Building Climate Adaptation Capacity: A Pedagogical Model for Training Civil Engineers

Abstract

Civil engineers play a central role in climate change adaptation, as they are responsible for designing and managing infrastructure that supports societal resilience. However, professional education has not kept pace with the growing demand for sustainability competencies. This paper proposes a pedagogical model for capacity building that equips engineers with the skills needed to integrate climate adaptation into their daily practice. Semi-structured interviews with stakeholders across Canada identified four pedagogical pillars of effective training: appreciation of climate risks, reflective practice, project-based learning, and design thinking. These were synthesized into the Model for Climate Change Adaptation through Appreciation and Engagement, which emphasizes both technical proficiency and transversal competencies such as collaboration, critical reflection, and ethical responsibility. By grounding climate knowledge in authentic, workplace-based contexts, the model bridges sustainability learning and engineering practice through a scalable training framework. It supports the advancement of Quality Education (SDG 4), Sustainable Cities and Communities (SDG 11) and Climate Action (SDG 13), while offering practical guidance to universities, professional associations, and policymakers seeking to accelerate climate adaptation in engineering education.

1. Introduction

The message from the global scientific community is increasingly clear: climate change, driven by human activities, is intensifying extreme weather events that directly threaten communities, infrastructure, and individual well-being [1,2,3,4,5]. In Canada, growing climate-related risks such as wildfires, floods, and extreme heat are challenging existing engineering practices [5,6]. In Atlantic Canada, these threats are particularly acute due to sea-level rise, coastal erosion, and damage to natural and built environments [3,7,8]. Globally, extreme events are increasing in frequency and intensity, leaving many countries underprepared to address them effectively [9,10].

This paper addresses an urgent and underdeveloped area in engineering education: the professional training of civil engineers to adapt to a rapidly changing climate. While the technical implications of climate change are well-documented, less is known about how engineers acquire the adaptive competencies needed to apply this knowledge in professional contexts. Recent frameworks—such as UNESCO’s Education for Sustainable Development Roadmap [11], the Sustainability Competency Framework [12,13] and work on climate literacy [14]—highlight the importance of integrative, participatory learning models that go beyond content knowledge to include systems thinking, anticipatory competence, collaboration, and self-reflection. This study contributes to filling that gap by examining stakeholder perspectives across Canada and proposing a pedagogical model grounded in empirical and theoretical insight.

Given the critical role of civil engineers in planning, designing and maintaining climate-resilient infrastructure, their training must evolve to address these emerging challenges. Professional development must go beyond technical updates, emphasizing competencies that enable engineers to anticipate, adapt to, and mitigate climate impacts. While governments and engineering bodies such as Engineers Canada have emphasized the importance of climate adaptation competencies—aiming for 70% of engineers to possess them by 2027—relatively little research exists on the pedagogical foundations of such training.

This study aims to address this gap by exploring stakeholder experiences and identifying recommended pedagogical practices for climate adaptation training within the civil engineering profession. Through a qualitative study involving 21 semi-structured interviews with professionals across Canada, four foundational pedagogical themes emerged: awareness and engagement, reflective practice, project-based learning, and design thinking. These align with key sustainability competencies as defined in higher education and professional training research, and are increasingly recognized as essential for delivering on the learning outcomes related to Quality Education (SDG 4), Sustainable Cities and Communities (SDG 11) and Climate Action (SDG 13) [11,15]. These themes are analyzed in dialogue with the literature to inform a new framework—the Model for Climate Change Adaptation through Appreciation and Engagement—which proposes key educational strategies, competencies, and stages of learning to guide effective training delivery.

Aligned with global trends in engineering education, sustainability integration now emphasizes competency-oriented curricula, interdisciplinary collaboration, and experiential learning as levers for deep, action-oriented student learning. Current reviews document systematic shifts in programs and call for explicit embedding of sustainability frameworks and assessment of competencies to ensure graduates can respond to complex societal challenges—precisely the intent of the model advanced here [16].

Although this study is situated in the Canadian context, the issues of capacity building, professional training, and engineering pedagogy in climate adaptation are globally relevant. Similar challenges are faced by engineers in diverse regions, making the proposed model transferable across contexts where sustainable infrastructure and resilience are priorities.

Ultimately, this study contributes to the planning, design, and execution of professional development programs by providing both an evidence-based training model and a common language to support collaboration across the engineering sector. By doing so, it advances progress on the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals Quality Education (SDG 4), Sustainable Cities and Communities (SDG 11) and Climate Action (SDG 13), and aims to strengthen climate adaptation capacity across the engineering workforce.

2. Overview of Adaptation to Climate Change for Civil Engineers

Climate change adaptation means planning for and acting on the anticipated impacts of climate change. It involves making changes to how we live and what we do before climate change impacts happen (anticipatory) as well as being ready to respond to increasingly likely and frequent extreme events (reactive) [17]. In other words, a solution easy to formulate in theory but difficult to translate into practice, especially in engineering, which is at the heart of human activity.

Preparing a future for the next generations is a primary obligation of today’s human community. The scientific community agrees that climate change is symptomatic of human behaviors. Thus, since civil engineers play a significant role in directing human behaviors, it is reasonable to infer that they have a societal responsibility in adapting and mitigating the effects related to the changing climate [2,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28].

Civil engineers are aware of their societal responsibility towards the environment. To illustrate the transformational role of engineers within society, Francis [2] attested that engineers have a role to play in adapting to the changing climate and must “redefine the moral basis of their profession” (free translation, p. 3) in light of many years of unsustainable decisions. Francis and Norton [29] add that ‘new model civil engineers’ need their education to include a better balance of knowledge of engineering fundamentals, outstanding connective skills and holistic systems thinking in order to be a responsible part of a more stable socio-ecological system. A UK study by Dora and Ferranti [30] states the speed of adaptation has not kept up with the speed of the rapidly changing climate, and that there is a large adaptation gap. This is no different in Canada where the Canadian government prepared their first National Adaptation Strategy in 2023 to guide action to better adapt to and prepare for the impacts of climate change, acknowledging that collective action is urgently needed [17].

