Welcome to the Resilient Community Research Blog

Watch this space for blog posts with the latest community resiliency news and opinions from the team.

buy Lyrica online in uk Blog Post 4: Enhancing Ontario’s Rural Infrastructure Preparedness: Inter-Community Service Sharing in a Changing Climate (2016-2019)

We welcome you to our fourth and final blog post that updates research progress and shares early results on how inter-community service cooperation (ICSC) and asset management processes (AMP) can be adopted by rural communities in Ontario in a changing climate. For an overview of the project please see http://www.resilientresearch.ca/research-interests/risk-disaster-and-emergency-management/

Based on the insights gathered from the online provincial survey (see blog post 3), the next phase of research highlights 10 rural Ontario municipalities that have undertaken innovative ICSC for infrastructure sectors affected, or potentially impacted, by climate change (CC). The 10 communities were identified through the environmental scan, self-identification in the survey addendum and the project advisory board’s recommendations. We have prepared a case study for each community as part of the rural municipal ICSC toolkit which is available online at http://www.resilientresearch.ca/research-publications/

The purpose of the case study assessments was to i) evaluate the role of ICSC in relation to climate change preparedness and AMP, and ii) draw together cross-cutting themes and best practices that have the potential to maximize the CC preparedness of rural municipal infrastructure. Nine of the municipalities are lower tier, with one upper tier county. Located across Ontario (south of Sudbury) with a diversity of locations, the municipalities included in the case studies range in population sizes, growth rates, geography size and key economic sectors (Table 1).

how to purchase misoprostol Table 1 – Characteristics of case study communities.

Municipality Name Population (2016 census) Rate of Growth 2011-16 Size (Km2) Average Age

(Years)

Key Economic Sectors
Municipality of French River 2,662 +9% 735.48 49.2 Farming, tourism, logging.
Township of Grand Valley 2,956 +8.4% 158.23 39.2 Construction, retail, manufacturing, health.
Township of Lake of Bays 3,167 -8.9% 678 52 Tourism, retail, light manufacturing, green energy.
Township of Perth South 3,810 -4.6% 393.14 41.2 Agriculture, manufacturing.
Township of East Ferris 4,750 0% 155.17 44 Tourism, agriculture, retail, construction, manufacturing.
Town of the Blue Mountains 7,025 +8.9% 287.24 51.8 Tourism, retail, health, construction, professional services.
County of Frontenac 26,677 +.56% 3336.6 42.8 Agriculture, niche manufacturing, tourism, recreation.
City of Brantford 94,496 +4.1% 72.44 41.2 Manufacturing, film & media, warehousing.
City of Waterloo 104,986 +6.3% 64 39 Insurance, technology, manufacturing, post-secondary education.
City of Barrie 141,134 +5.4% 99.04 39.4 Education, health, construction, food, accommodation.

For each case study the team undertook a review of available secondary data including information posted on municipality websites, official local documents including asset management plans, official plans, emergency plans, etc., newspaper articles and other sources such as consultant reports and Statistics Canada. The information from these sources was deepened by at least one phone interview with a local expert from each municipality. The results from each case study were assembled into a series of ten vignettes organized by the themes outlined in Table 2.

Table 2 – Case study themes.

 
Background
Characteristics of Cooperative Agreements
Infrastructure and Asset Management Planning
Climate Change Impact on Infrastructure Sectors
Climate Change Preparedness
Climate Change-Prepared Cooperation: Possibilities and Best Practices

Inter-community service cooperation is defined as the sharing, procuring or providing of needed infrastructure services with one or more municipalities or other organizations. Across Canada and internationally, service cooperation is increasing with research suggesting that the careful use of shared services can contribute to cost savings and improved local service provision. Types of ICSC agreements include: verbal agreements (handshake, informal); memorandums of understanding; bylaw approval; and formal contracts. ICSC can include many different characteristics, such as the degree of flexibility or the number of partners, and may be undertaken through a variety of mechanisms such as mutual aid agreements or a joint services committee.

