chapter 4

The Impacts of the 2001–2 Drought in Rural Alberta and Saskatchewan, and Canada

Suren Kulshreshtha, Elaine Wheaton, and Virginia Wittrock

Droughts are a recurring event in the Canadian Prairie provinces. The paleoclimatic data indicate that severe droughts (of long duration) have been observed in the nineteenth century.1 Although droughts occur in many regions of North America, the Prairie region is the most susceptible. Droughts also occur in all seasons as part of normal climate variability; however, the effects are most severe during the warmer seasons because of the increased demand for water due to higher temperatures.

This chapter focuses on droughts in the Prairie region, which includes the agricultural portion of Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba. Its primary objective is to synthesize and discuss information on impacts of droughts and adaptation to them in the Prairie provinces. In particular, this chapter focuses on the 2001–2 drought, with emphasis on the following: first, to illustrate the conceptual economic and social impacts of droughts on various economic sectors; second, to link the sectoral impacts to economic and social impacts on rural communities in Saskatchewan and Alberta; third, to identify adaptation measures undertaken by producers and communities in response to droughts; and finally, to present knowledge gaps in drought impacts and adaptation to droughts and implications for policy makers for future drought planning and policy formulation. Addressing these knowledge gaps is key to advancing future drought impacts and adaptations research. In addition, the chapter briefly reviews the major characteristics of droughts in the region as well as some conceptual issues regarding drought impacts. The nature of these droughts is compared with the most recent intense and extensive drought, which occurred in 2001–2 and is used here as a case study for discussing impacts on communities.

The empirical results presented in this chapter are based on earlier studies2 dealing with economic and social impacts of the 2001–2 drought on various economic sectors and on government institutions.3 These results are complemented by community-level research under the auspices of two projects—Institutional Adaptation to Climate Change (IACC) and Rural Communities Adaptation to Drought (RCAD).4

Background on Droughts and Their Impacts

An improved understanding of droughts is needed so that the information can be used to enhance adaptation to droughts and thereby lessen vulnerability. Improved adaptation to drought is required because drought causes severe and extensive socio-economic and ecological disruption and damage. Drought is more costly than any other form of natural disaster (Wilhite 2000). This is especially true of the Canadian Prairies where drought is more frequent, intense, extensive, and damaging than in other parts of Canada (Wheaton et al. 2008).

In terms of frequency and chronology, several extensive, multi-year droughts on the Prairies have been identified, including those of the 1890s, 1910s, 1930s, 1980s, and 1999–2005 (with 2001–2 being the peak of the drought) (Bonsal et al. 2011). A comparative spatial incidence of these droughts is shown in Figure 1. These droughts represent five major episodes during 120 years. Shorter but severe droughts have also occurred during this period (e.g., 1961). During the recent drought of 2001–2, which affected not only the Prairies but also other areas of Canada, parts of the Canadian Prairies experienced their most severe dry conditions for the last 100 years. Some locations, such as Saskatoon, had their lowest annual precipitation on record in 2001, and others had their lowest Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDSI) scores (indicating worst drought) on record (Wheaton et al. 2008). Hanesiak et al. (2011) examined many databases for several drought characteristics and found that the 1999–2005 drought on the Prairies was one of the driest meteorological and hydrological events on record.

Figure 1. Spatial patterns of selected droughts in Canada, 1931–2002
(Source: Wheaton et al. 2008)

Not only is drought an intrinsic part of the variable climate of the Prairies, but the potential for future droughts is increasing because of human-induced climate change and increasing water demand (see Chapter 3 by Wheaton et al. in this volume). Therefore, it is critical that adaptation measures, strategies, and policies consider increasing droughts and their impacts in future years.

Droughts, particularly those lasting over a period of a few years, can completely devastate a region, in terms of biophysical changes as well as economic and social impacts. Some parts of the world are more prone to droughts than others. In Canada, the southern part of the Prairie provinces (Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta) belongs to this group of regions. Here, droughts have represented a major natural disaster. Of the top 11 most costly natural disasters in Canada, 7 of them were Prairie droughts (Table 1). In fact, the most costly natural disaster in Canada was the 2001–2 drought, which had a direct impact of $5.8 billion (Wheaton et al. 2008).

Significant changes in the hydrological cycle have the biggest impact on agricultural production, but these changes also have other social and economic impacts. Among these are health effects; as Stern (2007: 89) indicated, “droughts (and floods) are harbingers of diseases, as well as causing death from dehydration.”

Conceptual Framework to Describe Impacts of Agricultural Droughts

As discussed in Chapter 1, there are different perspectives on droughts—biophysical perspectives and socio-economic–political perspectives. The biophysical perspective includes studies of drought patterns, their severity and frequency, and their impacts on the physical environment, while the socio-economic–political perspective focuses on identifying the effects of precipitation deficiencies on people and their institutions. Initially, drought impacts are felt in terms of biophysical changes and experienced by local people and their communities, but over time, their impacts are exacerbated and extend to the larger regional, national, and even international settings. These impacts have two dimensions, a sectoral/spatial dimension and a temporal dimension, both of which are discussed below.