The responsibility of engineers for professional activity adapted to the changing climate is not only societal but also ethical. In its guide on principles for adapting to the changing climate and mitigating its effects, the national organization Engineers Canada requires that engineers be aware of climate effects in all spheres of their work and, continuously and critically reflect on the environmental impacts of their projects [21]. They now seek to ensure that 70% of professional engineers have relevant climate knowledge and skills by 2027 [31].

It is undeniable that today, engineers have a mandate regarding adaptation to climate change and sustainable development [2,25,26,32,33]. Civil engineers play an important role in human adaptation to the changing climate making it crucial that they are well-trained on this subject. To facilitate the acquisition of essential skills and knowledge for the engineering profession, various organizations and companies recommend offering professional training in the workplace, acknowledging that returning to formal education is often challenging or even impossible for many. Discussions continue on the best approaches for professional training of civil engineers in adapting to climate change.

Although there are many climate change adaptation resources and tools available, organizations and individuals often lack the capacity to use them. A 2022 Environics Research [34] report confirms these gaps in the areas of technical solutions (information and tools), quality climate data, expanding the pool of adaptation experts including training a wider network of these individuals and pushing adaptation expertise. The report further identifies a lack of approaches that produce the desired adaptation outcomes (and avoid maladaptive ones), including best practices and lessons learned, as well as monitoring progress in building adaptive capacity [34].

The Government of Canada [35] responded to this need by introducing the Building Regional Adaptation Capacity and Expertise (BRACE) program to invest in training, knowledge-exchange activities and practical action to increase the capacity of organizations, professionals, communities and businesses to undertake climate change adaptation actions. Many of the projects were aimed at training civil engineers with training activities, such as courses, workshops, networks and internships and these stakeholders have directly contributed to this research.

3. Pedagogical Models in Civil Engineering Education

Climate adaptation training for engineers does not occur in a pedagogical vacuum. The effectiveness of professional development programs hinges on how well they align with educational paradigms that support adult learning, professional identity formation, and workplace integration. The constructivist epistemology guiding this study views knowledge as socially constructed through experience and reflection—an approach particularly suited to civil engineering education, where professional decision-making is shaped by both technical standards and evolving environmental realities [16,36,37,38].

Over the past two decades, engineering education has evolved to incorporate more active, learner-centered methods, such as project-based learning, experiential learning, and reflective practice. These approaches respond to growing calls for engineers to possess not only technical proficiency but also transversal competencies including systems thinking, ethical reasoning, and collaborative problem solving [39,40]. These competencies are embedded in the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly Goal 4 (Quality Education), and further detailed in frameworks such as the UNESCO report on learning outcomes for sustainability education.

Recent syntheses in engineering education underscore that experiential learning—encompassing problem, project, and challenge-based approaches—bridges real-world practice and classroom learning, enables boundary-crossing collaboration, and aligns explicitly with sustainability competency development (e.g., systems/futures/strategic/interpersonal competencies). However, the literature also identifies a gap in affective and socio-emotional outcomes, motivating a research agenda for transformative learning in sustainability education. These insights complement constructivist and design-thinking traditions by clarifying how authenticity, collaboration, and reflection should be scaffolded in engineering curricula to achieve measurable competency gains [38].

This study explores how climate adaptation training for civil engineers can be designed using empirically derived pedagogical strategies, which are presented in detail in the Results Section 5. For example, project-based learning reflects efforts to situate knowledge in authentic contexts; reflective practice builds on Schön’s [41] work on the reflective practitioner and more recent applied research on structured reflection [42]; design thinking emphasizes user-centered, iterative problem solving; and awareness and engagement integrate emotional and cognitive dimensions of transformative learning [41,42,43,44].

These paradigms reinforce the need for climate change training that does more than deliver technical knowledge—it must also cultivate professional agency, contextual judgment, and the capacity for systems-level thinking. The proposed model, therefore, represents a synthesis of empirical findings and well-established educational theories tailored to the civil engineering profession.

4. Research Methodology

4.1. Data Collection

This study used a qualitative, interpretivist methodology grounded in constructivist epistemology. The research aimed to understand how professionals across Canada perceive and experience training related to climate change adaptation in civil engineering practice. Knowledge was viewed as emerging from the meanings participants assigned to their experiences [45,46].

Participants were selected through purposive sampling. Stakeholders were recruited from the national Building Regional Adaptation Capacity and Expertise (BRACE) program and related provincial projects. Fifty-six professionals were contacted via provincial engineering associations, adaptation networks, and affiliated training programs. Of these, 21 agreed to participate (response rate: 37.5%), representing civil engineers, academic instructors, association staff, infrastructure consultants, federal/provincial policy advisors, and climate adaptation practitioners across eight provinces and territories.

Although qualitative studies do not require large samples for validity, the final sample of 21 interview participants was considered adequate based on the concept of information power, given the study’s narrow aim, specific stakeholder group, and the depth of dialogue achieved in semi-structured interviews. This aligns with established qualitative norms for research in applied settings, where thematic and conceptual saturation is generally achieved between 12 and 30 participants provided the sample includes diverse and information-rich cases. This range has been consistently validated in engineering education and adaptation management contexts, where layered professional identities and community-specific constraints require contextual insights rather than statistical generalization [47,48,49,50].

Data collection included two components:

• A collaborative online workshop: Hosted by the research team (see workshop agenda in Appendix A), this consisted of structured breakout groups (60–75 min each over two days, in English). The workshop focused on climate adaptation training in the civil engineering sector and included semi-structured dialogues exploring best practices and success measures. A total of 21 participants attended the workshops and their profiles are listed in Table 1. For clarity, these attendees are referred to as “participants.” While there was no formal mechanism for one-on-one interviews within the workshop, several smaller breakout rooms allowed for deeper engagement in semi-private groupings.
  Table 1. Workshop and Interview Participants Profiles.