In many cases, cooperative agreements between municipalities have evolved over a long period of time, as needed and usually informally. These agreements are based on the deep relationships, trust, mutual reciprocity and social ties that often exist between nearby municipalities. However, should communities choose to adopt a more intentional, formal approach, the following steps are considered important in an ICSC process. It should be noted that this process is not necessarily linear; as new information is available or circumstances change, circling back to an earlier step maybe necessary.

  • Undertake AMP and take stock of current needs and opportunities for ICSC;
  • Determine which services to purchase, share or provide, who to partner with and who will champion the opportunity;
  • Open up discussions with staff, council and stakeholders;
  • Establish an inter-municipal working group;
  • Determine costs and benefits;
  • Set up the cooperative service mechanism;
  • Undertake internal changes needed to proceed with new service arrangements; and
  • Monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of the ICSC agreement.

The extent to which rural communities successfully engage with service cooperation and asset management planning as a way to undertake CC preparedness is influenced by a range of factors and associated indicators. For instance, ample access to financial resources is thought to encourage AMP and CC preparedness activities but may not provide a strong incentive to undertake service cooperation.

The extent of experiences about cooperative agreements across the case studies demonstrated that there is a rich range and depth of opportunities and knowledge to use these types of arrangements to address the required and/or desired levels of infrastructure service provision across rural Ontario.

To access the completed rural ICSC toolkit please visit http://www.resilientresearch.ca/research-publications/. The case study final report contains useful recommendations and best practises for communities interesting in ICSC. We welcome any questions via our comments section (below) or you can email the project manager Bryce Gunson at bgunson@wlu.ca or the principal investigator Dr. Brenda Murphy at bmurphy@wlu.ca

Thanks!

Blog Post 3: Enhancing Ontario’s Rural Infrastructure Preparedness: Inter-Community Service Sharing in a Changing Climate (2016-2019)

We welcome you to our third blog post on this project where we will be updating you on the progress of the research and share early results as we research how inter-community service cooperation (ICSC) and asset management processes (AMP) can be adopted by rural communities in Ontario in a changing climate. For an overview of the project, please see http://www.resilientresearch.ca/research-interests/risk-disaster-and-emergency-management/   We have also released a new article in Haznet magazine titled “Inter-Community Service Collaboration: Innovation for a Changing Climate?” which discusses recent research on this project and is available online at http://haznet.ca/haznet-magazine-fall-2018-issue/

Based on the insights gathered from the key informant interviews (see blog post 2), we developed and deployed an online provincial survey directed to Ontario public works and community emergency management coordinator staff in 163 communities in small (500-7500 pop.) Ontario rural communities south of the Sudbury region. The survey was designed to help document rural Ontario municipalities’ climate change preparedness by examining inter-community service cooperation (ICSC) as a cost-effective mechanism to upgrade and/or replace infrastructure at risk from climate change as identified within Ontario’s standardized Asset Management Planning (AMP) process. The survey was organized into 3 sections: extreme weather, climate change and infrastructure; inter-community service cooperation and infrastructure; and asset management planning. 34 completed surveys were returned, resulting in a 21% response rate. The survey had a well-distributed cross-section of community sizes with most communities between 2500-5000 people. The communities larger than 7500 were 7,800, 8,000, 12,000, and 13,000 (Table 1). 16 respondents indicated they were elected officials (47%), 18 respondents were public works or other non-elected staff (53%). Full survey results are available online at http://www.resilientresearch.ca/research-publications/ under ‘ICSC interim report 2’. Survey questions inquired about communities’ experience with extreme weather events, their of ICSC

Table 1 – Online survey population distribution.

Population < 500 500-999 1000-2499 2500-4999 5000-7500 > 7500
Communities 0 4 4 12 7 4

The first series of questions which examined extreme weather, climate change and infrastructure revealed that the impact of severe weather or climate change on infrastructure has been felt by 28 of the 34 participating communities (82%) in the past 10 years. Respondents commented that their most common extreme weather event was flooding, wind events, freeze-thaw cycles, and ice damage to dams. These results are consistent with previous research in this area[1]. Comments provided by respondents noted broader impacts such as reduced tourism from erratic freeze/thaw cycles during winter months, and a general strain on all levels of municipal government (staff, public works employees, fire/emergency services and general administration) in dealing with CC related problems.

