GREAT SAND HILLS REGIONAL SURVEY: LOCAL

RESIDENTS’ ATTITUDES TOWARD THE IMPACTS OF

REGIONAL ECONOMIC ACTIVITIES.

FINAL REPORT

GREAT SAND HILLS REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY

RESEARCH REPORT PREPARED FOR THE GREAT SAND HILLS SCIENTIFIC

ADVISORY COMMITTEE

MARK NELSON

LAUREN BLACK

UNDER THE SUPERVISON OF POLO DIAZ

DEPARTMENT OF SOCIOLOGY AND SOCIAL STUDIES

UNIVERSITY OF REGINA

DECEMBER 2006

Table of Contents

1.0 Introduction .............................................................................................1

2.0 Methods ...................................................................................................1

3.0 Basic Demographics and Selected Characteristics.............................8

4.0 Impacts...................................................................................................18

4.1 Gas: current and potential impacts ................................................20

4.2 Ranching: current and potential impacts.......................................35

4.3 Tourism: current and potential impacts.........................................47

4.4 The cross impacts of gas, ranching and tourism..........................60

5.0 Conclusions ...........................................................................................69

6.0 References .............................................................................................72

7.0 Acknowledgements...............................................................................73

8.0 Appendix ................................................................................................74

i

1.0 INTRODUCTION The Great Sands Hills Regional Environmental Study Scientific Advisory Committee has been given the task of overseeing the design and implementation of a regional environmental study (RES) for the Great Sand Hills (GSH) of Saskatchewan. The goal of the RES is to obtain a strategic assessment of human activities affecting or impacting the maintenance of the ecological integrity in the GSH, and the sustainability of the region. In the context of this goal, one of the objectives of the study is to conduct a cumulative risk assessment and vulnerability analysis, through an impact assessment, for the GSH. This impact assessment will be used to develop detailed scenarios for sustainability with recommendations on preferred and alternative scenarios. This report presents the results of a survey designed to gather information about the present and future potential impacts of three economic activities–the gas industry, ranching, and tourism–upon regional households, communities, and the GSH core area (the review area of the RES). The gas industry and ranching are well-established economic activities in the region and the local population has significantly experienced the presence and impact of these activities upon their livelihoods and communities. In these terms, it was considered necessary to assess the opinion of the residents about these activities and their impacts. Tourism, on the other hand, is a less-developed industry in the region, but given its strong potential for the region’s economic development it was added to the survey. The report is divided into seven sections. The first section discusses the methodological considerations that informed the survey development and implementation. The second section describes the main demographic characteristics of the respondents. The next three sections present the responses of the interviewees about the impacts of the gas industry, ranching, and tourism upon their households, communities, and the GSH core area. The sixth section contains a brief discussion of how the respondents assess the cross-impacts among the three economic activities. The last section provides the main conclusions. 2.0 METHODS This section deals with the methodological aspects of the survey. It contains a brief discussion of the study area, the instrument used in the survey (an interview), and a description of the sample and of the process leading to its development. 2.1 THE STUDY AREA The study area includes (as indicated in the following map) all of the towns, villages, hamlets and rural areas of the four core municipalities–Fox Valley, Clinworth, Pitville, and Piapot–with an additional four municipalities that bound the core: Happyland, Miry Creek, Gull Lake, and Big Stick. The boundaries of the area were defined by the rural municipality boundaries that generally run from Cabri to Gull Lake on the east, the TransCanada Highway from Gull Lake to Maple Creek as the southern boundary, then

1

north from Maple Creek to Leader as the western boundary, and from Leader to Cabri as the northern boundary. Map 1: The Study Area

Map: Government of Saskatchewan, Saskatchewan Environment, Great Sand Hills Representative Area Ecological Reserve, 2005-02-22-mda-SE (http://www.se.gov.sk.ca/GSH/Page2.htm. Sept 15, 2006)