  Participant ID	Province	Sector	Role	Academic Background	Years Experience
  P1	Ontario	Federal Government	BRACE Coordinator	Project Management	25+
  P2	Quebec	Federal Government	Climate Agency	Service Delivery	15+
  P3	British Columbia	Federal Government	Climate Agency	PhD. Climate	20
  P4	Ontario	Federal Government	Climate Agency	Education	10
  P5	Alberta	Provincial Government	BRACE Manager	Engineering	15+
  P6	Saskatchewan	Water Resources	BRACE Manager	Engineering	25+
  P7	Manitoba	Engineering Consultant	BRACE Manager	Engineering/Education	25+
  P8	Manitoba	Engineering Consultant	BRACE Manager	Engineering	25+
  P9	Manitoba	Professional Regulator	BRACE Manager	Engineering	15
  P10	Manitoba	Provincial Government	BRACE Manager	Administration	25+
  P11	Ontario	Climate Consultant	BRACE Manager	Masters Geography	25+
  P12	Ontario	Climate Consultant	BRACE Manager	Masters Administration	25+
  P13	Quebec	Researcher	BRACE Manager	PhD. Education	25+
  P14	Prince Edward Island	Provincial Government	BRACE Project	Masters Environmental	25+
  P15	Nova Scotia	Engineering Consultant	BRACE Project	Engineering	20
  P16	New Brunswick	Engineering Consultant	BRACE Project	Masters Engineering	22
  P17	Prince Edward Island	Provincial Government	BRACE Project	Climate/ Environmental	10
  P18	New Brunswick	Engineering Consultant	BRACE Project	Engineering	12
  P19	Newfoundland and Labrador	Researcher	BRACE Manager	PhD. Engineering	25+
  P20	Newfoundland and Labrador	Graduate Student	BRACE Manager	Engineering	1
  P21	New Brunswick	Environmental NGO	BRACE Manager	Engineering	2

• Follow-up semi-structured interviews: Conducted the following year with two selected participants (P20 and P21) from the original workshop group. These interviews lasted approximately 20 min each and were designed to capture evolving perspectives, implementation challenges, and suggestions for training design. These are referred to as “interviewees”. These interview responses were synthesized with the workshop data during thematic analysis and are presented alongside the broader participant insights for coherence and depth.

All sessions were conducted via Zoom, audio-recorded with participant consent, and transcribed verbatim. The workshop and interview guides included open-ended questions (see Appendix B and Appendix C). Though the follow-up interviews were short, the questions were used flexibly, allowing for in-depth elaboration on select topics most relevant to the participant’s experience. The interviews enriched and contextualized findings rather than aiming to exhaust the full question set.

To ensure clarity and relevance of the instruments, the workshop and interview guides underwent internal validation. The development process included:

• Peer review by members of the research team, who have expertise in engineering education, adaptation planning, and qualitative research.
• Pilot testing with two external colleagues in engineering and climate policy, leading to minor revisions to improve question flow and clarity.

Although we did not conduct formal construct-based validation or reliability testing (given the applied nature of this qualitative study), we employed strategies to improve internal and external validity, including data triangulation, member-checking through post-session summaries, and alignment of questions with research objectives.

4.2. Data Analysis

The data were analyzed using an abductive thematic analysis approach, combining inductive coding of participant responses with deductive insight from relevant pedagogical frameworks [51,52,53]. This method allowed the researchers to stay grounded in participants’ lived experiences while also making conceptual linkages to the literature on professional learning and climate adaptation.

All interview and workshop transcripts were imported into NVivo 12 to organize the qualitative data. The research team manually coded the data by identifying recurrent patterns, key phrases, and recurring ideas. Rather than relying on a fixed codebook or automated analysis, the researchers independently reviewed the transcripts, developed multiple first-level codes, and met regularly to discuss, refine, and cluster these codes into broader thematic categories.

To ensure analytic rigor, the researchers maintained reflexive memos throughout and held peer debriefing sessions to test interpretations and surface potential biases. The final themes were selected based on their ability to consistently reflect the depth and breadth of participants’ experiences, rather than on frequency alone. The results were not intended to be statistically representative but to support a nuanced understanding of perspectives within this targeted professional cohort. Empirical studies show that project-based, community-interaction, open-source learning environments in engineering significantly enhance systems thinking, interdisciplinary collaboration, and professional skills, offering a tested capacity-building pathway that our training model operationalizes for climate adaptation practice [42].

5. Results and Discussion

Although climate change is not a recent phenomenon, many professionals across various fields are increasingly seeking to adapt their practices to mitigate its effects. In the field of engineering, this adaptation inevitably involves raising awareness among engineers about climate change, its impacts, and ways to adapt to and mitigate them. This workshop focused on the education of civil engineers in adapting to climate change, specifically through professional training for civil engineers who are already working in the field.

Thematic analysis of the qualitative data—drawn from the semi-structured national workshops and two follow-up semi-structured interviews—revealed four interrelated pedagogical concepts essential for climate adaptation training: awareness and engagement, reflective practice, project-based learning, and design thinking. These pillars serve as the foundation for the Appreciation and Engagement (AAEE model) that is developed in Section 6. These themes emerged inductively through iterative interpretation, collaborative discussion, and consensus-building among the research team. This section presents the principal findings associated with each theme, supported by the frequency of recurring ideas and illustrative participant quotes.