Parry and Carter (1987) distinguish between two types of approaches to study drought impacts:5 the impact approach and the interaction approach. The impact approach is based on the assumption of direct cause and effect. Here an activity (economic or social) is exposed to a climatic event (such as a drought) and then experiences an impact. This approach could be unrealistic (and perhaps misleading), since many other factors affect the socio-economic activities. The interaction approach assumes that a drought (or other climate-related event) is just one of many processes that may affect the exposure unit. Furthermore, the impact may be multi-dimensional through various interaction processes.

Figure 2. Interaction between drought and various sectors

For a hypothetical drought, an interactive process is shown in Figure 2. Here, three-level impacts are hypothesized. The initial order of impact during the drought period is biophysical in nature—temperature and precipitation regimes change both in terms of amount and timing. These biological changes would have an impact first on the ecosystem services (level of productivity of natural resources) and, through these changes, on the socio-economic system. These impacts are called second-order impacts. These impacts would vary according to the type of socio-economic activities that are present in a region. These second-order impacts may also lead to third-order impacts (such as changes in regional-level productivity of resources and level of income of people, as well as changes at the national economy level). For a country with open borders (such as Canada), economic impacts of the drought (negative or positive) will also be felt at the international level.

Figure 3. Hypothesized pathways of a drought incident
(Source: Adapted from Parry and Carter 1987)

A case in point is the recent experiences of the Australian drought of 2006 and the US drought of 2010. During these periods, farm-level wheat price in Saskatchewan rose from a five-year average (2002–6) of $142.20 per tonne to $301 per tonne in 2007 (more than doubling) and to $256 per tonne in 2010 (an increase of 80%).6 Both of these situations illustrate the international connections in commodity markets. Price booms like this are welcomed by exporting nations, but they may create social hardships in other parts of the world and may initiate a series of changes leading even to inter-regional or international migration of people. A more detailed account of these changes is presented in Figure 3.

When an agricultural drought occurs, more than just agriculture suffers from the lack of water. Rural communities, municipalities, industries, and processors are also affected. In some local regions, rationing may be required, but unless the water source becomes completely depleted, the right to the use of the water is relatively secure for the users. Overall, the economic conditions during the drought period and immediately after that would be adverse, either through economic losses or through impacts on ecosystem services. Impacts can be hypothesized to occur in two dimensions—sectoral and spatial.

For the purposes of studying droughts, the economy should be segregated into two sectors: agricultural and non-agricultural. Some non-agricultural sectors may experience two types of impacts—direct impacts of droughts and indirect impacts induced by losses in agricultural production. These impacts would lead to several other types of impacts within the local region, culminating in regional and national (as well as international) impacts. For example, loss of agricultural production (e.g., livestock production) would affect agricultural processing industries and then affect the rest of the food supply chain. Some of these industries would suffer from higher processing costs and would also need to import their required raw material from other regions. Social impacts might be experienced from lower economic conditions for some people, communities, and businesses, which might lead to higher stress levels and might even culminate in health impacts.

Although droughts are typically confined to a certain period of time, their impacts are not necessarily limited only to that time period. For example, Figure 4 depicts a hypothetical region that has been experiencing economic growth over the past few time periods (as shown by line Oa in the figure). The region suddenly experiences a severe drought7 in time period t1. If the region did not experience that drought, it would have moved along line Oac to time period t2. The direct (one period) impact of the drought is measured by the vertical line ab. However, the actual cost of the drought would depend on the path of recovery taken by the economy. If the economy reaches the same point where it would have been without that drought occurring, then the cost of the drought is approximated by the area abc. However, if the growth rate is sluggish and the economy needs more time to recover, the cost would likely be higher than approximated by that area.

In addition to changes in economic activities, drought may also affect ecosystem goods and services. Changes in land productivity resulting from drought, or loss of vegetation and wildlife resulting from drought, would also affect many other socio-economic activities in the future (such as recreation, hunting, and tourism). A true total cost of a drought must therefore sum all economic and environmentally induced costs over a period of time. However, such a study has yet to be undertaken for the Prairie provinces.

Figure 4. Time path of adjustment in regional economy resulting from a drought (Source: Adapted from Dore and Etkin 2000)

The 2001-2 Drought Impacts in Canada

Past droughts in Canada have been more spatially fragmented, less intense, and shorter than what was witnessed in Canada in 2001-2. This drought was exceptional by many measures: it was unusually large in area, severe, and embedded in a long dry period (Wheaton et al. 2008). As a result, it affected many sectors and people residing in a large part of Canada. The two Prairie provinces—Saskatchewan and Alberta—were particularly hard hit by these back-to-back droughts. In 2001, Canada experienced one of the worst droughts on record by many standards, including its coverage across Canada and its intensity. Further details on its impacts are provided below.