The second series of questions focusing on ICSC revealed that many (70% in this study) rural communities are already undertaking some form of service sharing. It is interesting to note that 56% of communities consider ICSC as a potential solution to address the impacts of extreme weather or CC on infrastructure. Of the 8 communities in our study who do not share resources, the three main reasons cited were lack of personnel capacity, 100% (8), lack of political support, 88% (7), and distance between communities, 63% (5). Lack of financial capacity was the most cited reason most communities do not currently plan on engaging in further ICSC. When respondents were asked about activities with the most potential to minimize the impacts of CC or extreme weather, 10 (34%) deemed it important to incorporate climate resiliency into infrastructure projects, and 8 (28%) felt that working with neighbouring communities or regional/county governments to improve preparedness would be important.

The final series of questions focusing on asset management planning (AMP) revealed that virtually all communities in this study (94%) had asset management plans. Several respondents noted that although their municipality has a plan, they don’t have the capability to fund this plan. Comments from respondents noted that the needs identified in the AMP are considered loosely as a guideline to what needs to be done and unfortunately get pushed-back after each extreme weather event. The Northern-most small community in our study commented that planning and other expertise are not available where they are located, making it is very hard to incorporate CC impacts into their AMP. The community noted that it is very difficult to plan for future extreme weather events expenses without expertise locally available.

The research suggests that rural communities in Ontario are dealing with increasing impacts from CC and that they often don’t have the resources to cope effectively. While current ICSC and AMP strategies have been somewhat effective, there is a need to identify and showcase innovative strategies that align with community goals/activities, address challenges and capitalize on existing strengths.

In phase 3 of this project we are highlighting 10 case studies that outline potential best practices. Two Master’s students will be working to identify 5 county/district associations and 5 municipalities that have undertaken innovative ICSS initiatives. The students will be interviewing 2-3 interview per community to produce ten best-practices case study summaries, and a research report.

We will update this blog as we the project moves along. We welcome any questions via our comments section (below) or you can email the project manager Bryce Gunson at bgunson@wlu.ca or the principal investigator Dr. Brenda Murphy at bmurphy@wlu.ca

Thanks!

[1] Results from a 2017 OMAFRA project on rural municipal emergency management and critical infrastructure are available online (see ‘xTREME toolkit’): http://www.resilientresearch.ca/research-publications/

Blog Post 2: Enhancing Ontario’s Rural Infrastructure Preparedness: Inter-Community Service Sharing in a Changing Climate (2016-2019)

We welcome you to our second blog post on this project where we will be updating you on the progress of the research and share early results as we research how inter-community service sharing (ICSS) and asset management processes (AMP) can be adopted by rural communities in Ontario in a changing climate. For an overview of the project, please see http://www.resilientresearch.ca/research-interests/risk-disaster-and-emergency-management/

Based on the insights gathered from the environmental scan (see blog post 1), we developed an interview guide, obtained ethics clearance from WLU and conducted 10 key informant interviews with subject matter experts. The interviews are being used to refine our initial results of the project and extracted insights and topics to inform the content of a survey that will be sent to rural Ontario municipalities. The interviews focused on topics such as the impact of climate change on municipal infrastructure sectors; types and levels of climate change-preparedness in rural communities; opportunities and challenges for assessing climate change infrastructure risks within AMP; benefits, challenges and best practices for further embedding ICSS into AMP processes and undertaking climate change-prepared ICSS; and ICSS case study example.

The interviews were very interesting and informative, resulting in several emergent themes focused on the strengths and challenges of rural communities to adapt to a changing climate. Most municipalities in Ontario are small, and many of them face AMP challenges including lots of geography (large area, rivers, etc.), limited tax base (farmland, Crown land, etc.), limited full-time staff (limits independent work and how staff works with consultants), may have limited analytical capacity, and can have lots of assets relative to population or tax base.