5.1. Awareness and Engagement

A theme that emerged from the workshop/interviews was the necessity of fostering awareness and engagement among civil engineers through a structured, credible, and impactful approach to training. Existing literature defines awareness and engagement as intertwined processes where knowledge prompts action, and action reinforces awareness [54,55]. It is expected that the more the learner participates in projects that consider their awareness, the more they will enrich their understanding of the phenomenon under study and, thus, be more inclined to engage subsequently [56]. Participant responses echoed this framework but brought additional practical nuance.

Seven participants underscored the pivotal role of codes, standards, and regulations in driving engagement, arguing that engineers are more likely to change practice when adaptation principles are embedded in the formal expectations of their profession. They highlighted that codes, standards, and regulatory mechanisms are primary drivers of engagement, with many participants noting that professional behavior changes when adaptation is required through formal frameworks. Three participants (P8, P12 and P21) stated:

If there is a stage of knowledge that’s known to the average person but that’s not reflected in the codes and standards, then you still must operate in the codes and standards…sometimes it’s not about the carrot (costs/benefits) it’s about a stick (regulations).

We are always treating climate change as an add-on, how do we get this no longer to be an add-on and something that we usually do, standards is a way to do that.

I think that by putting stricter rules in place, I think that it’s one of the only ways to change practices in general because otherwise everyone will always just have the minimum costs as their goal.

Five respondents also pointed to the value of formal certifications, such as Professional Development Hours (PDH) and Continuing Education Units (CEU), as key motivators for participation in climate adaptation training. These mechanisms, coupled with regulatory mandates, were viewed by five participants as foundational levers for fostering both awareness and engagement. These certification schemes were also viewed as important motivators, emphasizing the need to link climate training to professional credentialing systems. One participant (P5) suggested:

Use continuing education credits approved by professional regulators which could mandate engineers to take the training courses.

Time constraints were frequently cited with four participants noting that the sheer volume of essential climate content poses a challenge within already demanding work schedules. Additionally, four stakeholders called for the creation of a centralized entity or platform responsible for coordinating, promoting, and delivering climate adaptation training, thereby reducing fragmentation and improving accessibility. One participant (P7) said:

We should implement a national exchange central entity responsible to encourage end enable climate change adaptation training.

Three participants further emphasized the importance of academic institutions actively participating in the development and dissemination of training ensuring alignment between industry practice and academic instruction. The credibility of training content and underlying data was flagged as crucial, with three participants expressing concerns about misinformation or low-quality resources undermining trust in the training process. They also stressed the role of credible trainers, authentic local examples, and professional networking opportunities as key factors for sustained engagement. One participant (P7) stated:

The trainers need to understand what they are teaching, they should be local and authentic. Who delivers the training really matters, ideally someone from the community.

Three respondents also advocated for integrated, consistent training programs warning against isolated initiatives that risk duplication and inefficiency.

While less frequently mentioned, several nuanced points enriched the discussion. Two participants highlighted the importance of competency-based frameworks, arguing that training should go beyond theoretical knowledge to ensure engineers attain practical, applicable skills. Two others stressed that adaptation training should be more technical than simply raising awareness providing engineers with actionable tools. Individual participants emphasized the need to actively foster engagement, challenge underlying beliefs and perceptions and create opportunities for networking and knowledge-sharing. Lastly, calls were made for stronger involvement from national climate change organizations to provide leadership and promote consistency across training programs.

Collectively, these insights point to a multidimensional understanding of awareness and engagement, where mandates, credible structures, professional incentives, and community-building all play integral roles in fostering transformative professional practices in climate adaptation. These findings validate and expand on Marleau’s [55] recommendations for reflective, discussion-based, and context-driven educational methods, reinforcing the argument that civil engineers need to be both aware and actively engaged to successfully adapt their practices. They also reinforce the broader concept of sustainability learning, where professional education is not only about knowledge transfer but also about embedding competencies that align with sustainability principles and long-term resilience goals.

5.2. Reflective Practice

Participants emphasized the importance of targeted, profession-specific training over generalized or basic awareness sessions, which falls within the theme of reflective practice, widely supported in the literature as a tool for continuous professional development [41,42,57]. Nine participants advocated for and also emphasized that reflection is most impactful with a more tailored approach where training is directly relevant to civil engineers’ day-to-day professional responsibilities, rather than offering the same generic adaptation content to all sectors. This was seen as essential to ensuring that reflection translates into practical action, allowing engineers to critically examine how climate adaptation applies to their specific work contexts and technical disciplines. This aligns with recent calls for competency-based, targeted training rather than one-size-fits-all approaches. Participants (P1 and P21) said:

Training for engineers is different than for other professions and needs to be more technical.

…you know how to try to find the information to really tailor the activity to the group you want, separate the activities by profession.

Another consideration raised by three participants was the importance of qualified trainers who possess both subject matter expertise and credibility within the engineering industry. The ability of trainers to effectively engage participants in reflective exercises was perceived as closely tied to their professional standing and practical understanding of engineering realities, further reinforcing the need for industry-relevant facilitators credible in promoting reflective learning. One participant (P20) mentioned:

Civil engineers need to be more open minded and open to solutions outside the traditional way of doing things is… we need to move past that and start coming up with different solutions that will sustain us into the future.

Complementing this, two respondents stressed the need for clearly defined competencies within training programs to guide reflective learning. Rather than open-ended discussions, participants preferred structured reflection anchored in measurable skillsets and practical capabilities. Additionally, one participant noted the potential value of certifications as a way to formalize and validate reflective learning, providing professional recognition for engineers who critically examine and evolve their practices in response to climate challenges.

These findings highlight that effective reflective practice in adaptation training is underpinned by relevance to professional tasks, industry-trusted facilitators, competency-based learning objectives, and the option of formal recognition. The inclusion of clear learning competencies and recognition through certifications was also seen as essential to encouraging reflective engagement, suggesting that reflection must be structured, measurable, and professionally recognized.

