The Blue Cities session, Planning in the Face of Uncertainty, introduced the Canadian water sector to adaptive planning (AP), a globally emerging approach to decision-making to address future uncertainty and accompanying risks.

The session was chaired by Gen Neilsen, Director, Water Facilities and Treatment Services at the City of Ottawa, and explored the rationale, challenges and benefits of using AP for long-term infrastructure and water management planning. Ms. Neilsen noted, “water utilities must embrace AP to cope with unprecedented uncertainty, including changes in regulations, finances, climate and population growth.”

Panelists included: Tim Reeder, who developed and led the first AP process for the Thames Valley Estuary 2100 plan and is considered a leading global expert on AP; Yena Bassone-Quashie, a professional engineer completing a PhD in AP at Toronto Metropolitan University; Maya Buchanan, Assistant Vice President of Climate, Resilience and Sustainability at WSP and a leading international expert in AP; and Kavita Heyn, Manager of AP and Demand Management with Portland Water Bureau.

Panelists concurred that conventional planning lacks the necessary flexibility to effectively adapt to changing conditions, increasing the potential for over- or under-investing in infrastructure at the wrong time.

The key components of AP were described by Yena Bassone-Quashie as:

  • Scenario analysis to evaluate plausible future conditions.
  • Design and implementation of flexible and robust solutions.
  • Development of metrics for performance monitoring and feedback.

Tim Reeder emphasized the importance of understanding system limits based on scenario analysis and preemptively mapping response paths, as was done for the Thames Valley Estuary 2100 Adaptive Plan, and shared a newly developed workshop-based approach to completing a Rapid Adaptation Pathways Assessment (RAPA) Toolkit. Portland Water Bureau drew on real-world examples to put AP into practice. Kavita Heyn described how the Bureau shifted from fixed demand forecasting to adaptive, scenario-based planning after repeated forecast failures. Using this approach, she developed an adaptive roadmap that includes a base set of projects and a toolbox of adaptive actions triggered by ongoing monitoring and review.

Maya Buchanan showed how AP can be fit-for-purpose and scaled to a range of planning projects — from large, system-wide plans to project-specific plans. Having led significant research into infrastructure planning at water utilities in the U.S. and Canada, she told the audience, “You’re already doing adaptive planning, [you’re] just not calling it that.” It’s about identifying those elements of AP that meet the planning and problem-solving needs of the municipal water utility.

The benefits of AP were collectively described by the panelists:

  • Investment risk is reduced by identifying suitable alternative options for each plausible scenario.
  • Decisions can be made based on an acceptable level of risk.
  • Adjustments can be made — based on the most up-to-date knowledge — because monitoring and evaluation are built-in components.
  • Utilities can start small by incorporating specific elements of AP into current planning (like scenario analysis), then expanding as capacity and capability permits.

Insights from the Q&A

Question: How did [Portland Water Bureau] shift from a fixed plan to a more adaptive one?

Portland Water Bureau developed a base plan of priority projects for the near term and introduced a toolbox of adaptive actions that are reassessed on a regular basis. This adaptive structure was accepted by the state (Oregon) and became a roadmap the Bureau could actively use and update.

Question: How do you manage long lead times for infrastructure (e.g., 10 years)? What happens if priorities shift?

Long timelines are an issue with both conventional and adaptive planning. The difference with AP is that it embeds flexibility within the project pipeline. It’s recognized that not every plan can be altered, but adaptive pathways provide check-ins and review points to reassess assumptions and trajectories to make necessary adjustments with sufficient lead time.

Question: What is [the panel’s] long-term vision for sustainable water in Canada?

There is a need for intergenerational thinking — for example, Australia has a 150-year water planning horizon. Long-term sustainability requires us to embed social, ecological, and economic resilience in the planning process. On the macro-level, Canada must move from viewing water as abundant to managing water as finite and shared.