignore such distinctively rural opportunities.

Other issues identified included: 1) there is often only one or perhaps no grocery store or hospital in the community, hampering response capabilities, 2) a generally dispersed population with sporadic pockets of homes and structures further increases inaccessibility and risk (e.g. cottagers along a lake, farm, backcountry camp) and 3) there are fewer private contractors and less equipment that can be deployed to respond to a crisis.

The key informants outlined that a great deal of RCI damage results from underlying stormwater management system issues, such as undersized or damaged culverts that fail in an extreme event. Beyond roads, washouts compromised electrical and telecommunication systems and contributed to problems at sewage and water treatment plants. Echoing the FAO (2021) report, one interviewee remarked that Ontario’s rural infrastructure systems were particularly at risk because these networks are often quite old and not designed to handle the extreme events predicted by CC and that limited investments have been made into rural infrastructure; instead, most upgrades have been focused on larger urban centres. The respondents to the survey also asserted that the limitation of alternate transportation routes and damage to telecommunication networks (e.g. washout of limited fibre optic lines) placed an extraordinary burden on the local population, with long detours and isolation common until the RCI networks and/or the roads were repaired.

Next, turning attention to the rural survey results related to the theme of weather experiences and expectations, we outline which extreme events had been experienced in Ontario and initial details of the EM planning process. The most significant extreme weather events experienced over the past 10 years were ice storms, flooding and wind storms/tornadoes. When asked if emergency planning had occurred for their most significant events, 50% reported that they had partially addressed the extreme weather event in their emergency management planning (Figure 1). 28% said that the event was fully addressed, and 12% reported that their planning had not addressed the most significant event. 8% reported ‘don’t know’ and 2% reported that this was not applicable.

 

In relation to these most significant weather events, we then asked participants to rank the top three types of RCI most damaged in their communities (Figure 2). Most (48%) reported electricity as the most damaged (Rank 1). Transportation and the public safety and security categories were also reported as highly affected, with 18% to 36% of the respondents ranking them in their top three.

 

Then, we asked if their community’s emergency planning process had anticipated the potential RCI damage before these extreme weather events occurred (Figure 3). Most reported they were partially prepared for these events: ice storms (76%), high wind events (64%) and flooding (50%). 36% of the communities had fully addressed infrastructure impacts for wind events, and 30% had done so for flooding—very few reported having fully addressed the effects of ice storms (5%). Just 14% of respondents said that their planning did not address ice storm impacts in any way and 10% reported the same for flooding (Figure 3).

 

2. Climate, Rural Critical Infrastructure and Emergency Management Planning

This section asked key informants and survey respondents more strategic-oriented questions related to their perceptions of CC and its anticipated local impacts, the details of how EM planning had incorporated consideration for CC and RCI for past events or in anticipation of future threats and what resources were needed to understand CC risks and required adaptation measures better.

Demonstrating the deep local knowledge and place-environment connections that contribute to community resilience (Huddleston et al. 2022), one informant emphasized that CC can impact RCI in unforeseen ways, such as damaging buildings during heat or freeze-thaw events and freezing underground pipes and sewers during an extreme cold snap. Further, in the more northern parts of Ontario, which in the past has experienced very few really hot summer days, it was mentioned that there is an increasing need for cooling centres and air conditioning units due to unprecedented heat.

In an example of how social learning could unfold and support resilience efforts (Huddleston et al. 2022), several key informants commented that they would like to see better mechanisms for the sharing of lessons learned from local extreme events with nearby neighbours who are likely exposed to the same hazards and have similar vulnerabilities and capacities. Indeed, every municipality in Ontario is mandated to have completed their HIRA process and planned for their highest risk emergencies. Yet, this process often relies on historical weather patterns and might not capture potential future events; sharing lessons learned could be a way rural communities could more accurately assess potential risks. Speaking about coastal communities in Canada, France, the UK, and the Philippines, one informant asserted that when local planning doesn’t integrate these lessons, there is often a repeat of disasters already experienced in other regions.

As an example of an under-appreciated resource that contributes to resilience in Ontario rural communities, one key informant explained that rural public works/engineering departments undertake routine activities that are key to the management of community-owned RCI and that the budgeting and organization for these actions occur regardless of direct planning for CC or EM (e.g. snow removal, road network maintenance, culvert upgrades, sewage treatment plant emergency backup measures, etc.). Public works departments also undertake most of the significant physical tasks in the community and have paid staff, unlike rural fire departments, which often have only volunteer firefighters. Public works staff, not the fire chief or other EM personnel, may also be the first on the scene in response to an extreme event, not the fire chief or other EM personnel. However, despite their crucial role, most communities typically do not integrate public works personnel into mainstream EM or RCI planning.