5.3. Project-Based Learning

Participants in this study endorsed and further advocated for the use of local, real-world case studies, especially for small communities where internal adaptation expertise is often limited. The literature supports project-based learning as an effective tool for bridging theory and practice [25,58]. Four participants endorsed the use of local examples and datasets as a cornerstone of effective project-based learning for civil engineers. They highlighted that adaptation strategies resonate more with practitioners when training is rooted in real-world, local challenges, using community-specific case studies, infrastructure examples, and climate projections. This approach was seen as key to ensuring that engineers can directly apply what they learn to their own professional environments. One participant (P19) said:

Training needs to bear in mind the regional realities, how adaptation in approaches and solutions can be put into place. Climate change is global but it’s felt locally and needs to be adapted locally.

Additionally, three participants pointed to the importance of qualified trainers, emphasizing that facilitators of project-based learning must not only have pedagogical skills but also practical knowledge of civil engineering and climate adaptation. The ability to guide learners through hands-on, applied exercises was considered essential to the success of this method. A participant (P21) shared an example:

We actually had an in-person activity on-site which was incredible. I think it has more power to change people’s perception, but other than that… as much as possible it’s the case studies on the ground, it’s really something that is powerful, along with the person who did the project who could explain and then answer questions and ideally this person is an engineer… in any case, the person who really led the project and who knows the most things about it.

Two participants also emphasized the value of case studies, particularly those drawn from engineering projects with tangible climate adaptation components. Case studies were perceived as effective tools to bridge theory and practice, allowing engineers to dissect both successful and problematic projects, reflect on decision-making processes, and transfer lessons learned into their own work.

Two participants stressed that project-based learning should be adapted to smaller communities, which often lack in-house expertise on climate change adaptation. Tailoring training modules to the unique needs of these communities was seen as an opportunity to close knowledge gaps and build local capacity where it is most urgently needed. A participant also suggested that facilitating peer-to-peer sharing among communities and practitioners could further enrich learning by creating practical support networks thus extending beyond individual learning to foster community-wide capacity building.

In sum, the findings indicate that effective project-based learning in climate adaptation should prioritize local relevance, qualified trainers, practical case studies, tailored content for smaller communities, and knowledge exchange among peers to build practical, applied skills in civil engineering practice. This expands existing literature by stressing the geographic and contextual tailoring of project-based learning modules for maximum relevance in diverse engineering settings.

5.4. Design Thinking

Participants agreed that cross-sector communication was seen not only as a way to improve project outcomes but also to enhance engineers’ ability to understand broader social and environmental contexts. Design thinking is characterized by creativity, iteration, and user-centered problem-solving [59]. While literature supports its utility, participants in this study expanded its applicability to civil engineering climate adaptation by emphasizing multidisciplinary communication and cross-sector collaboration. Three participants identified communication and collaboration across disciplines and professions as a central pillar of effective design thinking approaches in climate adaptation training. Three participants emphasized that successful adaptation requires breaking down silos and fostering dialogue between engineers, planners, environmental professionals, community groups, and decision-makers to strengthen socio-technical integration. One participant (P21) stated:

I think the best tool would be to have more diverse teams with perhaps a few more generalists. You know, you can be an expert in one field but also a generalist or open to other expertise and also other professions, such as ecologists, biologists, development planners and all that.

Closely related, three participants highlighted the importance of networking, connections, and knowledge sharing as integral to building adaptive capacity. Training formats that encourage peer exchange, multi-sector discussions, and joint problem-solving exercises were seen as beneficial to stimulate creative thinking and practical innovation within civil engineering practice.

Several nuanced themes also emerged. Individual participants called for greater cooperation between disciplines, inclusion of more technical details in training programs, and tailoring of design thinking workshops for smaller communities—where internal capacity is often limited, and external collaboration is especially valuable. One participant (P1) mentioned:

We are currently working on simplifying an assessment tool that should be more user friendly for small communities, allowing the process to be completed in a number of weeks instead of months.

One respondent pointed out the need to shift practitioner behaviors, suggesting that design thinking could be a tool not only for solving technical problems but for fostering more adaptive, flexible, and climate-conscious professional cultures, encouraging a more action-oriented application of design thinking than traditionally discussed in engineering education literature. One participant (P21) said:

They want to be able to implement things, people love to see case studies, opportunities for discussion, bring training on site, or go to a site with a camera, play a video with a live presenter if a site visit is not possible.

Additional individual points included the importance of identifying and addressing barriers to adaptation reinforcing engineers’ ethical role in protecting the public and broadening participation to include NGOs and non-technical actors, thereby enriching the design process with social dimensions. Finally, one participant stressed the importance of measuring outcomes from adaptation projects to facilitate continuous learning and knowledge dissemination suggesting that feedback loops should be embedded within design-thinking-based training.

Collectively, these findings suggest that integrating design thinking into civil engineering adaptation training can foster multi-stakeholder collaboration, behavioral change, and continuous learning, while addressing both technical and social dimensions of climate resilience.

Table 2 summarizes the frequency of responses across the four pedagogical themes and subtopics during the workshops and interviews.

Table 2. Participant (21) Subthemes and Frequency of Responses across Pedagogical Themes.