The genesis of the 2001–2 drought was in the autumn of 2000 in southern to southeastern Alberta. The drought then spread across into central-western Saskatchewan, but the province of Manitoba had near normal temperature and precipitation conditions. The drought intensified in spring and summer 2001 in Alberta and Saskatchewan. Only the northwestern agricultural portion of Manitoba was dry in spring and summer 2001. The warm, dry trend continued into the autumn and winter of 2001–2. Conditions changed in spring 2002, but only in temperature, resulting in an unusually dry and severely cold spring across western Canada. The 2001 drought was confined to a smaller region—primarily located in the southern and east-central parts of the province (Wheaton et al. 2008). The 2002 drought in Alberta covered most of the province at some point in time during the agricultural season.

The higher temperatures accompanied by lack of precipitation resulted in several biophysical impacts, such as wind erosion, reduced streamflows, dry dugouts, and groundwater reductions. More prominent impacts in the region included the following:

• The areas of most frequent wind erosion were estimated to have occurred in the drought areas of southern Alberta and in Saskatchewan, particularly in the central area along the provincial border. The month of peak wind erosion occurred in May for both 2001 and 2002, but was nearly as high in April 2002. Alberta had the most wind erosion events during 2001, while Saskatchewan had more in 2002.

• Many rivers and streams in Alberta and Saskatchewan had well-below-average flows in 2000, 2001, and 2002.

• Many of the 19 groundwater observation wells examined in the Canadian Prairies (7 in Alberta, 8 in Saskatchewan, and 4 in Manitoba) recorded declining water level trends, depending on location of the observation well.

• Dry dugouts were first reported in the fall of 2000, with the area of dry to one–quarter-full dugouts expanding through 2001. In 2002, the area of dry dugouts shifted northward (Wheaton et al. 2008).

These biophysical impacts led to other second-order impacts on the socio-economic activities in the two provinces, such as adverse impacts on agricultural production in Alberta and Saskatchewan. In both provinces, crop yields and harvested areas were below average for 2001 and 2002. This led to reduced farm cash income in both years. The overall impact of the drought was a loss in gross farm cash receipts of $413 million in 2001 and $1,401 million in 2002 for Alberta and $925 million in 2001 and $1,520 million in 2002 for Saskatchewan (Table 2). These losses included changes in crop production and in livestock production.

Producers also reduced input costs in response to drought conditions. A reduction in fertilizer application occurred in 2002 because the 2001 crop did not use the nutrients that were applied to it. Fuel purchases were down in 2002 because of reduced harvested area. Adjusting for the reduction in cost of production (through reduced farm input costs) and for payments received under various safety-net programs (mainly crop insurance), the net effect of the drought on crop production was estimated. Adjusting for losses in livestock production and adding them to adjusted crop production effects, net losses to Alberta producers were estimated at $271 million in 2001 and $1,009 million in 2002. Similar estimates for Saskatchewan producers were $655 million in 2001 and $1,001 million in 2002. Total losses of producers in the region were therefore around $926 million in 2001 and $2,010 million in 2002. In both provinces, these losses were over 16% of average 1998–2000 net farm income.

The 2001–2 drought had profound impacts on the water supply in some parts of the Prairie provinces. At the farm level, dugouts were affected the most, although domestic water supplies were also at risk. The hardest-hit regions were southern Alberta (in 2001) and central Saskatchewan (during 2001 and 2002). Producers used various methods to supplement water, including hauling, drilling new wells, and sourcing new water supplies, such as pipelines from distant secure sources.

As a direct consequence of loss in production and lower farm incomes, non-agriculture sectors were also affected. In Alberta, major changes on non-agricultural industries included the following:

• New investment in 2001 was down by 4.6% in agriculture, forestry, fishing, and hunting activities.

• Some negative impacts of the drought were noted on sales of new farm machinery and equipment in these areas.

• Agricultural processing firms reported no change in their sales, but they faced higher prices for their raw materials, thereby affecting their profit margin.

• Some firms had to find new suppliers for their raw materials.

• Forest-fire occurrences were five times higher than the previous 10-year average during 2002 in Alberta.

• Some recreational areas were affected due to low water levels in water bodies and open-fire restrictions in some areas (Wheaton et al. 2008).

In Saskatchewan, impacts of the drought were very similar to those noted above for Alberta, but there was also a reduction in the amount of hydroelectric power generated, requiring the Saskatchewan Power Corporation to purchase additional power from other sources.