A prominent emergent theme emphasized the importance of community capacities to complete AMP’s, and that the size and location of communities will influence what services are shared. Respondents noted that municipalities sometimes don’t want to work together to share services due to interpersonal conflicts and old feuds. Some municipalities may have the perception that the neighbouring municipality is ‘freewheeling’ while they themselves are bearing an unfair amount of responsibility or financial burden. Although these sorts of issues are common, its important that communities work together with the broader goal of preparing for climate change. We hope that the survey we are developing will remind those completing it of the importance of these issues, and the importance of working together on a shared goal of preparing for the impacts of climate change.

The second theme that the data revealed focused on the new Infrastructure for Jobs and Prosperity Act (IJPA) (also known as Bill 6, available here http://www.ontla.on.ca/web/bills/bills_detail.do?locale=en&BillID=2998 ) specifically on principle 11 which states that “Infrastructure planning and investment should minimize the impact of infrastructure on the environment and respect and help maintain ecological and biological diversity, and infrastructure should be designed to be resilient to the effects of climate change”. A consultant with experience working on Bill 6 felt it would be interesting to ask how the regulation is being implemented, as it gives no specific information on how to plan for climate change, just that municipalities ‘should’ be doing it. A respondent from Ontario Good Roads Association echoed this concern, explaining that there is a lot of uncertainty on just how to address climate change, especially given that existing infrastructure (e.g. existing storm water systems) are already in the ground, and certainly cannot be changed overnight. They emphasized the importance of potential liabilities, such as where there are flash floods, and people sue the municipality. Overall, there is tremendous pressure to address all infrastructure deficits, there is always a shortage of money, and for new infrastructure, they noted that many rural communities don’t know what to build (e.g. what size of culvert is adequate in a changing climate?).

Another prominent theme that emerged was the desire to ask ‘attitudinal’ questions on AMP and service-sharing. A consultant who participated in a working group on Bill 6 felt it was important to ask question inquiring about the level of staff knowledge of AMP, and the level of support from senior staff (and the mayor) on AMP and service sharing. They felt this was especially important to ask in rural communities, where there may be less desire and resources to undertake new projects, noting that these small communities are often focused on what they know (e.g. maintaining parks, plowing snow, paving streets) and may not see the benefits of the AMP process or potential benefits of sharing services.

All respondents emphasized that ageing infrastructure is the number one issue, and that climate change is going to exacerbate this. This is well corroborated in the literature, where the Association of Ontario Municipalities (AMO) states that municipalities are currently facing an infrastructure deficit of over $60 billion, of which $28 billion accounts for the infrastructure gap for roads and bridges alone. Extreme weather is going to impact flooding, and roads, and infrastructure, and things like wastewater treatment plants are going to have trouble keeping up. Academic respondents questioned the ability for rural communities (with reduced capacities) to make these changes.

The final emergent theme from the results focused on the ability to share the burden of road and bridge construction costs as new structures are needed to adapt to climate change. An OGRA respondent noted that a potential benefit of service sharing is looking at how these assets can be bundled into P3’s (public-private partnerships) or AFP’s (alternative financing and procurement). The idea is that you can bundle a package of bridges together, to draw a singular P3 project to offer a single tender to build out a number of projects. The respondent stated that the thinking is that communities may be able to save 13-20% overall by manufacturing similar forms, so they can make bridges ‘on mass’ and cheaper. The respondent stated that there is increased interest in bundling, and that the OGRA has completed numerous bundling studies, including in Wellington County which is available here: https://www.ogra.org/files/Asset-Mgmt/County%20of%20Wellington%20Bridge%20Study%20-%20Final%20Report.pdf This is certainly a welcome step in sharing services and costs, and we intend to ask about the potential of this in our survey.

Next Steps

The project is now moving into the next stage of research that involves developing a provincial survey directed to the head of public works and the community emergency management coordinators across all Ontario communities with a population between 500 and 7500 (n=500). We will then be conducting case-study research this summer involving two newly hired Master’s students who will identify 5 county/district associations and 5 municipalities that have undertaken innovative ICSS initiatives. The students will be interviewing 2-3 interview per community to produce ten best-practices case study summaries, and a research report.