Further, when a disaster strikes, respondents argued that rural places demonstrate resilience by accessing robust social capital networks and household resources. Other key coping capacities are high reliance on their own strong culture of household-level independence (e.g. off-grid heating and lighting, access to well water) and more experience with threats where they have responded and often rebuilt (e.g. community barn raising) with less outside support from regional or provincial agencies than would be expected in an urban environment.

When thinking about challenges and vulnerabilities, key informants commented on the interconnected nature of RCI networks and how extreme event impacts cascade across sectors (Curt and Tacnet 2018). They provided the following examples: 1) food delivery is compromised by winter storms closing local roads, 2) gas stations cannot operate without electricity, 3) many banking services become unavailable without electricity and internet/cell service, and 4) local sources of drinking water can be contaminated through erosion in the aftermath of forest fires. Several interviewees also outlined the need for local EM planners to prepare for the indirect RCI impacts from a disaster in another area. For instance, a road closure or energy supply disruption in a neighbouring jurisdiction may affect local access to services in an adjoining community.

Another challenge facing rural spaces is the need to incorporate CC planning into all local decision-making. Interviewees, very much in line with the literature, itemized that if CC is not considered, then as RCI assets are repaired and replaced, these systems might not be able to withstand future impacts (Graveline and Germain 2022). For example, two four-foot (1.22m) culverts were needed in one community to replace the existing two-foot (0.6m) culvert to accommodate projected CC impacts. Harkening to ideas related to climate-resilient development (IPCC 2022), informants explained that there is a need to model CC scenarios for affected RCI, involve finance and engineering experts, plan for worst-case scenarios (e.g. simultaneous washout of all transportation options), and embed CC thinking into asset management processes.

Most key informants agreed that it’s very hard for rural communities to differentiate between extreme weather events and longer-term CC trends. Thinking about extreme events rather than CC is often easier for local planning. Informants stated that CEMCs in rural spaces are increasingly open to discussing CC but may not think strategically or have the resources to develop risk mitigation measures. Instead, most rural emergency managers spend their time getting local officials up-to-date and prepared, as well as completing the tasks and planning mandated by law.

Similar to the vulnerabilities identified by ROMA (2022), several key informants stated that rural communities may also have more variability regarding their inspection of RCI, such as bridges and a more limited capacity to undertake needed repairs or upgrades. They asserted that the smallest communities with limited government structures in place (e.g. unincorporated communities) and small tax bases have very limited budgets to address CC.

When reflecting on efforts to stem the outmigration typical in many Ontario rural communities, one informant discussed the recent population growth in some southern, near-urban rural communities from seniors attracted by amenities such as vistas (water or mountain views) and seasonal activities (golf, skiing). These new residents, as well as those looking for second homes and cottages, are typically encouraged to buy property in rural communities because of their contribution to the local economy and tax base. However, these ex-urbanites may not have an orientation towards self-reliance and may require more assistance during an extreme weather event.

Informants provided many examples of how local resilience and vulnerabilities are affected by broader jurisdictional contexts and constraints (Graveline and Germain 2022). For example, small rural communities often have very little input into EM plans that are put in place by regional or provincial authorities and may find that emergency response is hampered by this poor public involvement (e.g. designation of an unsuitable road as an egress route). An informant worried that there simply were insufficient EM field officers to support rural communities fully. One elucidated that in Ontario, the bulk of EM efforts are focused on preparedness and response, and there isn’t encouragement from the province to move beyond that to think strategically about risk reduction, especially since Emergency Management Ontario was rolled into the Fire Marshall’s office. This informant further explained that in order to incorporate CC planning into local EM efforts, leadership from the provincial government would be needed, along with the provision of guidelines, tools, and funding to assist rural communities. Another commented that under the current Conservative government, municipal services are being removed from the local community and moved to larger centres, impeding timely response efforts. An interviewee highlighted that a discontinued federal funding initiative meant that there were few revenue sources to cover items such as generators.

Turning to the survey results related to CC risks, RCIs and planning, this section asked respondents if they thought CC would likely cause extreme weather events in their community over the next 10 years. The majority (73%) replied ‘yes’, 20% ‘don’t know’ and only 8% ‘no’. When asked what type of events were most likely, 32% anticipated an increase in the number of events, 26% an increase in the severity of extreme weather events, 22% an increase in the unpredictability of these events and 14% an increase in the variability of extreme weather events. Additionally, 59% indicated that their community had significant RCI that could be at risk from CC due to the impacts of extreme weather events.

The top weather events expected to become most problematic for their communities over the next ten years were reported as follows. 40% expected flooding to become more problematic, 26% ranked wind storms and tornados as likely the most problematic, while ice storms and high snowfalls each accounted for another 11%. Extreme hot and cold temperatures accounted for the last 6% each.