The Canadian economy (and within that the economy of the Prairie provinces) represents an integrated system of activities. Regions depend on each other for raw materials as well as for markets for the good produced. Loss of production in Alberta and Saskatchewan therefore had consequences for other sectors in other parts of Canada. Using an input-output model, total loss for the region was estimated. Results for the Prairies are summarized in Table 3. The region lost a total of $1.4 billion in 2001 and $3.1 billion in 2002. These losses also culminated in loss of employment. About 10,000–17,000 jobs were lost in the region.

Droughts and Rural Communities

As previously mentioned, community-level research was carried out through two main projects: the IACC project and the RCAD project. Under the umbrella of the IACC, studies examined five rural communities in Saskatchewan and Alberta, as well as one First Nation reserve in Alberta (Figure 5). The five rural communities were Taber (Taber Municipal District [MD]), Hanna (Special Area No. 2), Cabri (Riverside Rural Municipality [RM]), Stewart Valley (Saskatchewan Landing RM), and Outlook (Rudy RM). The First Nation reserve in Alberta was the Kainai Blood Indian Reserve (KBIR). The RCAD studies occurred in six different communities in Saskatchewan: five were located in the Palliser Triangle area, a well-documented location of reoccurring drought, and one was located just south of the North Saskatchewan River. Communities in the Palliser Triangle included Shaunavon (Grassy Creek RM and Arlington RM), Coronach (Hart Butte RM), Gravelbourg (Gravelbourg RM), Kindersley (Kindersley RM), and Maple Creek (Maple Creek RM). The other community was Maidstone (Eldon RM) (Figure 6).

Figure 5. Communities in the Institutional Adaptation to Climate Change project (Source: Adapted from Patino 2011)

Figure 6. Communities in the Rural Communities Adaptation to Drought project (Source: Perrick 2012)

This section details how the 2001–2 drought impacted the case-study communities both economically and socially. Because the IACC and RCAD projects used different methods, non-standard information, with an attempt at standardization, is provided here.

Economic Costs to Communities

The cost of the 2001–2 drought for all of Canada was estimated to be nearly $6 billion (Table 1). The economic cost breakdown was carried out for the local study areas by the IACC project. The largest crop production losses of the 2001–2 drought were in Special Area No. 2 (in central-west Alberta), with a nearly $88 per hectare loss in 2001 and nearly double that amount in 2002 (Table 4). The Special Areas in Alberta were established under the auspices of the Special Areas Board in response to previous negative impacts from droughts in the early twentieth century (see Marchildon et al. 2008; see also Chapter 8 by Marchildon in this volume). The second-highest crop production losses occurred in the RM of Rudy when both 2001 and 2002 are examined together. While 2001 losses in the RM of Rudy were not as extreme (crop production loss of $76.61 per hectare or $4.23 million) as for the RM of Riverside, the drought conditions continued to plague the RM of Rudy in 2002, resulting in a continued loss of crop production by nearly $63 per hectare ($3.48 million). Taber MD also suffered crop losses but not as extreme as those in these other areas. In 2001, the loss was about $38 per hectare ($7.48 million) and in 2002 was about $35 per hectare ($6.84 million) (Wittrock et al. 2012; Wittrock et al. 2007).

A large rainstorm went through southern Alberta and southwestern Saskatchewan on 8–11 June 2002 (Szeto et al. 2011). Partly because of this event, crops recovered somewhat and the negative financial impact of crop loss was reduced in the RM of Riverside and the RM of Saskatchewan Landing in southwestern Saskatchewan. The crop production loss in 2001 was about $78 per hectare in 2001 (or $8.57 million) in the RM of Riverside, but this value greatly improved to a loss of just over $20 per hectare in 2002 ($4.60 million). The RM of Saskatchewan Landing’s financial situation improved between 2001 and 2002; loss in crop production was more than $63 per hectare in 2001 ($5.55 million), but the RM had near normal production in 2002 (Table 4).

Other economic costs were incurred by the communities but were not quantified. These included reduced fertilizer sales (Taber), reduced advertising in local newspapers (Taber), increased costs for market-garden operations (RM of Rudy), reduced new farm-machinery sales (Outlook), and increased water costs for the oil and gas industry (Special Area No. 2). Some industries that were more severely impacted by the drought moved out of the regions, such as grain brokers (RM of Rudy). Other sectors benefited from the drought, such as financial institutions, which profited because demand for money rose with the drought (Taber) (Wittrock et al. 2012; Pittman et al. 2010; Wittrock et al. 2007). The economic impact on the livestock industry could not be estimated due to a lack of data (Wittrock et al. 2012).

The RCAD project examined economic impacts though loss of crop production in the RMs surrounding the communities. Kindersley suffered decreases of more than 50% in 2001 and almost 100% crop loss in 2002 for wheat and canola (Abbasi 2014). The RM of Eldon (Maidstone) had crop losses of more than 70% in both 2001 and 2002 (Abbasi 2014). Prior to 2002, the RM of Eldon had not been severely impacted by an extreme drought, because this region in northwestern Saskatchewan’s agricultural region generally has crop yields above the provincial average (Warren 2013). Producers in the RM of Gravelbourg did not perceive any major impact due to the 2001–2 drought conditions. They found that the adaptation measures they implemented due to the drought conditions in the late 1980s lessened their vulnerability to the 2001–2 drought (Luk 2011).