2

2.2 THE INSTRUMENT The survey instrument used in the survey is a 19-page interview that was integrated into a computer-aided telephone interviewing system for the purpose of facilitating the process (Appendix 1 contains the interview instrument). In the months prior to the phone survey fieldwork, the instrument was developed by members of the human capital team, with the advice and consultation of the committee as a whole. The instrument was organized into two main sections: (a) one oriented to obtain basic demographic information from the respondents (such as age, gender, community of residence, employment, knowledge of the GSH, years of residence in the area); and (b) a second section consisting of a series of question items aimed at gauging interviewees’ attitudes to the impacts of ranching, tourism and the gas industry on their households, their communities and the GSH core. Respondents were asked to consider the current impacts of each regional industry, as well as the potential impacts of an increased activity level for each industry in the region, a decreased activity level, and a continuation of the status quo in each case. Most of the questions were close-ended–respondents were provided with a list of specific answers and asked to select one of them–although open-ended questions were provided in some cases to give respondents a chance to express their own concerns about each industry. The interview was intended to take between 20 and 30 minutes and, as such, the number and scope of the questions was constrained by this time limit. The bulk of the fieldwork was conducted in April and May of 2006, with the last few interviews conducted in the first two weeks of June. The telephone interviews were conducted at the facilities of the Sample Survey and Databank Unit of the Faculty of Kinesiology and Health Studies at the University of Regina using a CATI (Computer-Aided Telephone Interviewing) system. The use of a computer-aided system, as opposed to the use of a hard-copy questionnaire, demanded considerable programming effort at the beginning of the survey project, but allowed us to streamline or skip time-consuming post-survey steps such as data entry, data cleaning and the transcription of responses to open-ended questions. A team of 15 interviewers was trained in the use of the CATI system and the characteristics of the survey instrument. This team conducted the interviews during regularly scheduled weekday-evening and Sunday-afternoon shifts. Field supervisors were present during all scheduled shifts to aid the interviewers and to ensure the quality of data collected. Care was also taken to be as flexible as possible, time wise, given the busy lifestyle of residents of rural Saskatchewan, and off-shift appointments were made whenever necessary. Only the most experienced interviewers were asked to conduct off-shift appointment interviews and at least one supervisor remained accessible to the interviewers by phone at these times. 2.3 SAMPLE SELECTION The population of the study area, according to the 2001 population census, is just under 6,000. Given the uneven distribution of the population of the area, it was decided to divide the sample into several strata. Each RM was assigned a stratum, with the exception of Happyland and Gull Lake, which were divided into two strata to avoid a potential

3

sampling bias produced by an over-representation of the residents of two large towns–Leader and Gull Lake. To prevent this potential problem the two RMs were divided into two strata each: in the case of Gull Lake we established one centred on the town of Gull Lake and the other around the town of Tompkins, while in the case of Happyland one was centred on the town of Leader and the other around the village of Prelate. Although the population of the area and the relative distribution of that population within our ten strata was known to us, developing a sampling frame that reflected that distribution proved challenging. We obtained an electronic telephone directory for Canada (SelectPhone Canada) and purchased access to enough residential listings to cover the study area. But the electronic listings, like the phone books from which they are derived, are not always clear about the specific locations of rural listings. Searching the database by “town” turns up far fewer numbers than one would expect, and no numbers for the rural residents located nearby. Searching by phone prefixes is equally problematic given that their geographic distribution does not correspond to the boundaries of specific RMs, nor are they restricted to certain towns and their environs. The only field in the database unique to each of our strata was the town postal codes. We knew the number of post office boxes existing in each town, but this represents the maximum number of households that have ever been in the town and its environs. Any number of those boxes could be going unused. There are 90 post office boxes in Golden Prairie, for example, but our database contained only 38 cases with Golden Prairie’s postal code. The trend toward a declining rural population might account for some of those empty boxes. But it is also relevant that Golden Prairie is only a 20-minute drive from the larger centre of Maple Creek. People in rural Saskatchewan tend to shop in the same place in which they work or pick up the kids from school. It stands to reason that many people have elected to pick up their mail in the larger centre where many of their other activities take place, instead of in the community that is closest to home. Thus, the lists we generated using postal codes as a search criterion were not exhaustive. Nevertheless, the number of post office boxes in the area is 2,693, and we were able to obtain 2,383 residential phone listings from the database searching by postal codes. Later, we were also able to obtain around 200 additional phone numbers that did not appear in the postal code listing by examining land ownership maps of the 8 RMs that comprise the area. Table 2.1 shows the relative sizes of the sub-samples for each stratum for various potential sample sizes, from the modest to the ambitious. The size of each sub-sample is based on the proportion of the total regional population found in each stratum. A simple random sample without these separate strata, by contrast, would have over-represented the large towns and more populous RMs and under-represented the more sparsely populated areas that are so relevant to this investigation.

