1
play

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

Dec 06, 2023 •247 likes •494 views

1 2012 National Survey of Canadas Infrastructure Engineers about Climate Change Prepared by the Canadian Standards Association, Built Environment for Engineers Canada Engineers Canada 1 Contents 1.0 Introduction 1.1 Background

  1. 1 2012 National Survey of Canada’s Infrastructure Engineers about Climate Change Prepared by the Canadian Standards Association, Built Environment for Engineers Canada Engineers Canada 1

  2. Contents • 1.0 Introduction – 1.1 Background – 1.2 Objective – 1.3 Methodology • 2.0 Detailed findings • 3 0 Summary and conclusions 3.0 Summary and conclusions 3 1.0 Introduction 4 2

  3. 1.1 Background • In 2007, CSA Standards conducted a survey of Canadian infrastructure engineers to determine a baseline for their level of knowledge and awareness of climate change as it relates to their practice of g p engineering. • Engineers Canada approached CSA in late 2011 to conduct a follow-up survey of Canadian infrastructure engineers to help: – Determine the current level awareness of climate change and its perceived impact on infrastructure engineering perceived impact on infrastructure engineering – Identify what infrastructure engineers are currently doing in their practice to adapt to a changing climate – Determine whether there have been any significant changes since the last survey was conducted in 2007 5 1.1 Background • The survey, launched in early 2012, was targeted at engineers from the following five categories of built infrastructure: – Water W t – Transportation – Energy – Buildings – Resource extraction/processing (new in 2012 survey) 6 3

  4. 1.2 Objective • Overall objective is to identify: – Engineers’ attitudes and level of knowledge and awareness about the impacts of a changing climate on engineering practice; – To what extent infrastructure engineers consider the changing – To what extent infrastructure engineers consider the changing climate in engineering decision making; – How infrastructure engineers address the changing climate in their practice and which climate change adaptation tools/techniques they are using; – How infrastructure engineers use information on the changing climate and where information is lacking; – Opportunities to increase engineers’ level of awareness of the impacts of a changing climate on the built infrastructure sector; – What barriers are preventing infrastructure engineers from What barriers are preventing infrastructure engineers from addressing the impacts of a changing climate in practice; – Any changes around infrastructure engineering and climate change since 2007; 7 1.3 Methodology • Survey targeted at Canadian infrastructure engineers registered with a provincial/territorial engineering association (i.e. Professional Engineers) (i e Professional Engineers) • Random sample group of respondents with no limit on number of responses from each jurisdiction • Survey hosted online by an independent third party research company • Respondents contacted through the provincial/territorial engineering associations as well as industry associations – championed by Engineers Canada • S Survey accessed via a link in either an e-Newsletter or email d i li k i ith N l tt il communication from the engineering associations • 12 questions total, 10 from 2007 survey, 2 new questions • Survey available in English and French 8 4

  5. 1.3.1 Methodology – Respondent solicitation • Survey launched Dec 16, 2011 (French Jan 23); closed Feb 21 • Provincial/territorial engineering associations sent a reach-out to their members via e-Newsletter or dedicated email; – APEGBC – APEGA APEGA – APEGS – APEGM – PEO – OIQ – APENS – APEGNB – Engineers P.E.I. – PEGNL – APEY – NAPEG • Survey also disseminated through industry associations including: S l di i t d th h i d t i ti i l di – Canadian Water and Wastewater Association, Canadian Public Works Association, CERIU (Quebec), Members of the Public Infrastructure Engineering Vulnerability Committee (PIEVC), and the Expert Working Groups – Limited number of federal and provincial departments 9 1.3.2 Methodology – Sample group composition Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Responses Responses % Total % Total B.C 224 6.7% • National Total North; sample group Alberta 565 16.8% 470 14.0% Saskatchewan • All 13 n = 55 Canadian C di NWT/Nunavut 41 1.2% jurisdictions (Note: SK was 14 0.4% Yukon represented grouped with Manitoba 193 5.7% the North in • 2007 total 2007) responses : Ontario 1462 43.5% n = 2060 (w/ 208 6.2% Quebec quotas) Nova Scotia 33 1.0% New 39 1.2% Total Atlantic; Brunswick P.E.I. 22 0.7% n = 135 Newfoundland/ 41 1.2% Labrador Not currently 50 1.5% practicing Total 3362 100% 10 5