Regarding their consideration of CC and RCI in their EM planning in the last 5 years, respondents reported they had significant RCI that could be at risk and that RCI was incorporated into EM planning (Statements A, B; Table 1). Despite this, there was limited agreement that their communities had considered the impacts of CC on RCI when undertaking EM processes (46%) or land use planning (41%) or had incorporated risk mitigation measures (26%; Statements C, D, E). Moreover, only 29% felt they understood their community’s vulnerabilities (Statement F).

When asked if they had incorporated risk mitigation for projected extreme weather events into new RCI development, 27% replied ‘yes’, 55% ‘no’ and 18% ‘don’t know’. Then, of the total RCI funding received, 43% of respondents indicated that 0-20% of those funds had been used to reduce CC risks, 7% of respondents chose 21-60%, 38% responded ‘don’t know’ and 12% ‘NA’ (not applicable).

When asked which RCI sectors had included extreme weather risk mitigation measures, only ‘Continuity of Government’ and ‘Electricity’ surpassed 12%, with all other sectors registering at 10% or less (Figure 4).

 

Regarding factors that affected the community’s capacity to undertake effective EM planning for extreme weather events, the top ranked factor was ‘Financial resources to protect critical infrastructure’ at 44%. ‘Adequate emergency management staffing levels’ was cited by 30%, followed by ‘Knowledge to plan for the impacts of climate change’ at 23%. ‘Lack of needed critical infrastructure’ trailed far behind at only 2%.

When asked if information had been sought to assess CC impacts, 36% responded ‘yes’, 44% responded ‘no,’ and 13% responded ‘don’t know’. The most important information sources were local/regional government (38%), federal agency (25%), provincial agency (21%) and environmental group (13%). Universities, local knowledge, and business sources received virtually no responses. Those who sought information were mainly looking to find likely changes in extreme weather (42%), followed by examples from other Canadian communities (29%), technological innovations (21%) and finally, examples from outside Canada (8%).

The primary source of funding for EM planning in the last 5 years was predominantly from local finances (53%), with 35% of respondents stating they had not obtained any funding. Other limited sources of financing included provincial, federal and private sources.

3. Emergency Management Planning Processes and Priorities

This section of the results takes a more tactical lens, emphasizing the details of EM planning processes concerning CC and RCI systems in rural communities.

As supported by the literature (Huddleston et al. 2022), most informants commented that public engagement was a very important mechanism to understand community risks and better incorporate local capacities. Project interviewees felt that community members typically have limited knowledge (if any) of the available EM plans nor an understanding of how they might be expected to respond in a crisis. Despite this need, most felt that limited citizen involvement was the norm. One respondent offered that they produced a newsletter distributed eight times a year. However, the effectiveness or usefulness of the publication was unknown.

Informants maintained that beyond better-educated residents, public engagement can provide information that can contribute to local resilience. For example, just because there is a cell tower nearby doesn’t mean coverage throughout the area. Dead zones and other anomalies could easily be identified by asking residents about their experiences. Public engagement could also be used to develop an inventory of citizen skills, such as chainsaw certification, that could contribute to effective disaster response in small rural settings.

Similarly, keeping local elected officials aware and informed of key risks and EM planning activities was said to be a vital part of building knowledge, capacity, and readiness for extreme events. However, if there hasn’t been a recent extreme event in the community, getting any interest or funding to support EM planning may be hard. Moreover, one interviewee pointed out that when the community faces a financial crisis (for instance, from the closure of a key industry, mine or forestry activity), there is little appetite or resources to put towards EM planning. Conversely, the council is preoccupied with growth and expansion when the economy is booming. Both boom and bust situations leave CEMCs with a tough time getting local decision-maker’s attention.

In addition to public engagement and political advocacy, informants noted that effective EM planning also requires CEMCs to establish relationships with the owners of numerous RCI networks, as many of these, including provincial highways and most power grids, health systems and food networks, are not owned by municipalities (Charisa and Nel 2022). The sector owner should be able to share such details as what hazardous materials are stored on-site and what plans and resources are in place should an extreme weather event occur. One interviewee explained that their community uses a Geographical Information System to map their RCI systems and ownerships. This RCI data is updated regularly so that they know who to contact when an emergency happens. In addition, as one informant explained, some hazards, such as flooding, may not be solely within the management area of the local jurisdiction. Instead, CEMCs must stay in touch with the conservation authorities or power dam operators who both control local water levels and supply the community with information about potential flooding. A side benefit of working with RCI owners was outlined by one interviewee who offered that partnering with an RCI, such as a natural gas operator, can lead to opportunities for joint training exercises, the sharing of resources and the development of a deeper understanding of the potential risks and capacities related to this industry.