4

Table 2.1: Relative strata sub-samples for various potential sample sizes

he final lists of residential (household) telephone numbers were loaded into the CATI

y the end of the interview period we had managed to keep the strata close to their proper

able 2.2 Weights

trata Population Proportion Final #s

Town(s)/StrataRM

Pop'nTown Pop'n

Strata Pop'n

Strata Prop'n n=350 n=400 n=450 n=500 n=600 n=700

Total Ph #'s

Piapot 365 55 420 0.071819 25 29 32 36 43 50 120Golden Prairie 195 55 250 0.04275 15 17 19 21 26 30 38Fox Valley 415 326 741 0.12671 44 51 57 63 76 89 222Leader-Liebenthal-Mendham 915 1221 0.208789 73 84 94 104 125 146 560Prelate 165 219 0.037449 13 15 17 19 22 26 101Sceptre-Portreeve 295 135 430 0.073529 26 29 33 37 44 51 142Abbey-Lancer-Shackleton 570 135 705 0.120554 42 48 54 60 72 84 249Hazlet 272 135 407 0.069596 24 28 31 35 42 49 112Tompkins 190 227.5 0.038902 14 16 18 19 23 27 204Gull Lake 1015 1227.5 0.209901 73 84 94 105 126 147 635

Totals 2722 3126 5848 1 350 400 450 500 600 700 2383250

360

Tsystem in separate files for each stratum. The system itself then made random selections from the sampling frames and directed the interviewers to call those households. In order to ensure that our respondents were all over the age of 18, interviewers were instructed to ask for either the male or female ‘head of household’ and the survey instrument main questions were preceded by a screening question on the respondent’s age. We carefully monitor the process to ensure that the number of respondents in each strata remained in the correct proportion. Because rural residents may live in or near one community and pick up their mail in another, we could not be sure that residential numbers assigned to one stratum did not actually belong to another. As a precaution, we included a screening question to confirm that the respondents lived within one of the 8 RMs in the study area. Bproportions, although some areas were slightly over-sampled and other slightly under-sampled. As such, when the completed survey dataset was transferred into an SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) file we applied appropriate weights to each stratum to correct its proportions and render our sample properly representative. The weights are listed in Table 2.2. T S Weight Weighted Piapot 420 0.071807 32 0.97 31 Golden Prairie 250 0.042742 16 1.15 18 Fox Valley 741 0.126688 54 1.01 55 Leader-Liebenthal-Mendham 1221 0.208754 91 0.99 90 Prelate 219 0.037442 17 0.95 16 Sceptre-Portreeve 430 0.073517 28 1.13 32 Abbey-Lancer-Shackleton 705 0.120533 66 0.79 52 Hazlet 407 0.069585 26 1.16 30 Tompkins 227.5 0.038896 19 0.88 17 Gull Lake 1228.5 0.210036 83 1.09 91

Totals 5849 1 432 1.00 432

5

The complexity of maintaining ten separate sub-samples made the systematic control of other important factors–such as the balance of gender or town/village dwellers–challenging. Fortunately at the end these balances were proportionate to those existing in the general population of the region. The gender balance of the sample came out very close to half-and-half on its own, while the overall balance of in-town and out-of-town respondents was similar to what we see in the census data. The population of the region is 47% “rural” and 53% “town.” As Table 2.3 shows, our final overall sample is 45% “rural” and 55% “town.” Table 2.3 In-town and Out-of-town residents

any of the phone numbers in our sampling frame proved to be problematic, such as a

spite of all these limitations a total of 432 interviews were completed. On the whole,

