Community Characteristics and Well-Being in Western Canada Dionne Pohler, Wu Haotao, Miranda Gouchie November 30, 2015
Community & Co-op Development For both community and co-op development to be successful: Community and co-op developers must address and take into account the core features of a community, recognizing that differences exist across communities The work they do must include building capacity: communities become empowered to access tools and resources to solve their own needs
Community & Co-op Development Community and co-op development take a substantive amount of dedicated time and effort (and sometimes financial resources) Both community and co-op development are means to an end The goal should be to improve resident well-being/ quality of life
Community Characteristics and Co-op Development CIP project investigated community characteristics important for creating a favourable environment for co-op development: Community needs Social capacity Business capacity Knowledge of co-ops Successful co-op development is not just about creating co-ops; it must also meet community needs and build community capacity both to be able to build co-ops and ultimately to enhance wellbeing
Model of Relationships Co-op Knowledge Co-op Development Community Needs Social and Business Capacity
Model of Relationships Co-op Knowledge Co-op Development Community Needs Social and Business Capacity Well-Being We still need to establish if addressing needs and building community capital will ultimately improve well-being.
Community Capitals Framework (Emery & Flora, 2006)
Community Capitals Framework Community capitals framework (CCF: Emery and Flora 2006) Two types: market (built, financial, natural and human capital) and nonmarket (social, cultural, political) Community capitals interact with each other and are correlated with community needs Our current measures of capacity overlap with the capitals in this framework: we focused on measuring one market capital (business capacity) and one non-market capital (social capacity)
Community Capitals and Well- Being There is a well-established theoretical link between community characteristics and well-being / quality of life, but empirical research is limited Community characteristics can be thought of as assets or capitals Capitals frameworks primarily used for community asset mapping Methodological limitations with prior research: Well-being is highly subjective; the source matters Common indicators (e.g., GDP, education) do not tell us about people s lived experiences; measures often aggregated and thus not useful CIP collected systematic information about subjective well-being
Key Questions Are there reported differences in well-being between rural and Aboriginal communities and between provinces? What are the relationships between community characteristics (e.g., needs, social capacity, business capacity) and well-being in Western Canada? Do the relationships between community characteristics and wellbeing differ between rural and Aboriginal communities and/or across the four Western provinces?
Model of Relationships Community Type Province Community Needs Social and Business Capacity Well-Being
Methods and Data
Methods and Data 1756 respondents from random telephone survey of residents in our study population (response rate 21%) Roughly equal numbers from each province; Aboriginal response rate was quite good, but these respondents more likely from rural CSDs rather than Aboriginal communities because of self-reporting of status Compared to census data, bias toward older demographic, higher education level 354 respondents from web survey of town/band administrators in our study population (response rate 22%) Lower response rate from Aboriginal communities (12%) compared with rural (26%); differences across provinces (e.g., AB 22%, MB 17%, SK 27%, BC 16%)
Methods and Data Measures: Community needs (basic needs) Social capacity: sense of safety and security; willingness to work together Business capacity Well-being: quality of life and satisfaction with community (do not report satisfaction results today) Community type: Rural and Aboriginal Province (Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, British Columbia)
Results: Relationship Between Community Capacities and Needs Our results are consistent with research on community capitals We document a positive correlation between social and business capacity and a negative correlation between community capacities and community needs
Results: Relationship Between Community Capacities and Needs Telephone Survey 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 Business capacity Sense of safety and security Willingness to work together 1 2 3 4 Need for basic services
Results: Relationship Between Community Capacities and Needs Web Survey 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 Sense of safety and security Willingness to work together Business capacity 1 2 3 4 Need for basic services
Results: Descriptions of Well-Being Aboriginal respondents report a significantly lower quality of life than rural respondents across both the telephone and web surveys Quality of life ratings from web survey of administrators slightly lower than residents: we are still investigating differences across respondents, but it matters who you ask Some differences showing up across the provinces that merit further investigation
Results: Descriptions of Well-Being Mean 0 1 2 3 Quality of Life: Telephone Survey 2.9 2.4 Rural Aboriginal
Results: Descriptions of Well-Being Quality of Life: Telephone Survey 3.1 Mean 0 1 2 3 2.8 2.8 2.8 Manitoba Saskatchewan Alberta British Columbia
Results: Descriptions of Well-Being 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 Manitoba 2.9 2.3 Rural Aboriginal Quality of Life: Telephone Survey 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 Saskatchewan 2.8 2.4 Rural Aboriginal 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 Alberta 2.8 2.5 Rural Aboriginal 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 British Columbia 3.1 2.6 Rural Aboriginal
Results: Descriptions of Well-Being Mean 0 1 2 3 Quality of Life: Web Survey 2.7 Rural 1.8 Aboriginal
Results: Descriptions of Well-Being Mean 0 1 2 3 Quality of Life: Web Survey 2.8 2.8 2.6 2.4 Manitoba Saskatchewan Alberta British Columbia
Results: Descriptions of Well-Being 0 1 2 3 Manitoba 2.8 2.2 Rural Aboriginal 0 1 2 3 Quality of Life: Web Survey Saskatchewan 2.7 1.3 Rural Aboriginal 0 1 2 3 Alberta 2.8 2.0 Rural Aboriginal 0 1 2 3 British Columbia 2.8 1.9 Rural Aboriginal
Results: Factors Affecting Well- Being Community need is negatively related to quality of life Social and business capacity are both positively related to quality of life
Results: Factors Affecting Well- Being Telephone Survey 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 Sense of safety and security Willingness to work together Business capacity Need for basic services 1 2 3 4 Quality of life
Results: Factors Affecting Well- Being 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 Web Survey Sense of safety and security Willingness to work together Business capacity Need for basic services 1 2 3 4 Quality of life
Results: Factors Affecting Well- Being The factors that affect well-being appear (mostly) the same between rural and Aboriginal communities and across provinces There are some minor differences in importance of certain factors in some provinces that are still being investigated Based on the data from the community meetings: Each community sees and values its unique strengths and challenges in a way not apparent from numbers alone Unique historical, geographical, and economic factors have shaped the social dimension of communities so their needs are not the same
Questions?