Beyond the direct role of the CEMCs, the informants also commented that rural spaces will have limited human resources compared to larger centres, which can hamper all aspects of EM. For instance, building inspectors are often shared among 2-3 communities, which could lead to delays during reconstruction. Public works employee schedules are designed to work Monday to Friday, 8 hours a day, so when an emergency hits and 24-hour support is needed, small communities often don’t have the personnel to work around the clock.

Questions in this section of the survey asked about the priority of RCI and CC in EM planning processes and public engagement and which CEMC mandated or best practice activities received the most attention. In relation to the importance of EM planning, respondents were asked to identify all the groups discussing CC and its potential impacts on EM and extreme events (Figure 5). 42% reported that very few people were having this discussion in their community, 39% said discussions primarily involved emergency management personnel, while local government staff and locally elected officials had some involvement at 35% and 31%, respectively. All other categories fell under 10%, suggesting that widespread community-oriented discussions were not happening in these rural spaces (Figure 5).

 

Focusing on public outreach, the survey then provided a list of potential mechanisms to involve community members (Figure 6). Close to 40% reported very little public outreach in their community about extreme weather. 35% cited a yearly campaign during Emergency Preparedness Week, 20% reported a posting, blog, or similar activity on a website or social media, and 17% cited a yearly campaign during Fire Prevention Week (Figure 6). That said, when asked the more general question about undertaking public awareness or education campaigns at least once a year, 91% responded ‘yes’, 8% responded ‘no’, and 1% responded ‘don’t know’.

 

When presented with a detailed list of processes and asked to rank what their EM planning focused on in the last five years, the number 1 ranked activities were undertaking the mandated HIRA (25%), developing or revising the EM plan (22%), raising political support (13%) and practicing or testing the EM plan (Figure 7).

 

To delve deeper into what was in place to support EM planning in the communities, the survey asked specifically about provincially mandated and some best practice activities that had been accomplished (Table 2). As expected, since it is required by law, most communities updated and tested their EM plan yearly and, likely as part of that process, reviewed their HIRA and RCI owner/operator lists (Statements A, B, C, D). However, far fewer (41%) indicated that they had undertaken outreach with RCI owners to ascertain risks (Statement E).

Table 2. Emergency Management Activities Undertaken in the Community

Statement n=63	Yes	No	Don’t Know/NA
A. Update EM plan yearly	78%	17%	5%
B. Test the EM plan yearly	91%	8%	1%
C. Update the HIRA yearly	76%	14%	10%
D. Update list of RCI owners/operators yearly	83%	10%	6%
E. For privately owned RCI, undertake outreach to ascertain potential risks	41%	38%	22%

4. Emergency Manager and Rural Space Characteristics (About You)

The methods section previously provided most of the information about the survey respondents. Here, we focus specifically on two key issues that can undermine the adaptive capacity to potential CC threats: who wears the EM planning ‘hat’ in the community and within what department EM is located.

Key informants agreed that the CEMC role is often not the primary responsibility of the person holding that portfolio, leading to significant limitations. Those individuals tend to wear several ‘hats’ (for instance, the fire chief is often also the CEMC). One informant asserted that the smaller the community, the more roles the CEMC will likely be assigned. Given this role sharing and the secondary position of CEMCs, those holding this portfolio are rarely consulted or involved when RCI planning occurs. When the employee’s primary role is not the CEMC, other responsibilities and issues tend to pull attention away from the needs of EM and diminish its visibility in the community. As one interviewee explained, when a fire chief stands in front of council, fire safety tends to be what gets discussed, not broader EM planning considerations. In addition, very few small communities have dedicated EM departments. Instead, the responsibility for EM could be part of the fire department, central administrative office, public works, etc. One key informant also pointed out that even if a CEMC is thinking in terms of CC-oriented risk reduction, other more locally important departments, such as planning and economic development, might have countervailing and more predominate agendas encouraging riskier but lucrative development on flood plains or areas that could be prone to wildfires or slope failures (e.g. catering to that ex-urbanite senior population). Although there may be provincial regulations or conservation officials to limit some of this growth, the CEMC is not likely to be consulted.

Since it is well known that role sharing is common in rural spaces, in the survey, we asked what additional roles the individuals fulfilled in the community. Unsurprisingly, the fire chief was the top additional role at 27%, with a huge range of other community roles identified (e.g., town clerk and chief administrative officer). Even more telling was that about 60% of respondents reported being responsible for between two and five additional roles. When asked to rank the statements that best describe the CEMC position in their community, 56% indicated that the CEMC has several other duties, and 7% indicated that the CEMC position was shared among two or more communities.

Further, when the survey asked which section of the local government was responsible for EM planning, 54% chose fire services, 22% indicated emergency services, and the remainder chose a range of other departments (e.g. planning, finance, and clerk’s office). Having a dedicated EM planning department, as would be the norm in an urban centre, was definitely not common in these rural Ontario communities.