.4 SUMMARY

• The geographic area in which our phone survey took place was comprised of the 8

• w contained basic demographic questions as well as

Rural Pop'n

Town Pop'n

Strata Pop'n

Strata %

Rural %

Town %

Rural %

Town %

Strata %

Strata #

Rural #

Town #

Piapot 365 55 420 7% 87% 13% 87% 13% 7% 31 27 4Golden Prairie 195 55 250 4% 78% 22% 74% 26% 4% 19 14 5Fox Valley 415 326 741 13% 56% 44% 44% 56% 13% 54 24 30Leader-Liebenthal-Mendham 915 1221 21% 25% 75% 24% 76% 21% 90 22 68Prelate 165 219 4% 25% 75% 25% 75% 4% 16 4 1SceptrePortreeve 295 135 430 7% 69% 31% 56% 44% 7% 32 18 14Abbey-Lancer-Shackleton 570 135 705 12% 81% 19% 60% 40% 12% 53 32 21Hazlet 272 135 407 7% 67% 33% 70% 30% 7% 30 21 9Tompkins 190 227.5 4% 16% 84% 65% 35% 4% 17 11 6Gull Lake 1015 1227.5 21% 17% 83% 24% 76% 21% 91 22 69

Totals 2722 3126 5848 100% 47% 53% 45% 55% 100% 433 195 238

Final Sample n=432Population Distribution Strata

250

360 2

Mrather large number of disconnected lines, which could be explained in terms of the trends that characterize population issues in rural Saskatchewan (aging, out-migration), and by the presence of transient workers. We also encountered a large number of residential numbers which were connected, but for which we were never able to get an answer. An explanation for these “no-answer” situation is found in our timing. We went into the field in the middle of calving season and finished up in the middle of seeding. As well, survey fatigue and the prevalence of “call-display” might explain the “no-answers.” Inour refusal rates were comparable to similar surveys we have done in rural Saskatchewan. We attribute this in large part to our effort to inform the people in the study area in advance of our survey by distributing flyers and advertising the upcoming survey in the local papers. By the end of our time in the field we probably rang every working phone in the region, being confident that we provided nearly everyone in the area a chance to talk to us and give their opinion on these issues. 2

RMs in the GSH study area. The 20- to 30-minute interviea series of questions on the perceived impacts of the three industries most relevant to the GSH area–gas, ranching, and tourism–on respondents’ households, their

6

communities and the GSH environment. Respondents were also asked to consider the impacts of any potential increase or decrease in those three industries. A sampling strategy was carefully developed, geared toward obtaining a• sample

• urvey was “in the field” from early April to mid-June of 2006. Out of

that would be representative of the spatial distribution of the population in the study area. Great care was taken to insure that no group or area would be over- or under-represented. Despite some of the unique challenges to implementing such an approach in the context of modern rural Saskatchewan, the strategy proved successful. The phone sthe nearly 2,700 households in the study area, we were able to obtain a final sample size of 432 adults.

7

3.0 BASIC DEMOGRAPHICS AND SELECTED FREQUENCIES In addition to questions aimed at gauging people’s attitudes toward the three main economic activities in the area and their impacts, several other question items related to the demographic characteristics of the respondents were included in the survey instrument. This section describes the responses provided by the interviewees to these questions, which were designed to obtain information about (a) some the basic personal characteristics of the respondents; and (b) other respondents’ characteristics relevant to the analysis of the impacts. 3.1 THE DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SAMPLE Several questions oriented to gather basic information about the respondents–gender, age, number of residents in the household, and education–were asked in order to identify different type of respondents. This section of the report provides the most relevant patterns found in the responses to those questions:

• The gender distribution of the sample was as expected: of the 432 survey participants, 47% are male and 53% are female. Saskatchewan as a whole, by comparison, is 49% male and 51% female.

• As Figure 3.1 illustrates, our sample consists of a healthy range of age groups.