Other economic challenges emerged, in part, because of the 2001–2 drought, including those associated with upgrading water supply systems at various locations after the drought. Such improvements took place at Maple Creek (at a cost of $3.7 million) (Warren 2013), at Cabri (Wittrock et al. 2006), Maidstone (Abbasi 2014; Warren 2013) and Kindersley (Abbasi 2014; Warren 2013).

The KBIR stands out as a special case of drought impact because of its own style of governance, including that related to property rights. It is one of the largest reserves in Canada, with a population between 4,000 and 10,000 people. Agriculture is the predominant land use with some irrigation. However, much of the irrigated lands are leased out to non–First Nations people. The KBIR also has a beef cattle operation.

During the 2001–2 drought, the KBIR was affected in several ways (Kulshreshtha et al. 2011): i) local government costs increased from delivering water to homes on the reserve; ii) some road maintenance equipment was damaged due to extremely dry road conditions; iii) the livestock operation had higher feed costs resulting in some cattle being culled; and iv) residents on the reserve faced increased costs and time to obtain water.

Social Impacts of Droughts on Communities

Social and economic vulnerabilities to communities co-exist and tend to be accentuated by exposure to extreme climatic events including drought (Diaz et al. 2009). All the communities examined in the IACC and RCAD projects are relatively small, ranging in population from just over 100 (Stewart Valley) to 6,000 (Taber). Many of the communities have similar social issues, including depopulation—particularly of the younger generation—and centralization of services, which make the communities more vulnerable to external stressors and reduce their adaptive capacity (Diaz et al. 2009). Drought is one of these added stressors and creates additional impacts on the communities. A common impact of drought and resulting stressors throughout most of the communities was the lack of water (Wittrock et al. 2011). The meteorological and hydrological drought of 2001–2 resulted in low water supplies affecting available water for activities for some farmers and in some towns and villages across the Canadian Prairies. Low water supplies resulted in water use restrictions for some towns as well as restrictions on the agricultural community’s access to town water. These restrictions resulted in agricultural producers having to find alternative water sources and the government (both federal and provincial) providing some assistance to farmers/ranchers to find adequate quality water for their livestock (Wittrock et al. 2012; Wittrock et al. 2011; Wheaton et al. 2008). This scenario played out in many of the communities examined in this chapter. For example, the towns of Taber and Cabri imposed water rationing (Wittrock et al. 2007; Wittrock et al. 2006). The town of Cabri took the additional step of not allowing agricultural producers to access the town’s potable water supply (Diaz et al. 2009; Wittrock et al. 2006). The water rationing in Taber may have negatively impacted production by some industries or resulted in them having to invest in water conservation technology (Wittrock et al. 2006). The communities of Kindersley, Maidstone, Maple Creek, Gravelbourg, and Coronach all had water supply issues due to the drought (Abbasi 2014; Warren 2013; Luk 2011). The town of Outlook had easier access to water through the development of Lake Diefenbaker. Dry conditions increased demand for domestic water use and increased the revenues of the water utility of Outlook. This situation improved the town’s financial position (Wittrock et al. 2007). In addition to impacts on communities as a whole, the drought of 2001–2 impacted individuals’ well-being. For example, community officials had difficulty coping at the personal level with the cumulative effects of the drought and the associated secondary and tertiary impacts (Maple Creek) (Warren 2013).

Adaptation to Droughts: Overview

Extreme climatic events can have devastating consequences for agriculture as well as the accompanying community. Adapting to these extreme climatic events is critical in reducing vulnerability and decreasing the recovery time. An adaptation framework was formulated in Wittrock and Wheaton (2007) and is used here to assess the various strategies implemented.8

In general, two types of adaptation strategies exist: short term and long term. These strategies can also be subdivided into subcategories, including technology/research, government programs, farm management, farm and agriculture financial management, and community support—for crops, livestock, and water. These subcategories can then be assessed based on key topics. For example, some key topics for cropping adaptation strategies may include weed control, pest control, or crop rotation (see also Chapter 5 by Warren on minimum till in this volume). Many secondary impacts to both agricultural producers and/or communities may also require adaptation strategies.

Adaptation by Producers

Canadian Prairie agricultural producers have always been impacted by droughts. Some of the historic droughts have been short, such as the drought in 1961, while other droughts have lasted for extended periods, such as the droughts in the 1920s and 1930s (Marchildon et al. 2008) and more recently in 1999–2005 (Bonsal et al. 2011). Consequently, many adaptation measures have been implemented, resulting in a moderately proactive response leading to lower vulnerability and fewer or less negative impacts. Other portions of the study region (such as northern Saskatchewan and Alberta) have not experienced many severe droughts, resulting in lower implementation of adaptation strategies and thus higher vulnerability to droughts.