 

Discussion of Implications

This initial phase of our Ontario government-funded research project drew together insights from the literature and advice from key informants to develop and administer a survey with rural respondents. Interviewees and respondents provided a wealth of information about rural community resilience, rural critical infrastructure resilience and climate-resilient development. In this discussion section, we explore how our results reinforce and reflect the broader RCI (Chirisa and Nel 2022) and EM (Kapucu et al. 2013) literature and the Ontario-specific reports (Auditor General for Ontario 2017; FAO 2021; ROMA 2022) focusing on the characteristics that undermine or reinforce rural capacities to cope with extreme weather events. We argue that both incremental/tactical changes and broader transformational/strategic changes can contribute to more robust EM planning and resilience enhancement in these Ontario rural areas and, potentially, across other rural jurisdictions.

The empirical results demonstrated that rural Ontario communities have several adaptation and coping capacities that support resilience to extreme weather events. Further, despite some initial concern that we might get climate denial reactions, at least among these survey respondents, there was an awareness of CC and the impact of extreme weather events (73%), and about 46% indicated that their EM plans had considered the effects of CC on their RCIs. In clear examples of cultural critical infrastructure (Huddleston et al. 2022), important capabilities identified by our key informants include extensive social networks with a culture of local interdependence, previous experience addressing risk events, deep local knowledge and people-place connections. While our research team recognized the importance of cultural contributions to rural resilience, these intangible systems were not positioned as critical infrastructure in the survey. This idea had yet to emerge in the literature when our project was undertaken in 2015 but should be considered as a core concept in future research and in all initiatives aimed at increasing rural community resilience.

From the perspective of resilience underpinned by incremental/tactical changes, EM, CC, and RCI planning in rural spaces requires support from higher levels of government, and non-government organizations as well as active involvement of local agencies. For instance, the discontinuation of federal funding for needed community-level EM equipment has meant that there may not be funds for needed backup generators. At the broader level, provincial and federal government partners can help address several issues that are distinct to the rural context, such as providing funding to support EM capabilities in dispersed and isolated populations, updating aging RCI systems and augmenting rural EM budgets to address risk mitigation and CC adaptation efforts. These partners can also ensure that CC-informed, locally relevant risk data is available for local decision-makers.

When we drilled into the availability of needed CC information, respondents were evenly split regarding knowledge of vulnerable RCI sectors (disagree-neutral-agree), and only the government and electricity RCI sectors included extreme weather mitigation measures. Also concerning was that only about a third of respondents felt they had a thorough knowledge of CC impacts, and most communities self-funded their EM activities with little outside support.

The importance of up-to-date information was highlighted in our survey results, which cited floods, wind events, and ice storms as the predominant threats. Unfortunately, in an example where historical data is used (likely unintentionally) to understand future risks, when respondents were asked about potential CC impacts, these same three hazards were chosen. This reliance on historical events is concerning, especially considering more recent extreme events in Ontario which have involved drought conditions and devastating wildfires (Manzu et al. 2023). It also supports Douglas and Pearson’s (2022) assertion that CC has not been incorporated into rural Ontario HIRA processes. This serious planning deficiency could be ameliorated with proper support and guidelines from the province and local political will.

Further progress could be made to address the knowledge gap through concerted efforts to share available local knowledge. Key informants noted that social learning among rural communities is vital to gaining the information needed to inform future planning efforts. Rural respondents identified that local, federal, and provincial government and environmental groups are their primary sources of information. Given these contexts, organizations such as ROMA that advocate for rural Ontario interests and have buy-in from rural communities would be ideal venues through which needed CC data and appropriate coping mechanisms could be researched and disseminated.

Tactical issues that rural communities could address to support incremental change and resilience revolve around a centering of EM and CC within administrative structures and the need to foreground or ‘mainstream’ these considerations into local processes such as infrastructure maintenance and renewal, land use planning, public works activities and budget allocation. Further challenges include inadequate inter-department consultations and the need for coordinated actions towards reducing risk in overlapping EM and RCI contexts, CEMC capacity restrictions due to role sharing and lower-level staff positioning, the lack of EM visibility due to its mostly secondary status within departments, the backgrounding of EM planning and preparation for extreme weather and CC as rural communities face pressing day-to-day issues and the lack of sustained political commitment to address potential risks, including from extreme weather events.

Delving further down into tactical considerations, given that the majority of rural CEMCs have other duties and the lack of financial support for EM activities, it was hardly surprising that when asked if RCI and CC had been fully incorporated into EM planning, respondents indicated that their attention was firmly on meeting their mandated EM requirements such as updating and exercising their plans and undertaking their HIRA. Similarly, when the survey asked about the active engagement of local citizens in EM processes, 40% reported little public outreach, with the remainder indicating minimal public education activities such as a yearly campaign.