We will update this blog as we the project moves along. We welcome any questions via our comments section (below) or you can email the project manager Bryce Gunson at bgunson@wlu.ca or the principal investigator Dr. Brenda Murphy at bmurphy@wlu.ca

Thanks!

Blog Post 1: Enhancing Ontario’s Rural Infrastructure Preparedness: Inter-Community Service Sharing in a Changing Climate (2016-2019)

As this project has progressed, we wanted to update those interested in this research to read about the early results, and welcome you to follow along in the coming months as we learn more about how inter-community service sharing (ICSS) and asset management processes (AMP) can be adopted by rural communities in Ontario in a changing climate. For an overview of the project, please see http://www.resilientresearch.ca/research-interests/risk-disaster-and-emergency-management/http://www.resilientresearch.ca/research-interests/enhancing-ontarios-rural-infrastructure-preparedness/ 

Inter-community service sharing (ICSS) is an intergovernmental agreement that facilitates more efficient and/or cost effective delivery of infrastructure services and manages boundary-spanning infrastructure. Although ICSS holds great potential, currently a research gap exists about how ICSS can boost preparedness in rural Ontario communities facing both climate change (CC) threats and scarce resources. An ICSS response to the threats from extreme events could include upgrading water management systems, rerouting transportation, harmonizing building codes and coordinating emergency services and response (Black, Bruce, & Egener, 2010).

Asset management processes (AMP’s) are “the process of making the best possible decisions regarding the building, operating, maintaining, renewing, replacing and disposing of infrastructure assets” (Ministry of Infrastructure, 2012, pg. 10). Effective AMP maximizes cost savings through the early identification of deterioration and taking the appropriate actions to rehabilitate or renew the asset. Good AMP results in informed decision-making that better manages risk, including the risk of infrastructure failure and the impact of factors such as CC (Ministry of Infrastructure, 2012).

In Ontario, communities are encouraged to undertake the standardized AMP process. AMPs outline the state of local infrastructure (types, age, condition, valuation/replacement cost); expected levels of service (performance measures, external trends/issues); coordinated strategies for maintenance, growth, disposal and renewal including non-infrastructural solutions (integrated planning and land use planning); procurement options, benefits and costs including revenue streams, historic and forecasted costs for the life cycle of the assets, assessment of risk (probability, consequence, vulnerability); and financing options including ICSS potential. AMP challenges include lack of familiarity, personnel training, time and finances and data gaps (Ministry of Infrastructure, 2012).

Kylie Hissa (a former graduate student of our research team) was hired as a research assistant to conduct an environmental scan of the literature on ICSS and AMP in the Fall of 2016. Kylie did amazing work in assembling and organizing (by themes) an extensive body of literature on AMP and ICSS processes from around the globe. Kylie’s central questions that guided this stage of the research were:

  1. What types of service sharing are going on in Ontario municipalities, particularly in rural/remote areas?
  2. How can inter-community service sharing (ICSS) benefit the asset management planning process in these rural/remote areas to enhance capacities for climate change resilience?

We already know that climate change (CC) will exacerbate deterioration to existing infrastructure and increase replacement costs. Improved preparedness reduces risks and increases efficiency, readiness and coping capacity. This project argues that CC prepared ICSS is one way to increase the preparedness of Ontario rural communities to expand cost-effective solutions within Ontario’s standardized Asset Management Planning (AMP) process (see https://www.ontario.ca/page/building-together-guide-municipal-asset-management-plans for more information on AMP).

Kylies’ work on the environmental scan document has identified a lot of interesting information. Below are a few of the themes she has identified, as well as a number of notable gaps in the literature that this project seeks to help clarify.