When we group our respondents’ ages by decade we see a nearly normal curve to the distribution. In conducting a phone survey in rural Saskatchewan, especially during particularly busy times of the year, there is always a danger of introducing an age- related bias into the sample. Older, retired people are simply more likely to be home and answer the phone than younger or middle-aged people who may be working through the evening hours. As such, the healthy range of ages, with an average age in the 50s, allows us to generalize our results to the larger population without concern for a large age-related bias.

Figure 3.1 Respondents' ages

3%

10%

17%

29%

20%

11%

8%

3%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%

18-25 years

26-35 years

36-45 years

46-55 years

56-65 years

66-75 years

76-85 years'

85+ years

8

• The oldest person interviewed was 91 years of age and the youngest was 18. The average (mean) age of the people of the respondents was 53, with a median age for the entire sample of 51 years. This average is rather high compared to the province as a whole, which is 36.7 years according to the 2001 Population Census. This difference is to a large extent a sampling artifact –our target population consisted of GSH area residents who were 18 years old or more–– but is also related to a well-know trend that characterizes the demographic realities of rural Saskatchewan: the out-migration of young people leading to an aging of the rural population. Nevertheless, when we compare the age distribution of our sample with data from the 2001 census we find that our sample distribution is fairly close to that of rural Saskatchewan as a whole in terms of age distribution (Figure 3.2).

F igure 3.2 A ge distribut io n o f sample co mpared to census data fo r rural Saskatchewan

7%

36%

21%

14%

12%

7%

2%3%

24%

29%

20%

13%

8%

3%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

20 to 24 25 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 to 74 75 to 84 85 +

2001 Census GSH Survey

Source: Statistics Canada, Statistical Area Classification: Highlight Tables, 2001 Counts, for Canada, Provinces and Territories.

• Of the respondents, 20% reported living by themselves and 49% reported living in two-person households. The remaining live in households of 3 or more people. The relationship between age and household composition is as expected. Larger households tend to be reported by respondents who are at an age when people tend to have children at home. Almost (94%) of the households with 3 or more people in them are reported by people under the age of 55; in fact 72% of such households are reported by people between the ages of 36 and 55. One- and two-person households are mostly reported by older respondents. Fully 86% of all the two-person households reported are found among respondents over the age of 45 years, and two-thirds of the one-person households in the sample are found among respondents over the age of 55.

• Of the 432 respondents, 84% had children, though only one-quarter of those have

young children (under 18 years of age). Of those who have adult children, 58% indicate that some of those adult children still live in the area. As Figure 3.3

9

shows, among respondents with adult children, those belonging to the older cohort are more likely to have grown children remaining in the area (three quarters of them responded accordingly). By comparison, only around half of the parents under 65 years of age, with adult children, told us that their adult children have not stayed in the region. This comparison of the two cohorts provides an illustration of the worsening phenomenon of the out-migration of young people in recent years. The children of the older group, making their life and career path decisions years or decades before the children of the younger group, were far more likely to have chosen to make their lives close to home.

Figure 3.3 Of your grown children, do any of them live in the region, by age group of parents

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

46-55 years 56-65 years 66-75 years 76-85 years 85+ years

Yes No

• In terms of education levels, 22% of our respondents have less than Grade 12, and

32% have Grade 12 or GED. 15% have partially completed technical school, trade school or university. Around 15% have completed trade/technical school, 16% have completed a university certificate, BA or Master’s degree. Table 3.1 shows a comparison of the educational attainment of the people in our sample compared with data from the 2001 census for rural Saskatchewan as a whole. Our sample contains a relatively higher proportion of people who have completed high school than is the case for all of rural Saskatchewan, a relatively lower number of people who have completed trade school or college, but the same proportion of university graduates.

Table 3.1: Education levels in the GSH sample compared to the education levels for rural Saskatchewan Education level 2001 Census: Rural Sask. GSH Survey Sample Less than high school and/or some post-secondary 37% 22% High school and/or some post-secondary 22% 47% Trades certificate or diploma 17% 12% College certificate or diploma 13% 8% University certificate, diploma or degree 11% 11%

Total 100% 100% Source: Statistics Canada, Statistical Area Classification: Highlight Tables, 2001 Counts, for Canada, Provinces and Territories.