While these efforts are not optimum, they provide a solid foundation upon which incremental improvements could be developed to build a more resilient EM approach. For instance, a useful, time-saving activity could be to coordinate yearly exercises with important local RCI sectors. Also, an inexpensive way to increase public awareness and engagement levels could be to employ local students to undertake a community survey to identify available skills and assess EM knowledge levels or to develop a social media campaign.

At the strategic level and thinking more systemically, the literature review documented how rural resilience to extreme events has been undermined through higher-level government policy deficiencies such as the lack of emphasis on proactive EM by the Ontario government (Douglas and Pearson 2022), funding cuts to Emergency Management Ontario that are exacerbating potential community vulnerabilities (Auditor General for Ontario 2017) and the uncoordinated approach to critical infrastructure climate resilience planning across Canada (Chirisa and Nel 2022). In this study, key informants noted these deficiencies and advocated that without more comprehensive CC-relevant and rural-informed Ontario and federal government policies, it will be impossible to bolster rural and RCI resilience.

To achieve more profound, transformational systemic change and support climate-resilient development, project participants and organizations such as ROMA maintain that they are best positioned to understand the needs of their communities and advocate for more active involvement of rural stakeholders in all policy and funding decisions that impact their rural spaces. Predominant urban-centric thinking (Almklov et al. 2018) must be rebalanced to include a tailored approach that fully incorporates rural-specific strengths, challenges, and expertise. For example, interviewees provided a nuanced picture of what rural community resilience entails. They noted the important role the public works department played in maintaining key RCIs and responding to emergencies in small rural communities and the contravening influences of changing demographics, such as an influx of newcomers. Conceptually, this is an example of procedural justice, which argues that the perspectives of those most affected should substantially contribute to the decision-making process (IPCC 2022).

Key informants also identified that attention to differences among rural communities is crucial in achieving systemic change, as the smallest and more remote municipalities are likely to have more urgent needs. There cannot be a single recipe for building rural community resilience; instead, flexible resources, tools, and policies must be available to allow communities to define and implement their own resilience goals and appropriate pathways (Graveline and Germain 2022).

Moreover, transformational thinking must consider the ‘dark side’ of resilience by undertaking an equity-centered evaluation of the definitions and orientations that underpin proposed resilience frameworks and initiatives. For instance, EM resilience initiatives can be co-opted when market-oriented and neo-liberal agendas support projects that appear to promote the autonomy and independence of communities but instead lead to the downloading of responsibility for EM onto rural communities without providing the necessary institutional support (Boyle and Speed 2018). Resilience initiatives should also be assessed to make sure they do not reinforce negative socio-ecosystem patterns (e.g. cycles of poverty, environmental degradation) and the entrenchment of status quo power dynamics (e.g. rural-provincial asymmetries) (Graveline & Germain 2022).

 

Conclusions

In summary, the extant literature and empirical research collected in our study, have elucidated the interdependencies between rural critical infrastructure and emergency management, particularly concerning the impact of extreme weather events expected with a changing climate. We have outlined the tactical and strategic rural resilience strengths and challenges that underpin rural capacities to adapt to CC successfully and offered a range of incremental and transformational opportunities to address deficiencies and capitalize on current capabilities. While the details will likely differ, beyond our study, researchers, policymakers, and EM practitioners should incorporate a more fulsome consideration of RCIs when devising approaches to EM and climate-resilient development (see also Biskupovic 2021).

There is an urgent need to develop rural-informed metrics and indicators for resilience assessments that are tailored to the RCI sectors involved and the projected CC impacts. These metrics should go beyond standard definitions to include meaningful measurements to the people and regions most affected by the proposed research, program, or policy. Especially in understudied rural spaces, the issue of limited data accessibility, completeness and accuracy and the ability to monitor resilience implementation and ensure accountability will also require careful attention (Biskupovic 2021; Curt and Tacnet 2018; OECD 2019).

Finally, we acknowledge that Ontario is a privileged, Global North provincial territory and that we have outlined rural strengths and capacities relative to this framing. It is likely that these expectations exceed what is possible in less advantaged jurisdictions. We want to emphasize that there is a pressing need to undertake research on what constitutes EM best practices, RCI resilience and climate-resilient development in Canada among Indigenous communities and in the Global South.

 

Acknowledgements

The Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food, and Rural Affairs generously supported this research through a New Directions research grant. We wish to thank all Project Advisory Board members, emergency management professionals, community leaders and research participants who contributed to this work.

References

Almklov, Petter G., Marie Nilsen, and Gudveig Gjøsund. 2018. “Role Multiplexity and Home-Grown Resilience: A Study of Part-Time Firefighters in Rural Emergency Management.” In Safety and Reliability–Safe Societies in a Changing World, pp. 189-196. CRC Press, 2018.