Southern Alberta and western Saskatchewan have a history of droughts. This portion of the Canadian Prairies is in the Palliser Triangle, where droughts are frequent. This vulnerability has resulted in many adaptation measures being implemented over several decades, and thus the most recent drought event of 2001–2 had lower negative impacts than might have resulted without this experience.

The agricultural industry reduced its vulnerability to the 2001–2 drought by implementing short- and long-term adaptation strategies. Many adaptation strategies are initially reactive in nature, but turn into proactive strategies when used for long periods of time. Examples of short-term adaptation strategies used by the agricultural community are listed in Table 5.

The long-term adaptation strategies apply to crops, livestock, water, and land use, and include three different groups of adaptations—technology/research, government programs, and farm and agriculture financial management. These strategies have a longer time frame either through implementation (e.g., research into drought-resistant crops and forage crops) and/or usage (e.g., minimum till expansion, conservation cover program). However, even with these extensive adaptation measures, harsh droughts such as the 2001–2 event, can stress coping levels, as indicated earlier, and result in large losses and difficult recoveries at the community to national levels.

Adaptation by Communities

The level of community adaptation to drought varies by length, timing, and intensity of drought; location of the community; and the community’s level of adaptive capacity. A community’s level of vulnerability is determined by its exposure to environmental and societal stresses and its capacity to adapt to those stressors (Brklacich and Woodrow 2007; see also Chapter 1 in this volume).

Two assessments were undertaken for the IACC project to determine the level of vulnerability through adaptation measures. Diaz et al. (2009) examined how successful various portions/sectors of the community were in responding to drought and the reasons behind their success or failure. Wittrock et al. (2011) examined the adaptive capacity of the communities and rated them based on the method by Brklacich and Woodrow (2007).

The town of Outlook was assessed as the least vulnerable community to the 2001–2 drought mainly due to its secure potable water supply. The community also has an income close to the provincial average and has a higher-than-average formal education base. The community of Cabri was rated as the most vulnerable to the 2001–2 drought mainly due to its inadequate water supply (Wittrock et al. 2011). Because of its inadequate water supply, citizens implemented adaptation measures, including water conservation and use of grey water (e.g., clothes’ washing water) to water gardens. The local government implemented additional measures to combat the low potable water supply, including restricting lawn watering and restricting agricultural producers from accessing the town’s limited water supply (Diaz et al. 2009).

The drought of 2001–2 triggered initial reactive adaptation strategies in many of the communities mainly due to the lack of potable water. For example, Kindersley had a historic adaptation to limited potable water supply by installing a water pipeline from the South Saskatchewan River in the 1960s. This infrastructure required an upgrade to maintain a feasible level of potable water for the community. Maidstone was perhaps most severely impacted by the drought due to the extreme negative effect on its potable water supply. This may also have been an effect of a reactive adaptation strategy used by the town. This strategy was to drill more groundwater wells and install a potable water pipeline, thus decreasing the vulnerability of the community to future extreme drought events.

Areas for Further Research

This overview of research on drought impacts and of adaptation strategies to reduce these impacts was based on available data, which was sometimes limited. This section provides several suggestions for planning and undertaking future research on drought impacts to provide more comprehensive information and understanding.

The timeline of impacts was not included in past studies. This timeline would likely illustrate the cumulative impacts that occurred due to the drought. These impacts could have a dampening effect on the economy in the future, particularly for livestock production. Results on livestock production were based on provincial-level data. Regional data, particularly on the drought regions, were not available, thus limiting the analysis of regional level drought impacts.

In addition to the agricultural sector, drought may affect other sectors (e.g., forestry; hydroelectric power generation; transportation industries, including water transportation; tourism and recreation; food processing industries; and farm input industries). Attempts should be made to collect more information on these sectors to enable a more comprehensive analysis of the estimated impacts of the drought.

A concern that needs to be more fully explored in the future relates to the impacts of drought on the environment. Various aspects of the environment can be impacted by prolonged droughts (such as soil quality, air quality, water quality). Such changes could affect the sustainability of Prairie agriculture and the associated economy. Another major concern is the looming possibility of future droughts that will make past droughts appear mild in comparison. These more severe droughts would make adequate adaptation much more difficult and would push the limits of adaptation.

Summary

Droughts are frequently experienced in the southern part of the Prairie provinces. Although paleoclimatic data suggest past droughts were of longer duration, recent droughts have been mostly single-year or consecutive-year events. The drought of 1999–2005, which peaked in 2001–2, was a longer event. It created havoc for the agriculture industry and for people associated with it. In addition, many non-agricultural sectors were either directly or indirectly affected by the drought conditions. Overall, the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta were the hardest hit in Canada. Drought affected central-west and southwestern Saskatchewan, and central-east Alberta. In the region, total gross domestic product declined by $1.4 billion in 2001 and by $3.1 billion in 2002. These economic losses were associated with employment losses in the agricultural sector and associated industries.