The themes that have emerged through this environmental scan are:

  • There exists a clear gap in terms of the information and data regarding rural infrastructure impacted by a changing climate both in terms of quality and quantity (Breen, 2015)
    • This is particularly relevant for rural communities because access and quality to such information informs future decisions and actions
  • There is a gap in terms of a specific rural “state of infrastructure” report/inventory compared to urban reports (Federation of Canadian Municipalities, 2012)
  • There is no single agreed upon definition of infrastructure and its categorization; inventories and assessments will inevitably differ in terms of what kind of infrastructure is included (Breen, 2015)
    • Summarization and comparison of existing literature and data can be challenging
  • Little research has been conducted in Canada to date on how climate change could influence various non-climatic factors (e.g. increasing wealth, demographic shifts to coastal areas, etc.) and on the interdependent infrastructure systems (Boyle, Cunningham, & Dekens, 2013)
  • Governments are struggling to catch up with infrastructure needs, yet those needs are continually growing as older infrastructure exceeds its service life and as populations grow (Federation of Canadian Municipalities, 2012)
    • Climate change impacts act as another pressure to replace or upgrade older systems
  • Many municipalities lack the internal capacity to assess the state of their infrastructure accurately on their own (Federation of Canadian Municipalities, 2012)
  • The smaller the community, the greater the challenges regarding the provision of services and maintaining infrastructure for citizens (Kitchen & Slack, 2001; Lauzon et al., 2015)
  • There is significant amount of American and European literature on inter-municipal services and service sharing (Hefetz et al., 2012; Spicer, 2013a)
  • There is a lack of research on inter-municipal service sharing within a Canadian context – especially within a rural setting (Feiock, 2007; Spicer, 2013a)
  • Although the literature states that inter-municipal service sharing is popular among smaller communities (Kitchen & Slack, 2001; Hefetz et al., 2012), the research that does exist on Canadian inter-municipal service sharing is largely within a metropolitan context (Feiock, 2007; Spicer, 2013b)
  • There is little consistency in the use of shared service arrangements across Ontario regions (IMFG, 2014)
  • There is also a lack of literature that provides empirical guidance as to whether the number of inter-local agreements reflect citizens’ perception of quality (Morton, Yu-Che, & Morse, 2008)
  • Although fiscal incentives have been cited as being a large driving factor for cooperation, it is not clear whether inter-municipal cooperation will result in efficiency gains (Bel & Warner, 2015a)

 

 What do we need to focus on to learn more about this topic?:

  • Further exploration of how local institutions and governance systems may promote the transition towards sustainable communities (Robinson et al., 2008)
  • Exploration on what policy makers can do to promote cooperation among more sparsely settled rural communities (Bel & Warner, 2015)
  • Understand why we see so few inter-local agreements in Canada (Spicer, 2013)
  • Connect perceptions of municipal practitioners with the reality of policy; we know why municipalities say they cooperate, but we don’t know whether their reasoning is supported by evidence (Spicer, 2014a)
  • Synthesis and broadcasting of best practises and important lessons learned by communities as they experiment with innovative new strategies for achieving sustainability such as inter-community service sharing (Douglas, 2003; Canadian Council of Professional Engineers, 2008; Robinson et al., 2008; Transportation Research Board, 2008; Gore, 2010; Brodhead, Darling, & Mullin, 2014; Canadian Climate Forum, 2015; Lintz, 2016)
  • Distinguishing the differing climate change impacts and risks by region and type of infrastructure/asset for key infrastructure/asset initiatives throughout Canada (Canadian Climate Forum, 2015)
  • Examining the benefits of partnering with neighbouring municipalities for asset management (Ministry of Infrastructure, 2012)

The project is now moving into the next stage of research that involves interviewing 10 key-informants (subject matter experts). They are being asked a series of questions that will provide input into the development of a provincial survey directed to the head of public works and the community emergency management coordinators across all Ontario communities with a population between 500 and 7500 (n=500).

We will update this blog as we the project moves along. We welcome any questions via our comments section (below) or you can email the project manager Bryce Gunson at bgunson@wlu.ca or the principal investigator Dr. Brenda Murphy at bmurphy@wlu.ca

Thanks!