Auditor General for Ontario. Annual Report. 2017. https://www.auditor.on.ca/en/content/reporttopics/justicesafety.html#2017

Berkes, Fikret, and Helen Ross. 2013. “Community Resilience: Toward an Integrated Approach.” Society & Natural Resources 26 (1): 5-20.

Boyle, Philip J., and Shannon T. Speed. 2018. “From Protection to Coordinated Preparedness: A Genealogy of Critical Infrastructure in Canada.” Security Dialogue 49 (3): 217-231.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0967010617748541

Biskupovic, Aleksandra. 2021. “Critical Infrastructure Resilience: Findings from a Systematic Review.” Master’s Thesis, University of Waterloo.

Carmen, Esther, Ioan Fazey, Helen Ross, Melissa Bedinger, Fiona M. Smith, Katrin Prager, Kerri McClymont, and David Morrison. 2022. “Building Community Resilience in a Context of Climate Change: The Role of Social Capital.” Ambio 51 (6): 1371-1387. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-021-01678-9

Chappin, Emile J.L., and Telli van der Lei. 2014. “Adaptation of Interconnected Infrastructures to Climate Change: A Socio-Technical Systems Perspective.” Utilities Policy 31: 10-17.

Chirisa, Innocent, and Verna Nel. 2022. “Resilience and Climate Change in Rural Areas: A Review of Infrastructure Policies Across Global Regions.” Sustainable and Resilient Infrastructure 7 (5): 380-390.

Curt, Corinne, and Jean‐Marc Tacnet. 2018. “Resilience of Critical Infrastructures: Review and Analysis of Current Approaches.” Risk Analysis 38 (11): 2441-2458.

Doke, Karyn, Habib O. Affinnih, Qianli Yuan, Mila Gasco-Hernandez, J. Ramon Gil-Garcia, Petko Bogdanov, and Mariya Zheleva. 2021. “Improving Emergency Preparedness and Response in Rural Areas.” In ACM SIGCAS Conference on Computing and Sustainable Societies, 66-78.

Douglas, Allan G., and David Pearson. Ontario; Chapter 4 in Canada in a Changing Climate: Regional Perspectives Report, (ed) Fiona J. Warren, Nicole Lulham, Lawrence Dupuis, and Donald S. Lemmen, Government of Canada, Ottawa Ontario. 2022. https://changingclimate.ca/regional-perspectives/chapter/3-0/

Emmanuel, Adebayo Adewunmi, and Julius Olubunmi Fasakin. 2015. “Provision of Critical Infrastructure in Urban Hinterland and Rural Coastland of Southwestern Nigeria: Comparing the Efforts of CBOs.” African Geographical Review 34 (2): 125-141.

Financial Accountability Office of Ontario. Municipal Infrastructure: A Review of Ontario’s Municipal Infrastructure and an Assessment of the State of Repair. 2021. https://www.fao-on.org/web/default/files/publications/EC2103%20Municipal%20Infrastructure/Municipal%20Infrastructure%20Review-EN.pdf

Good Roads. Priorities – Rural Road Safety Initiative. 2024. https://goodroads.ca/priority_article/rural-road-safety-initiative/

Graveline, Marie-Hélène, and Daniel Germain. 2022. “Disaster Risk Resilience: Conceptual Evolution, Key Issues, and Opportunities.” International Journal of Disaster Risk Science 13 (3): 330-341.

Guglani, Rakesh. 2013. “Bridging Socio-Economic and Cultural Fissures: A Case Study on Critical Infrastructure in Rural Karnataka of India.” International Postgraduate Business Journal 5 (2): 127-144.

Huddleston, Pippa, Tim Smith, Iain White, and Carmen Elrick-Barr. 2022. “Adapting Critical Infrastructure to Climate Change: A Scoping Review.” Environmental Science & Policy 135: 67-76.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climate Change 2022: Impacts Adaptation and Vulnerability, IPCC Sixth Assessment Report, Summary for Policymakers. 2022. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/

Kapucu, Naim, Christopher V. Hawkins, and Fernando I. Rivera. “Disaster Preparedness and Resilience for Rural Communities.” Risk, Hazards & Crisis in Public Policy 4 (4): 215-233.

Lulham, Nicole, Fiona J. Warren, Kate Walsh, and Julia Szwarc. Canada in a Changing Climate: Synthesis Report, Government of Canada, Ottawa Ontario. 2023. https://changingclimate.ca/synthesis/

Macias, Jose, and CHCI Public Policy. 2022. “Competition in Cyberspace.” Harvard Journal of Hispanic Policy 34: 30-38.

Magis, Kristen. 2010. “Community Resilience: An Indicator of Social Sustainability.” Society and Natural Resources 23 (5): 401-416.

