RPP Profile: Wayne Caldwell

A portion of this interview is featured in the fall 2022 issue of OPPI’s Y Magazine.

Name: Wayne Caldwell, PhD, FCIP, RPP
Location: Guelph, Ontario
Position: Professor in Rural Planning at the University of Guelph

Wayne Caldwell, RPP, is a Professor of Rural Planning and Development at the University of Guelph and also has a career-long connection with the County of Huron Department of Planning and Development. He has lectured across Canada on the future of rural communities and has published extensively in the areas of planning, community development, agricultural land preservation, siting livestock facilities, healthy rural communities, rural land use, and the environment.
 
Wayne is also an active member of the planning profession: Past President of the Ontario Professional Planners Institute, Council for the Canadian Institute of Planners, Past President of the Association of Canadian University Planning Programs, founding member and Past Chair of the Ontario Rural Council, founding member of the Huron Stewardship Council and the Lake Huron Centre for Coastal Conservation. He sat on the Greenbelt Council and he was appointed by the Ontario government as Chair of the Provincial Nutrient Management Advisory Committee.


What inspired you to follow a career in planning and, in particular, to teach rural planning at University of Guelph?
I had some fantastic mentors early in my academic career and in my professional career as well. It’s worth acknowledging that I worked with Mike Troughton, who sadly passed away too early, and Ralph Krueger, who also sadly passed away too early. I did my undergraduate and masters at Western with Mike and my PhD at Waterloo with Ralph. They were just such wonderful, dedicated professionals. I could not have had a more positive, supportive experience than I had working with these two individuals. I also had the great fortune to work with Dr. Gary Davidson in Huron County, who was the director there for 25 years and Past President of OPPI and Past President of CIP, and he’s such a fantastic person to work for and such an exemplary leader in the planning field. I have to acknowledge those people because they helped set my career path, and I am indebted to those individuals.
 
I was raised on a farm and have always had this connection to the land, always this connection to rural, always this connection to community in that context. I think we often look for those influences in life that help set us in a direction. If I had been born a generation earlier, I’m sure I would’ve been a farmer. That just would’ve been the path that would’ve been there for me. Growing up at the time I did, there was opportunity for education and those were my interests and I pursued them.

 
What is and has been most rewarding for you?
I think of that from two scales. They’re the little things as a practising planner, which was the first 20 years of my career. People coming up to me at a public meeting or people sending a note or an email or a card at Christmas saying thanks for something I may have done that they felt was of benefit to them. Those little recognitions that come to all of us as planners are rewarding in their own way, where people acknowledge that you’ve made a contribution, that you’ve done something well.
 
Then there are the opportunities to work with students, literally the last 20, 25 years of my career, where I run into someone, or I see the fantastic things that someone is doing. That’s incredibly gratifying as a recognition that I contributed to someone’s life. Having the privileged position as an educator to make those contributions is incredibly rewarding.
 
Also, the opportunity to do research and see it influence policy in some way, whether it be provincial policy or at a local level — that’s also very rewarding.


What are some of the threats to farms in rural Ontario, and how do they connect to what’s happening globally?
One can’t not mention climate change and there’s the connection that doesn’t get near as much attention, which is the loss of biodiversity. At a global level, we see that happening in so many ways. These kinds of threats exist in a global context, and they impact what happens in local communities. Our challenge and opportunity as planners is to bring these global issues down to the local level. How do we get people more motivated around acting in regard to climate change? How do we get them more motivated as it relates to the loss of biodiversity? I think those are key environmental issues that are impacting us.
 
I would also bring a flag to changing demographics as they exist in rural communities. We have this current situation with COVID-19, where many rural communities are feeling a reinvestment of interest and desire on the part of people to live here. But we still have rural communities across the province and across the country that are losing population. If you look at the demographics, there’s concern that they will continue to lose population. For those communities, their livelihoods remain at risk, and it’s something for us to recognize and it’s not always easy to do. When we see the booming economy and the booming population of the GTA, as an example, what does it mean in Northern Ontario? What does it mean in those parts of the province that are further removed from those engines of population growth in terms of their future and the services that will be required for people in those communities in the decades ahead, especially with the baby boom population aging.