 

References

Bel, G., & Warner, M.E. (2015a). Inter-municipal cooperation and costs: expectations and evidence. Public Administration, 93(1), 52-67.

Black, R. A., Bruce, J. P., & Egener, I.D.M. (2010) Adapting to Climate Change: A Risk-Based

Guide for Local Governments. Ottawa, National Resources Canada.

Boyle, J., Cunningham, M., & Dekens, J. (2013). Climate change adaptation and Canadian infrastructure. Retrieved from http://www.rediscoverconcrete.ca/assets/files/research/Climate-Change-Adaptation-and-Canadian-Infrastructure_Final_Nov2013.pdf

Breen, S. (2015). Uncertain foundation: infrastructure in rural Canada. Retrieved from http://rplc-capr.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Infrastructure-in-Rural-Canada-Report.pdf

Brodhead, J., Darling, J., & Mullin, S. (2014, October 1). Crisis and opportunity: time for a national infrastructure plan for Canada. Retrieved from http://canada2020.ca/crisis-opportunity-time-national-infrastructure-plan-canada/

Canadian Climate Forum. (2015). The impact of climate change on Canadian municipalities and infrastructure. Retrieved from http://www.climateforum.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/CCF-CCMunicipalities-PSD-April2015-FINAL.pdf

Canadian Council of Professional Engineers (2008). Adapting to climate change: Canada’s first national engineering vulnerability assessment of public infrastructure. Retrieved from https://pievc.ca/sites/default/files/adapting_to_climate_change_report_final.pdf

Douglas, D. (2003).  Towards more effective rural economic development in Ontario: An applied research project. Retrieved from http://www.uoguelph.ca/~djdougla/Src%20Led.pdf

Federation of Canadian Municipalities. (2012). Canadian infrastructure report card Volume 1: 2012 municipal roads and water systems. Retrieved from http://www.fcm.ca/Documents/reports/Canadian_Infrastructure_Report_Card_EN.pdf

Feiock, R.C. (2007). Rational choice and regional governance. Journal of Urban Affairs, 29(1), 47-63.

Gore, C. (2010). The limits and opportunities of networks: municipalities and Canadian climate change policy. Review of Policy Research, 27(1), 26-46.

Hefetz, A., Warner, M.E., & Vigoda-Gadot, E. (2012). Privatization and intermunicipal contracting: the US local government experience 1992-2007. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 30(4), 675-692.

Kitchen, H., & Slack, E. (2001). Providing public services in remote areas. Retrieved from http://www1.worldbank.org/publicsector/decentralization/March2004Course/Kitchen.pdf

Lauzon, A., Ragetlie, N., Caldwell, W., & Douglas, D. (2015). Provincial Summaries – Ontario. In M. Breen, G. Lauzon, & M. Ryser (Eds.), State of rural Canada 2015 (pp. 39-44). Brandon: Canadian Rural Revitalization Foundation.

Lintz, G. (2016). A conceptual framework for analysing inter-municipal cooperation on the environment. Regional Studies, 50(6), 956-970.

Ministry of Infrastructure. (2012) Building Together: Guide for Municipal Asset Plans. Available

Online: http://www.moi.gov.on.ca/pdf/en/Municipal%20Strategy_English_Web.pdf

Morton, L.W., Yu-Che, C., & Morse, R.S. (2008). Small town civic structure and interlocal collaboration for public services. City & Community, 7(1), 45-60.

Robinson, P., & Gore, G. (2005). Barriers to Canadian municipal response to climate change. Canadian Journal of Urban Research, 14(1), 102-120.

Spicer, Z. (2013a).  Inter-local cooperation in Canada. Scale, scope and intensity. Retrieved from https://www.assocsrv.ca/cpsa-acsp/2014event/Spicer.pdf

Spicer, Z. (2015b). Regionalism, municipal organization, and interlocal cooperation in Canada. Canadian Public Policy, 41(2), 137-150.

Transportation Research Board. (2008). Potential impacts of climate change on U.S. transportation. Retrieved from http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/sr/sr290.pdf