Pedagogical Theme	Subtopic	Frequency of Responses
Awareness & Engagement	Codes, standards, and regulations	7
	Professional certifications (PDH, CEUs)	5
	Time constraints	4
	Central coordinating entity	4
	Credible trainers and data	3
	Competency frameworks	2
Reflective Practice	Context-specific training	9
	Qualified trainers with credibility	3
	Defined competencies	2
	Formal recognition/certification	1
Project-Based Learning	Use of local case studies	4
	Qualified facilitators	3
	Real-world examples and datasets	2
	Support for small communities	2
	Peer knowledge exchange	1
Design Thinking	Cross-sector collaboration	3
	Networking and peer exchange	3
	Local capacity building	1
	Behavioral change orientation	1
	Outcome measurement and feedback	1

6. Model Development, Structure and Application

Drawing from thematic analysis of the interviews, four pedagogical pillars emerged as essential for climate adaptation training in civil engineering: appreciation (climate awareness), project-based learning, design thinking, and reflective practice. These pedagogical pillars—reinforced by the broader educational literature, particularly experiential learning theory [41,42], and validated by stakeholder insights—offer new contributions to current debates in engineering education reform [60,61]. Together, they form the foundation for the development of a practice-oriented framework titled the Model for Climate Change Adaptation through Appreciation and Engagement (AAEE model). Figure 1 illustrates the conceptual foundation of the model, showing how Appreciation (understanding climate impacts) in the color blue, and Engagement (active problem-solving) in the color green, work in an iterative cycle to reinforce adaptive capacity among engineers.

Figure 1. Conceptual basis for the Appreciation-Engagement loop.

To translate these pedagogical concepts into an actionable training model, we aligned each pillar with a corresponding stage in a four-phase learning cycle:

• Acquisition—Appreciation (Climate Awareness): foundational literacy and motivational framing.
• Authenticity—Project-Based Learning: application in real contexts and localized decision-making.
• Execution—Design Thinking: iterative and collaborative problem-solving focused on adaptation solutions.
• Evaluation—Reflective Practice: structured reflection on performance and learning to reinforce long-term engagement.

This alignment supports a non-linear, cyclical progression that allows learners to move flexibly through each phase based on context, experience level, or professional need.

6.1. Stages of the AAEE Model

The AAEE Model is shown in Figure 2, where each phase of the learning cycle is aligned with its corresponding pedagogical pillar to support clarity and implementation.

Figure 2. AAEE Model for climate change adaptation through Appreciation and Engagement.

• Acquisition (Appreciation/Climate Awareness)
  This stage builds foundational understanding of climate risks, relevance to engineering practice, and potential professional impacts. Delivery formats may include webinars, online modules, or foundational briefings tailored to local asset lifecycles or regulatory contexts.
• Authentic (Project-Based Learning)
  This stage emphasizes situating learning in real-world or place-based practice. Participants engage in case studies or field-based activities involving their own assets, challenges, or design environments to connect theory to context.
• Execution (Design Thinking)
  Applying design thinking, this stage encourages co-creation of solutions through collaborative workshops or challenge-based scenarios (e.g., the multiplication of urban heat islands during extreme heat waves or the redesign of stormwater infrastructure under future climate projections).
• Evaluation (Reflective Practice)
  Structured reflection helps embed adaptive thinking and learning. Reflective journaling, peer discussions, follow-up assessments, or post-project debriefs support learners in internalizing lessons and planning future change.

Table 3 provides a structured overview of recommended practices, mapped to each stage of the AAEE Model. These practices were synthesized from participant interviews and pedagogical literature to offer a practical guide for trainers and curriculum designers.

Table 3. Engineers in adaptation recommended practices overview table.

Appreciation		Engagement
	Brainstorm on climate knowledge and challenges (Acquisition)		Mentorship in the workplace (Execution)
	Integration of an authentic work experience into the training (Authenticity)		Training over several sessions (Execution)
	Site visits (Authenticity)		Refection on own practice (Execution)
	Conceptualization of work context (Authenticity)		Dissemination of training benefits and knowledge sharing (Evaluation)
	Acquisition of globalizing perspectives (Authenticity)		Networking (Evaluation)

6.2. Tools to Support Training Design and Delivery

To support effective implementation of the AAEE Model in professional development and academic contexts, four pedagogical tools have been developed. These tools translate the model’s theory into practical steps that training providers, curriculum designers, or employers can use to structure climate adaptation learning for civil engineers.

The tools are:

• Table 3—Overview of recommended practices aligned with the AAEE Model.
• Table 4—Checklist that guides instructional designers in ensuring all four stages are represented within a training session or course outline.
  Table 4. Checklist of pedagogical considerations in preparation of a climate change adaptation training activity.

  Yes	No	Pedagogical Considerations
  		Does the training rely on the development of values and attitudes rather than on the transmission of a list of ecological techniques or materials to use? (Acquisition)
  		Do the engineers have the opportunity to share what they appreciate about climate change, including their social, economic and environmental effects, as well as the adaptative tools they already know? (Acquisition)
  		Do the engineers describe their authentic work context and identify the challenges, needs and issues which they face in their daily practice? (Authenticity)
  		Do the engineers identify their problems (and their context) rather than the trainer imposing a problem? (Authenticity)
  		Are the engineers’ authentic work realities used (directly in the field or as a case study) to contextualize the climate knowledge studied and more importantly, to conceive adaptative climate actions to execute? (Authenticity)
  		Are the engineers given time during training to research and identify codes and standards related to adaptation (including techniques and materials) that apply to the case study? (Authenticity)
  		Are the engineers proposing general solutions that are then translated into concrete climate actions to be executed relevant to their workplaces while identifying the codes and standards to which they must adhere? (Execution)
  		During training, are strategies offered (logbook, questions to answer, verification lists, blogs, etc.) to encourage engineers to constantly exercise professional judgment and to autonomously reflect on their professional activities? (Execution)
  		Does the training unfold over several sessions to encourage autonomous execution of climate actions in the workplace and, more particularly, the haring of collaborative reflections on the evaluation of their implementation? (Execution)
  		For each action, are the engineers discussing the best ways to evaluate their implementation, its effects on the climate and a cost analysis based on the actions undertaken? (Evaluation)
  		Does the training prepare the means of disseminating the benefits and knowledge generated (describe what has been done and what could not be done to attenuate the effects of profes-sional activities on climate change) by using an efficient language designed to inform engineering colleagues, decision makers, the general public, partners or clients? (Evaluation)
  		Is the knowledge generated in the training connected to current codes and standards so as to evaluate their relevance and communicate adjustments? (Evaluation)

• Table 5 —Detailed guidance for the Acquisition (Appreciation/Climate Awareness) stage, including pedagogical intent, delivery formats, and an applied example.
  Table 5. Appreciation: Acquisition of knowledge and Authenticity of contexts.