What about the effects of development and the protection of agricultural lands?
The land base, which we depend upon, it is critical for food production. There are innovative things happening with greenhouses and hydroponics and things of that nature, but we still rely fundamentally on land to produce, and we’ve been losing land. Between 2016 and 2021, Ontario lost 319 acres of farmland a day. And what does that mean? I like to bring a global lens to things. So, one of the global lenses is climate change. We live in a part of the world where forecasts would suggest we’re likely to see an increase in productivity as a result of climate change, more heat, more moisture, notwithstanding unpredictability that can be connected to climate change. Meanwhile huge portions of the planet are forecast to lose significant amounts of productivity, virtually all of South America, virtually all of the American Southwest, virtually all of the African continent, virtually all of Southeast Asia, Australia. Huge losses in productivity.
 
What does it mean for us when we bring that global lens? Yes, you could argue, well, you lose a few acres, Ontario, what’s the big deal as it might relate to the province. But it is a big deal. If you think about these things from a global perspective, in terms of the loss of farmland in an area that has the forecasted outcome from climate change of increased productivity. What does it mean from an ethical and moral perspective for us in this part of the world to see increases while much of the rest of the world will have dire consequences? When it comes to farmland preservation, I don’t think we often enough bring that global perspective to it in terms of change into the future.


What is Ontario losing farmland to?
Farmland is lost to a variety of sources. It’s lost certainly to development. That’s the source we primarily focus on because it’s the expansion of cities that tend to be in close proximity to high quality farmland that are at issue. Historically, we lost huge portions of farmland simply because the land should never have been put into farming in the first place. I’m thinking of lands on the border of the Canadian Shield as an example. That had low capability and was settled in the late 1800s. People, before long, realized this wasn’t suitable farmland and it was abandoned. What we’re seeing now is primarily a loss to farmland from development, but there are other sources. too.
 
For example, there are people buying up land and converting it into recreational properties because, as incredibly expensive as farmland is now, it’s still relatively affordable compared to recreational properties. Some of that’s not always bad because some of our farm communities have such a low proportion of land in natural vegetative cover that an increased proportion of trees and forest and wood lots is a good thing, notwithstanding that it contributes to farmland loss.
 
At the end of the day, the question is how do we feed ourselves and how sustainable is that. It also speaks to policy at all levels of government when you see things like, dare I say, MZOs, which have been used in various locations. I’ve not done any analysis to look at what proportion of those involve farmland, but it speaks to the need for us to be very intentional and considerate and thoughtful about the decisions we make. Setting precedents and not thinking about the trade-offs when you convert farmland in my view is a mistake in policy.


Can you comment on communicating environmental issues at a local level?
I think the whole notion of biodiversity and how we enhance and contribute to that and protect it is a fundamental question we need to be looking at. On a personal level, for example, we have a farm, and it now belongs to our daughter, but we live here as well. We’ve doubled the size of the wood lot on the farm this year, which means planting 1,500 trees. How do we incentivize people to make personal commitments both related to farmland and as it relates to the environment?
 
I think in some ways we’ve lost something in our environmental ethic. We’ve gained some things. We’re more aware, but I think perhaps we’re more polarized in society in terms of how we view the environment. A generation ago, I think people were more willing to embrace an environmental ethic in rural communities and on the farm. I think there’s a bit more polarization. I say it from the point of view of the importance of productivity, globalization, and I see it in very practical ways on farms where people might get rid of wind breaks, or they want to maximize the amount of production, which on one hand I get — it’s about livelihood, it’s about making the most of the land that’s available — but at the same time, what is that right balance between farmland and natural spaces? I think a generation ago, maybe farmland wasn’t as valuable so people were more willing to embrace natural spaces.
 
I think that speaks maybe in some ways to the role of planners and how we communicate these messages with society. And we see it across Southern Ontario, across many parts of the province, there’s this whole notion of natural heritage. How do we protect natural heritage and how do we enhance it? Often people look at that with a “doubting Thomas” perspective, where they don’t see the value in it. Yet, as planners, we need to work to be as effective as possible in communicating these messages in a way that doesn’t lead to further polarization. How do you go about doing that in a way that the planner’s not seen as the bad person in this, but rather somebody who’s trying to facilitate and contribute positively?
 
 
What is happening with food security? What are the barriers preventing better food security?
We can look today at the increasing price of food, some which is connected to global issues and some of which is connected to other things that are going on. There’s always this question: how do we make food affordable?
 