  6. 1.3.3 Methodology – Sample group composition Number of Number of Industry sector Industry sector % Total Total respondents respondents • Sample group 1280 38.1% Engineering Services composition Resources (e.g. by industry y y mining oil and gas mining, oil and gas, 413 413 12 3% 12.3% sector (Q2) forestry) Utilities (including 368 10.9% government utilities) Manufacturing 278 8.3% Municipal 226 6.7% Government Provincial 217 6.5% Government Government 156 4.6% Construction Federal Government 102 3.0% 322 9.6% Other Total 3362 100% 11 1.3.4 Methodology – Sample group composition • Sample group Infrastructure Infrastructure Number of Number of % Total % Total category category respondents respondents composition by infrastructure 678 678 20 2% 20.2% Energy Energy category (Q3) 579 17.2% Buildings Resource extraction 574 17.1% and processing Water 519 15.4% Transportation Transportation 438 438 13 0% 13.0% 574 17.1% Other Total 3362 100% 12 6

  7. 1.3.5 Methodology – Sample group composition SK SK North North Infrastructure Infrastructure BC BC AB AB MB MB ON ON QC QC ATL ATL % Total % Total category category (n=224) (n=224) (n=565) (n=565) (n=193) (n=193) (n=470) (n=470) (n=1462) (n=1462) (n=208) (n=208) (n=135) (n=135) (n=55 (n=55 ) (n=3362) (n=3362) ) • Breakdown of region by 19% 20% 18% 20% 21% 23% 12% 14% 20% Energy infrastructure infrastructure category (Q1 with Q3) 16% 21% Buildings 19% 12% 28% 18% 12% 27% 17% 29% 10% 19% 34% 6% 10% 8% 13% 17% Resources 13% 6% 17% 15% 18% 14% 35% 19% 15% Water 9% 34% Transportation 11% 10% 19% 14% 22% 11% 13% 13% 11% Other 16% 10% 8% 23% 12% 16% 17% 13 1.3.6 Methodology • Note on interpretation: – The national results in aggregate are considered to have a The national results in aggregate are considered to have a margin of error of approx. 2% at the 95% confidence level for both the 2007 and 2012 results shown. – The margin of error for various cross-tabulations for specific categories, questions and regions has more variability and can be in excess of 11%. – Data circled in the charts denotes a significant difference at the 95% confidence level as follows: Higher • Significant difference: Lower 14 7

  8. 2.0 Detailed Findings 15 2.1 – Perceived acceptance that climate change affects the engineering practice • Q4 : “For each of the following statements, please indicate your level of agreement” (4 point scale) • Total national sample ( 2007, n = 2060; 2012, n = 3362) 86% 82% 76% 74% 70% 73% Strongly Strongly 27% 27% 2007 Agree 40% 38% 41% 38% 42% Somewhat Agree 58% 42% 38% 35% 33% 28% 2012 A changing climate has A changing climate has Reducing greenhouse Reducing greenhouse I need more information I need more information already affected or will gas emissions would to enable me to address affect my engineering lessen the magnitude of the impacts of a changing decisions in the near future climate change. climate in my engineering future. practice. • Significantly fewer engineers consider CC in their practice than in 2007. • Significantly fewer engineers believe that reducing GHG emissions will help mitigate CC than in 2007. • Almost 3 out of 4 engineers still feel that they lack information to address the effects of CC on their practice. 16 8

  9. 2.1.1 – “A changing climate has/will affect my engineering decisions…” • Q4a ; by infrastructure category 82% 75% 73% 70% 70% 64% 59% 39% 27% 32% 28% 28% Strongly 25% 19% Agree 48% 43% 42% 42% 41% 40% 39% Somewhat Agree Total Water Transp’n Energy Bldgs Resources Other (n = 3362) (n = 519) (n = 438) (n = 678) (n = 579) (n = 574) (n = 574) • Water infrastructure engineers are significantly more apt to consider CC in their engineering decisions compared to the national average. • The resources sector is significantly below the national average in perceiving that CC influences their engineering practice. 17 2.1.2 – “A changing climate has/will affect my engineering decisions…” 89% 86% • Q4a ; by region 82% 74% 73% 70% 71% 64% 63% 36% 46% 56% 32% 28% 30% 37% Strongly 21% 19% agree Somewhat agree 50% 44% 43% 42% 41% 41% 37% 36% 31% 31% Total BC AB SK MB ON QC ATL (n=135) North (n=3,362) (n=224) (n=565) (n=470) (n=193) (n=1,462) (n=208) (n=55) • Overall the level of agreement is high, however Alberta and Saskatchewan are slightly below average. • QC, ATL provinces, and the North are significantly above the national average in accepting that CC affects engineering practice. 18 9

Recommend

More recommend