  	Practice	Description	Case Study (Heat Wave Example)
  Acquisition	Brainstorm on climate knowledge	Engineers’ prior knowledge can influence training and must be connected to social, economic and ecological issues. Out of a brainstorming session can emerge climate issues that engineers consider important. Brainstorming activities can be conducted online (ex.: by dividing the participants in expert groups) and in person (ex.: talk shops, discussion groups), and could take place prior to the training activity.	Divided into small groups, the engineers draw up a list of what they know of adaptation (impacts, issues, etc.) and describe the origin of this knowledge (reports, organizations, work documents, etc.). Later, in a big group, the engineers raise the issue of heat waves as an important climate phenomenon and reflect on this change’s social, economic, and environmental consequences. They reflect on the effect of heat waves on their work, and to their activity’s potential contribution to this climate phenomenon.
  Authenticity	Integration of an authentic work experience into the training	The authentic professional experience of engineers is ideal for contextualizing climate knowledge studied in a training activity. Engineers find more relevance in proposing climate solutions and concrete actions when these relate to an actual situation that is familiar to them. From a climate perspective, engineers can examine future projects, find ways to adapt ongoing projects, and bring to light challenges or obstacles related to their practice.	Each engineer is invited to describe their workplace by articulating their challenges and successes relating to climate change adaptation. During this discussion, they note that several engineers share a common challenge, i.e., the multiplication of urban heat islands during extreme heat waves.
  Authenticity	Site visits	Access to actual authentic professional situations facilitates the contextualization of climate knowledge, the identification of challenges, the starting point for solutions, and finally, the implementation of climate actions. Staging professional training directly in the field is a way to reinforce the training’s experiential aspect.	During their visit to the field (when accessible, though virtual visits can be enacted remotely), the engineers notice that there are many buildings with either even roof slopes or flat roofs close to the urban heat islands and consider installing vegetation on these roofs as a climate action. Once the climate action is formulated, the engineers identify ways to evaluate the impact installing green roofing could have.
  Authenticity	Conceptualization of the work context	Engineers have codes and standards that create a framework for the smooth execution of their projects. When training engineers in climate change adaptation, it is important to give them the opportunity to identify the codes and standards that apply to the climate situation studied and to the context of their usual work, knowing that climate solutions and actions must stem from this framework.	The engineers review the codes and standards that apply to their green roof installation project (building codes, construction permits, etc.). They reflect on their understanding of the framework and on ways to implement climate actions that take it into account. This framework, juxtaposed with the proposed climate action—i.e., the installation of vegetation on roofs—determines the latitude of the project, and can inform engineers of potential partners to help modify codes and standards.
  Authenticity	Acquisition of globalizing perspectives	Climate change engenders various social, economic and political effects that dis-proportionately impact different population groups and requires ethical sensitivity from engineers. Engineers must reflect on the context of their work from the point of view of various stakeholders (the client, surrounding com-munities, the public) and social issues (poverty, inequality and social justice). It is important to nourish engineers’ reflection on their projects’ potential impacts and, if necessary, to create the necessary partnerships required of the expected effects, and in so doing, honour the realities of the various populations involved. Therefore, they reflect on how to execute climate actions that take this framework into account.	By working together, the engineers identify the necessary partnerships (decision makers, citizen groups, First Nations, organizations, etc.) to ensure the smooth installation of green roofs and the acquisition of diverse perspectives on the project. The instructor invites the engineers to reflect on the social objectives connected to the green roofs project, among them its cost, the community resources required for its maintenance, its life span, and its effects on the community involved and its surrounding communities.

• Table 6 —Detailed guidance for the Execution (Engagement/Design Thinking) stage, including practice-based workflows and evaluation tools.
  Table 6. Engagement: Execution of climate actions and Evaluation of their implementation.

  	Practice	Description	Case Study (Heat Wave Example)
  Execution	Mentorship in the workplace	Through mentorship, an instructor or colleague offers continuous support to learners by imple-menting climate actions in the field. Mentorship encourages reflection on practices in a collaborative rather than an individual context. Also, mentorship can be enacted periodically through meetings online or on site.	The instructor accompanies an engineer who has participated in heat wave management training through their workday. Together, the instructor and the engineer reflect on the implementation of the target climate action (installation of green roofs) in the engineer’s practice. Mentorship can be enacted periodically through weekly online meetings, for example.
  Execution	Training over several sessions	Planning a training activity across several sessions facilitates the translation of appreciation into engagement since engineers put the acquired knowledge into practice, reflect on it individually, and discuss it as a group as part of the training. When engineers are in the field with reflective intentions (list of questions, strategies to consider, important data, core issues, etc.) they take the knowledge acquired during training into account, which favours reflection on the role climate change plays on their professional activities.	Discussion groups and visits to the field are periodically organized by the instructor to support engineers’ reflections on the installation of green roofs. The engineers share the challenges they face and their successes since the last session, but more importantly, the ways in which they evaluate their professional activities regarding green roofs.
  Execution	Reflection on own practice	To encourage the exercise of professional judgment on a daily basis, the engineer is expected to continually reflect on their practice’s effect on the climate, which is however not an innate skill.	The instructor must encourage self-reflection in the engineer before, during and after the action by suggesting reflective intentions and ways to document them (blog, logbook, message board, etc.). The engineers are mandated to share a one sentence reflection on a message board on a particular theme each week (urban heat wave management, urban forestry initiatives, green roof installation, etc.). These reflections are accessible to all participants.
  Evaluation	Dissemination of training benefits and knowledge sharing	To encourage engineers to evaluate and question what has been done in terms of climate change adaptation, it is important to insert the sharing of generated knowledge into the training itself. The sharing of generated knowledge includes the act of translating success stories, the identification of challenges, and the compromises made during the implementation of climate actions, in a simple and practical language intended for the general public, engineers or decision makers. To this is added a revision of codes and standards that make up the engineer’s work context by suggesting potential updates.	The engineers revisit the building codes related to the green roofs case study and suggest potential updates that can be presented to decision makers (ex.: make green roofs mandatory on certain buildings). The engineers work on jargon-free messaging intended for the public on the heat island phenomenon and its effects.
  Evaluation	Networking	The interdisciplinary nature of engineering projects reinforces the importance of working collectively rather than in silos. The identification of potential partners (other than engineers) is particularly suitable to training activities. Yet, meeting such partners during networking activities, whether online or in person, can also be part of the training (break-fast meetings, pairing activities, training sessions, etc.).	The instructor invites one of the partners (i.e., the apartment building tenant committee) identified during the appreciation phase of the green roof installation project to discuss with the engineers, their issues and expected outcomes and what type of collaboration is expected from such a project.