Food freedom day is that point in the calendar where the average Canadian has earned enough money to pay for their food for the entire year. It usually happens sometime in February. [In 2022, it was February 8; in 2021, it was February 9.] If we go back several generations, it’s probably more like the end of September. Food was always the number one thing we spent most of our surplus income on. It’s probably going to be bumped with the current inflation two or three days I would guess, but it’s not going to be huge if we compare that to three generations ago. But it speaks to how we spend the rest of our income, which is on transportation and housing and things of that nature. I think it’s important to realize that the agricultural system produces relatively cheap food. We benefit from that system.
 
In the Globe and Mail, for example, it’s not unusual to see editorials that are really quite critical of supply management. I get irritated every time I see them. Maybe we spend a little bit more than the average American, but what we also get is predictability of high quality and predictability of supply geared to the Canadian market. From a rural planning and rural community development perspective, I see many, many relatively small dairy operations contributing vastly to the local economy as compared to what I see in other parts of the world. I remember visiting a dairy farm in New Zealand, and I think they had 8,000 cows. The average dairy farm in Ontario is still probably 200 or 300 cows. It just speaks to an agricultural sector integrated into the local community and that contributes in a variety of ways.
 
When I think of the different elements of our food system, it’s hard to paint them all with the same brush. Some are cheap and affordable. We think of the commodities we produce — corn and beans here in Ontario — and how that contributes relatively affordable products but not necessarily the kind of diversity or high quality of food that we want. When we think of the food system, we need to be thinking about the quality of what’s produced, the diversity of what’s produced, and increasing opportunities for local farmers to do different things. In the food system, there are some niche opportunities people can pursue that will contribute to a better diet, which is an important goal, as well as affordable food, and where the farmer producing is adequately compensated.
 
Food security exists in many different ways, and there are many different factors. There’s the consumer and what he or she is able to afford, and we need to be reflective of that. There’s the farmer who’s producing and we need to make sure they’re appropriately compensated. We need to ensure there are environmental programs in place, that there is sustainable food production, and there are local communities and economies that benefit. Within that, there’s the distribution network and waste, which also need to be addressed.
 
We will often do our grocery shopping at a small country farmers market. It’s a great little store with all kinds of diversity and when I see how successful it appears to be, it demonstrates that we don’t have to always be big to have the kind of quality that we aspire to. It’s relevant in terms of food security to be looking at all of those different contributors — from the producer to the consumer, to the distributor — and the diversity that flows through the system. We live in a pretty privileged country in terms of having lots of inputs into our food system. It’s not always going to be rice and beans, if I can put it that way, but rather many diverse kinds of products that make for a pretty engaged sector.
 
[However] is very challenging for those folks with lower incomes, which then takes us to what that means and what we can do to address the needs and concerns of people with lower incomes to make sure they have access to the same kinds of food and same quality of food that the rest of us do. That’s a quandary that needs to be addressed across the province.
 
 
What are some key ways the economy in rural Ontario is different from the economy in urban Ontario?
Certainly, there are the obvious things. Rural communities tend to be more involved in producing primary products — from agricultural products, to mining, to forestry. Those are just fundamentally different products that tend to get transported to urban centres in one way or the other.
 
Things like tourism are really important as well. The need for some diversified uses in rural communities simply because of the differences that exist. By that I mean the need to address or cater to different sectors of the economy. Things like trucking between rural and urban, there are opportunities there. There are things connected to the population base where many rural communities suffer from a lack of population or an inadequate working force. We look at employment rates in rural versus urban.
 
In many rural communities — and this will be increasingly an issue with more and more retirement in the baby boom population — providing the services that are required will be important, because rural communities have historically not attracted immigrants to near the same extent that urban communities do. If someone’s moving from out of country to Canada, they’re almost always choosing Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, or another large centre. There’s a fundamental difference in the economy simply driven by the workforce and the differences that exist there.
 
 
What about on-farm diversification?
That, again, is an example of the role planners can play to help address and change policy in a way that contributes not only to rural but to urban as well. It speaks to this need for policy to evolve. With on-farm diversification, it’s this opportunity to do things a little bit differently on the farm so we can contribute to small and medium-sized farms. It doesn’t all have to be large corporations. There are things we can do that can contribute in terms of more employment in rural communities, in terms of more diverse activities on the farm, bringing the consumer to the farm, creating opportunities for livelihoods. On-farm diversification is a good example of that. And it’s a good example of the province providing a leadership role in planning by creating some new and constructive policy, notwithstanding it needs to be reviewed and evolve further.
 