Hendricks, Marccus D., and Shannon Van Zandt. 2021. “Unequal Protection Revisited: Planning for Environmental Justice, Hazard Vulnerability, and Critical Infrastructure in Communities of Color.” Environmental Justice 14 (2): 87-97.

McKibbin, Damon J., Daniel M. Blake, Thomas M. Wilson, Liam Wotherspoon, and Matthew W. Hughes. 2019. “A Geospatial Assessment of Critical Infrastructure Impacts and Adaptations in Small Rural Towns Following the 14 November 2016 (Kaikōura) Earthquake, New Zealand.” Japanese Geotechnical Society Special Publication 6 (2): 19-29.

Mitchell, Molly, Robert E. Isdell, Julie Herman, and Christine Tombleson. 2021. “Impact Assessment and Management Challenges of Key Rural Human Health Infrastructure Under Sea Level Rise.” Frontiers in Marine Science 8: 1-8.

Mohtat, Niloofar, and Luna Khirfan. 2023. “Epistemic Justice in Flood-Adaptive Green Infrastructure Planning: The Recognition of Local Experiential Knowledge in Thorncliffe Park, Toronto.” Landscape and Urban Planning 238: 104834.

Mukherjee, Mahua, Kumar Abhinay, Md Munsur Rahman, Sonam Yangdhen, Subir Sen, Basanta Raj Adhikari, Rekha Nianthi, Sanya Sachdev, and Rajib Shaw. 2023. “Extent and Evaluation of Critical Infrastructure, the Status of Resilience and its Future Dimensions in South Asia.” Progress in Disaster Science 17: 1-15.

Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development. Good Governance for Critical Infrastructure Resilience. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1787/02f0e5a0-en

Ollerenshaw, Alison, Michelle Graymore, and Kelsey McDonald. 2016. “Beyond the Call of Duty: The Integral Role of Rural Local Government in Emergency Management.” Rural Society 25 (3): 185-203.

Our World in Data. Urbanization. 2019. https://ourworldindata.org/urbanization

Province of Ontario. Building Ontario with Investments in Critical Infrastructure for Small, Rural and Northern Communities, News Release, December 8. 2021. https://news.ontario.ca/en/release/1001298/building-ontario-with-investments-in-critical-infrastructure-for-small-rural-and-northern-communities

Public Safety Canada. 2021-2023 Action Plan for Critical Infrastructure, National Cross Sector Form. 2021. https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/2021-ctn-pln-crtcl-nfrstrctr/index-en.aspx

Public Safety Canada. Critical 5 – Forging a Common Understanding for Critical Infrastructure. 2022. https://www.cisa.gov/sites/default/files/publications/critical-five-shared-narrative-critical-infrastructure-2014-508.pdf

Quigley, Kevin. 2013. “Man plans, God laughs: Canada’s National Strategy for Protecting Critical Infrastructure.” Canadian Public Administration 56 (1): 142-164.

Rural Ontario Municipal Association. Opportunities for Rural Ontario in a Post-COVID World: A Plan for Action. 2022. https://www.roma.on.ca/advocacy/opportunities-rural-ontario-post-covid-world

Russo, Samantha, Kylie Hissa, Brenda Murphy, and Bryce Gunson. 2021. “Photovoice, Emergency Management and Climate Change: A Comparative Case-Study Approach.” Qualitative Research 21 (4): 568-585.

Silvast, Antti, Rico Kongsager, Turo-Kimmo Lehtonen, Minna Lundgren, and Mikko Virtanen. 2021. “Critical Infrastructure Vulnerability: A Research Note on Adaptation to Climate Change in the Nordic Countries.” Geografisk Tidsskrift-Danish Journal of Geography 121 (1): 79-90.

Smith III, Raymond L., and J. T. Faete Filho. 2022. “Renewable Powered Microgrid Adoption: Improving Critical Infrastructure Resilience in Rural Coastal Communities.” In IIE Annual Conference Proceedings, pp. 1-6. Institute of Industrial and Systems Engineers (IISE).

Statistic Canada. Focus on Geography Series, 2021 Census of Population. 2022. https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2021/as-sa/fogs-spg/page.cfm?lang=E&topic=1&dguid=2021A000011124

Taylor, Jessica E., Cristina Poleacovschi, and Michael Perez. 2023. “Evaluating the Climate Change Adaptation Barriers of Critical Infrastructure in Rural Alaska.” Climate and Development 15 (7): 553-564.

United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction. Principles for Resilient Infrastructure. 2022. https://www.undrr.org/enhance-infrastructure-resilience

Yu, Manzhu, Shiyan Zhang, Huan Ning, Zhenlong Li, and Kai Zhang. 2023. “Assessing the 2023 Canadian Wildfire Smoke Impact in Northeastern US: Air Quality, Exposure and Environmental Justice.” Exposure and Environmental Justice 4: 1-26.