Together, these materials form a ready-to-use pedagogical toolkit that supports the integration of climate adaptation into civil engineering training—from introductory awareness to reflection and feedback cycles. Table 3 and Table 4 are included in the main text, while Table 5 and Table 6, derived from the themes presented in Section 6 and cross-validated against participant examples and existing adult learning literature [41,42,62], are further explained in Appendix D.

7. Conclusions

Civil engineers play a central role in human adaptation to the changing climate, making it imperative that they are well-trained to meet this challenge. With the rapid pace of climate-related risks and evolving design expectations, professional training must equip civil engineers not only with technical knowledge but also with the competencies to adapt their practices. Recognizing that returning to formal education is often not feasible, participants in this study reinforced the value of accessible, workplace-based professional training tailored to real-world needs.

Through qualitative analysis of semi-structured interviews and stakeholder workshops with key actors across Canada, this study identified critical insights into the strengths and gaps of current training approaches. While online modalities such as webinars offer accessible learning opportunities, they often fail to address deeper behavioral change and sustained engagement among engineers. To overcome these limitations, stakeholders highlighted the need of training models that integrate regulatory frameworks, professional certifications, credible trainers, and context-specific case studies relevant to local challenges.

The findings were synthesized into four interconnected pedagogical themes: awareness and engagement, reflective practice, project-based learning, and design thinking—each grounded in both stakeholder experiences and established educational theory. These themes informed practical recommendations, such as embedding adaptation competencies into standards and certifications, offering profession-specific reflective training, using local data in project-based learning, and supporting cross-sector collaboration tailored to the realities of smaller communities.

Building on this foundation, this study proposes the Model for Climate Change Adaptation through Appreciation and Engagement, which combines empirical insight with pedagogical theory. This model emphasizes the progression from climate appreciation to sustained engagement—a bidirectional process rooted in critical reflection, authentic experience, and action. It is designed as both a conceptual framework to foster dialogue among engineers, educators, and policymakers, and as a practical tool to inform training design and implementation.

The results of this research provide concrete guidance for improving the design and delivery of climate adaptation training for civil engineers. Moving forward, the model offers a robust foundation for developing targeted training modules and capacity-building programs, supporting civil engineers and local governments in their efforts to build more climate-resilient infrastructure and communities. Future work will apply this model to the development of practical training resources and pilot programs—particularly within small and rural municipalities—to help bridge the adaptation gap and accelerate professional readiness for climate resilience.

Ultimately, this research contributes directly to the advancement of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal (SDGs), including Quality Education (SDG 4), Sustainable Cities and Communities (SDG 11) and Climate Action (SDG 13). Taken together, the framework contributes to sustainability learning while bridging global priorities with local professional practice.

Limitations and Future Research

While this study offers valuable insights into climate change adaptation training for civil engineers, several limitations should be acknowledged. First, the sample—while diverse in geography and professional role—was limited to 21 participants, which may not fully reflect the range of perspectives across Canada’s engineering sector. Second, findings are based on self-reported experiences, which may be influenced by recall bias or social desirability. Third, although rigorous qualitative analysis practices were applied, thematic interpretation carries some degree of subjectivity.

The proposed pedagogical model is grounded in qualitative data and theory but has not yet been tested in live training environments. Future research should focus on pilot testing the model in various engineering contexts and evaluating outcomes related to learning effectiveness, behavioral change, and project implementation. Comparative studies across sectors or jurisdictions could further refine the model and its applicability. Special attention should be given to delivery methods (e.g., in-person vs. hybrid), incentive structures (e.g., continuing education credits), and capacity-building mechanisms for communities with limited internal expertise.

Appendix D.1. Summary of Recommended Practices

Table 3 (see Section 6.1) provides a high-level summary of the recommended practices associated with each component of the model. It serves as a conceptual bridge between the theoretical model and the detailed pedagogical tools that follow. Use this table first to scan for promising practices and identify key areas for development or refinement.

Appendix D.2. Practice Descriptions and Case Study Example

Table 5 and Table 6 present more detailed descriptions and real-world examples of how each best practice can be implemented. These examples were drawn from participants and represent composite cases inspired by actual training experiences (e.g., green roof training in heat wave contexts).

• Table 5 focuses on the Appreciation side of the model (Acquisition + Authenticity)
• Table 6 focuses on the Engagement side of the model (Execution + Evaluation)

Each table includes:

• A concise definition of the practice
• Guidance on how to implement it
• A case study example to illustrate potential application

These appendices are not intended to be prescriptive, but rather to encourage flexible, context-specific design based on learners’ needs, available resources, and the goals of the training. As highlighted throughout the manuscript, effective adaptation training must be responsive, iterative, and rooted in the lived realities of civil engineering practice.