Rural communities in the drought region suffered as a result of losses in the agriculture industry and shortage of water. Many of these communities, as well as agricultural producers, undertook adaptation measures in response to the droughts. In some cases, new sources of water were found, while in other cases, existing sources were improved to secure water. Adaptation to climate change (particularly drought events) represents a challenge for the Prairie economy; however, adaptation can reduce vulnerability to future events, within limits. Although humans have always adapted to changing climate and to non-climatic changes, more can be done to help people to prepare for these conditions.

NoteS

1 In southwestern Saskatchewan and southeastern Alberta, decade-long droughts have been estimated during the early and late 1800s (see Chapter 2 by Sauchyn and Kerr in this volume; see also Sauchyn 2002).

2 Details on these studies can be found in Wheaton et al. (2008, 2004), Wittrock et al. (2012), and Kulshreshtha et al. (2011).

3 For details on historical development of institutions in response to drought, see Marchildon et al. (2008). See also Chapters 9 and 10 by Hurlbert in this volume.

4 Details on the IACC project are reported by Wittrock et al. (2012, 2011, 2007, 2006), Pittman et al. (2010), and Kulshreshtha et al. (2011). Similarly, the RCAD project results are summarized by Diaz and Warren (2012), Abbasi (2014), Luk (2011), and Warren (2013).

5 These approaches were originally suggested by Kates (1985).

6 These data are from the Government of Saskatchewan (2013).

7 Although in this example, we have assumed a drought, any other climate-related natural disaster may have similar impacts.

8 Data regarding the communities and agricultural sector are from the IACC and RCAD projects, as well as from Wheaton et al. (2008).

References

Abbasi, S. 2014. “Rural Communities Adaptation to Drought: Case Studies of Kindersley and Maidstone, Saskatchewan.” MES dissertation, University of Saskatchewan.

Bonsal, B.R., E.E. Wheaton, A. Meinert, and E. Siemens. 2011. “Characterizing the Surface Features of the 1999–2005 Canadian Prairie Drought in Relation to Previous Severe Twentieth Century Events.” Atmosphere-Ocean 49: 320–38.

Brklacich, M., and M. Woodrow. 2007. A Comparative Assessment of the Capacity of Canadian Rural Resource-based Communities to Adapt to Uncertain Futures. Ottawa: Carleton University.

Diaz, H., S. Kulshreshtha, B. Matlock, E. Wheaton, and V. Wittrock. 2009. “Community Case Studies of Vulnerability to Climate Change: Cabri and Stewart Valley, Saskatchewan.” Prairie Forum 34: 261–88.

Diaz, H., and J. Warren. 2012. RCAD Rural Communities Adaptation to Drought Research Report. Regina: Canadian Plains Research Center Press.

Dore, M., and D. Etkin. 2000. “The Importance of Measuring the Social Costs of Natural Disasters at a Time of Climate Change.” Australian Journal of Emergency Management 15, no. 3 (Spring): 46–51.

Government of Saskatchewan. 2013. “Agriculture.” http://www.agriculture.gov.sk.ca/agriculture_statistics/HBV5_Result.asp. Accessed 6 June 2013.

Hanesiak, J., R. Stewart, B. Bonsal, P. Harder, R. Lawford, R. Aider, B. Amiro, E. Atallah, A. Barr, T. Black, P. Bullock, J. Brimelow, R. Brown, H. Carmichael, C. Derksen, L. Flanagan, P. Gachon, H. Greene, J. Gyakum, W. Henson, E. Hogg, B. Kochtubajda, H. Leighton, C. Lin, Y. Luo, J. McCaughey, A. Meinert, A. Shabbar, K. Snelgrove, K. Szeto, A. Trishchenko, G. van der Kamp, S. Wang, L. Wen, E. Wheaton, C. Wielki, Y. Yang, S. Yirdaw, and T. Zha. 2011. “Characterization and Summary of the 1999–2005 Canadian Prairie Drought.” Atmosphere-Ocean 49, no. 4 (December): 421–52.

Kates, R.W. 1985. “The Interaction of Climate and Society.” Pp. 3–36 in J. Ausubel and M. Berbarian (eds.), Climate Impact Assessment: Studies of the Interaction of Climate and Society. SCOPE 27. Chinchester, England: Wiley.

Koshida, G. 2010. “Disasters through History.” Pp. 2–6 in D. Etkin (ed.), Canadians at Risk: Our Exposure to Natural Hazards. Research Paper Series No. 48. Toronto: Institute for Catastrophic Loss Reduction.