 
What does “rural resilience” mean to you?
It’s a term that builds on notions of sustainability. Rural resilience is how able are we to adapt to changes and how able are we to adapt to those changes in reasonably efficient timelines. Some rural communities have done well, and they grow and prosper as a result.
 
Living close to Goderich as I do, I often reflect on the tornado that went through [in 2011]. To me, it was interesting as an academic observer to watch this community come through that and come out the other side. I remember consultants at some of the public meetings saying, “If you don’t come out of this stronger than you were before, you’ve lost an opportunity.” I thought that was a really interesting comment because it speaks to resilience in the best of ways. That you can react to some negative impact — COVID is going to be one of them — but if you do it well, then there’s the opportunity to come out the other side in a more positive, buoyant way. Those communities that do that well, that’s their opportunity, and those communities that don’t do it so well, they’ll lose. I think it’s a reflection of community attitudes. It’s a reflection of community awareness of the issues that are happening around them.
 
I’ve found in my work as a planner over the decades that some communities just embrace change in a positive, constructive way while other communities struggle with change. Why that is, is a really fascinating question. A community reflects the people who live there, and I’ve observed that some communities have a more positive attitude and are therefore more resilient and able to respond to change than others.
 
I go back to the tornado that hit Goderich and roomfuls of people coming to public meetings. I’m thinking of those people actually applauding the planners, which doesn’t happen all that often, for the strategies they came up with. I’m thinking of the community fundraising that went on. It was a wonderful example of resilience.
 
 
What makes you feel hopeful for future of rural Ontario?
I like to think I have a “glass is half full” perspective as opposed to a “glass half empty” perspective. We can look at rural communities and, yes, there are those which will struggle and find challenges, but there’s also all kinds of opportunity. Part of this will be driven — going back to environmental issues, climate change, loss of biodiversity, and even demographics to a degree — by realizing as a provincial society that rural has so much to offer. And it’s not only so much to offer, but it’s also so critical in addressing the equation — the equation being, how do we deal with climate change? How do we deal with loss of biodiversity? Realizing that many of the solutions to those questions reside within rural communities. All the way from the green space, the open space, that’s there to noticing the air quality warnings today. Rural is a potential response to some of those issues from the point of view of how it contributes positively to the environment. There’s increasingly a recognition that rural can contribute in a hopeful, positive way to some of these challenges that, as a society, we will face in the generations ahead of us.


Do you have a message for RPPs and up-and-coming RPPs
[I was recently asked] why don’t more of our planners know more about agriculture and rural communities. My response was, well, the planning population, isn’t so different from the population of the province. If we look at the province as a whole, less than two per cent of the provincial population are farmers. If we look at planners and the province, probably less than two per cent of the planning population comes from a farm background. Our challenge is to make sure we embrace the fact that a much, much larger percentage of the land base is rural than is urban. We have many more urban trained planners, but the vast, vast, vast majority of the land base of the province is rural.
 
Many of our graduate planners will end up working in rural communities, whether they realize it or aspire to it or not. If you’re working for the Region of Halton, or the Region of Peel, or the City of Ottawa, the vast majority of land in those regions, notwithstanding a huge urban population, is, in fact, rural. The city of Ottawa is the old county of Carleton plus the urban centre of Ottawa. It’s a huge rural area. The case is the same for most of our regions as well — large urban centres, but also large rural land bases.
 
The opportunity for up-and-coming planners is to embrace opportunities to learn more about rural communities, rural planning, because many will be practising in those environments. It’s really important to recognize the importance of rural and grab the experience when it presents itself.
 
For the established profession, it’s to try to maintain that. It’s so easy as a planner to get pulled into the weeds and lose sight of some of those broad community goals and broad issues we recognize and aspire to — whether it be climate change, or biodiversity, or demographics — and get pulled into the latest development. Our challenge as a profession and opportunity as a profession is to embrace those broad issues and recognize that we can work locally, but we can do our very best to bring a global lens to it. And we can do our very best to infuse our local communities with the issues that need to be addressed and are the challenge of our generation.