Kulshreshtha, S.N., E. Wheaton, and V. Wittrock. 2011. “Natural Hazards and First Nations Community Setting: Challenges for Adaptation.” Pp. 277–88 in C.A. Brebbia and S.S. Zubir (eds.), Management of Natural Resources, Sustainable Development and Ecological Hazards. Ashhurst, UK: WIT Press.

Luk, K.Y. 2011. “Vulnerability Assessment of Rural Communities in Southern Saskatchewan.” MES dissertation, University of Waterloo.

Marchildon, G., S.N. Kulshreshtha, E. Wheaton, and D. Sauchyn. 2008. “Drought and Institutional Adaptation in the Great Plains of Alberta and Saskatchewan, 1914–1939.” Natural Hazards 45: 391–411.

Parry, M.L., and T.R. Carter. 1987. “Climate Impact Assessment: A Review of Some Approaches.” Pp. 165–87 in D.A. Wilhite and W. Easterling (with D. Woods) (eds.), Planning for Droughts—Toward a Reduction of Social Vulnerability. Boulder: Westview Press.

Patino, L. 2011, “Participatory Mapping and the Integration of Knowledge in Climate Change Adaptation and Vulnerability: Rural Communities of the South Saskatchewan River Basin.” PhD dissertation, University of Regina.

Perrick, D. 2012. “Location of Study Areas Map.” In H. Diaz and J. Warren, RCAD Rural Communities Adaptation to Drought Research Report. Regina: Canadian Plains Research Center Press.

Pittman, J., V. Wittrock, S.N. Kulshreshtha, and E. Wheaton. 2010. “Vulnerability to Climate Change in Rural Saskatchewan: Case Study of the Rural Municipality of Rudy No. 284.” The Journal of Rural Studies 27: 83–94.

Sauchyn. D. 2002. “Role of Prairie Adaptation Research Collaborative in Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation Research.” Pp. 12–21 in S. Kulshreshtha, R. Herrington, and D. Sauchyn (eds.), Climate Change and Water Resources in the South Saskatchewan River Basin. Saskatoon: Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Saskatchewan.

Stern, N. 2007. The Economics of Climate Change—The Stern Review. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Szeto, K., W. Henson, R. Stewart, and G. Gascon. 2011. “The Catastrophic June 2002 Prairie Rainstorm.” Atmosphere-Ocean 49: 380–95.

Warren, J. 2013. “Rural Water Governance in the Saskatchewan Portion of the Palliser Triangle: An Assessment of the Applicability of the Predominant Paradigms.” PhD dissertation, University of Regina.

Wheaton, E., S. Kulshreshtha, and V. Wittrock (eds.). 2004. Canadian Droughts of 2001 and 2002: Climatology, Impacts and Adaptations. Report prepared for Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada—PFRA. Publication No. 11602-1E03. Saskatoon: Saskatchewan Research Council.

Wheaton, E., S. Kulshreshtha, V. Wittrock, and G. Koshida. 2008. “Dry Times: Hard Lessons from the Canadian Drought of 2001 and 2002.” Canadian Geographer 52: 241–62.

Wilhite, D. 2000. “Drought as a Natural Hazard: Concepts and Definitions.” Pp. 3–18 in D. Wilhite (ed.), Drought: A Global Assessment. Vol. 1. New York, NY: Routledge Press.

Wittrock, V., D. Dery, S. Kulshreshtha, and E. Wheaton. 2006. Vulnerability of Prairie Communities’ Water Supply during the 2001 and 2002 Droughts: A Case Study of Cabri and Stewart Valley, Saskatchewan. SRC Publication No. 11899-2E06. Saskatoon: Saskatchewan Research Council.

Wittrock, V., S. Kulshreshtha, and E. Wheaton. 2011. “Canadian Prairie Rural Communities: Their Vulnerabilities and Adaptive Capacities to Drought.” Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies to Global Climate Change 16: 267–90.

———. 2012. “Bio-Physical and Socio-economic Vulnerabilities of Selected Prairie Communities in South Saskatchewan River Basin Facing Droughts.” Pp. 267–87 in D.F. Neves and J.D. Sanz (eds.), The Droughts: New Research. New York: Nova Science Publishers.

Wittrock, V., S. Kulshreshtha, E. Wheaton, and M. Khakpour. 2007. Vulnerability of Prairie Communities’ Water Supply during the 2001 and 2002 Droughts: A Case Study of Taber and Hanna, Alberta, and Outlook, Saskatchewan. Saskatoon: Saskatchewan Research Council.

Wittrock, V., and E. Wheaton. 2007. Towards Understanding the Adaptation Process for Drought in the Canadian Prairie Provinces: The Case of the 2001 to 2002 Drought and Agriculture. Prepared for Government of Canada’s Impact and Adaptation Program. SRC Pub #11927-2E07. Saskatoon: Saskatchewan Research Council.