10

3.2 DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS RELEVANT TO THE GSH This section describes the responses to several questions that are relevant in terms of attitudes toward the impacts of the three main economic activities in the region. They involve employment and occupational characteristics of the respondents, their distribution in terms of residence, their time of residence in the region, and their level of knowledge of the GSH core area. 3.2.1 EMPLOYMENT AND OCCUPATIONAL TRENDS Less than one-third of the respondents–28%–are not in the paid workforce. From this group, slightly over two-thirds are retired, one-tenth identify themselves as homemakers, and the rest are on disability, looking for employment, or are students. Among those who reported being part of the workforce, their occupational distribution was as expected, with a large segment of people involved in agriculture. Figure 3.4 shows the occupational status of the respondents who are active in the workforce. When asked about their main occupational status during the past year, just over half reported that it was in farming/ranching (of them 52% are farmers, 27% are ranchers and 21% report working on a mixed operation); another 38% told us that they were engaged in paid employment (81% full time, 19% part time); and only 10% reported that their main occupation was in a business that they own themselves.

Figure 3.4 Occupational status

Farm/Ranch52%

Paid employment38%

Own business10%

The regional economy is predominantly agricultural. The harsh conditions that have characterized the agricultural economy during the last decades have impacted regional households and, as a result, the need for extra income is predominant. Fully one-third of our respondents reported having a second or third job in addition to the main occupations listed in Figure 3.4. When we include people who list farm- or ranch-related work among their second or third jobs, the percentage of people in our sample employed in agriculture goes up to 62%. There is no clear division when it comes to town vs. rural dwellers in

11

terms of employment in agriculture. Of the town respondents who are in the workforce, 15% reported that their primary occupation was in the agriculture industry. That number doubles (to 30%) when we include both primary and secondary occupations. In fact, one-tenth of the people who reported employment in agriculture also report owning no agricultural property. The relevance of the gas industry in the region is clearly demonstrated in terms of the proportion of respondents who are job- and/or income-dependent on the existence of this industry and related economic activities. Of the people we surveyed, fully 40% reported having some income from the gas industry, as Figure 3.5 indicates, either in the form of wages from gas industry employment or from revenue generated from gas wells on their property. Altogether, 10% report having some employment with the gas industry, but no wells, 26% report having an income from wells with no gas industry employment, and 4% of the people who spoke to us reported income from both sources That number encompasses all employment with the industry, not just people who work exclusively for the gas companies, but also those who have part-time work or work in a support industry. The scope of the survey instrument, however, was not sufficient to capture all of the potential income transfers between the gas companies and the residents. There are, for example, a number of occasional or one-time fees for services or damages upon which our residents did not inform.

Figure 3.5 Income from gas industry, with source

Yes,emplmnt & wells4%

Yes,wells only26%

No income from gas ind60%

Yes,emplmnt only10%

Income from the gas industry is derived from wells existing on land owned or leased by farmers and ranchers. The existence of a large number of gas wells in the region certainly impacts upon agricultural and ranching activities by increasing the income of both farmers and ranchers. In our sample, 57% of the respondents either own or lease agricultural land and 28% report having deeded or leased land in the Great Sand Hills core area. Of those with agricultural land holdings, more than half (52%) have gas wells on their property. Of those who have gas wells, 11% have wells exclusively on leased land, another 70% have wells only on deeded land, and 19% have gas wells on both leased and deeded land.

12

3.2.2 DISTRIBUTION OF THE RURAL/URBAN POPULATION IN THE AREA The respondents were, in terms of place of residence, evenly divided between people living in one of the towns located in the 8 RMs and people living in the vicinity, in places such as farms and ranches: town dwellers make up 55% of our sample, while the remaining 45% live in rural settings. Respondents in the three largest towns in the area together, account for 70% of the town dwellers in the sample. Altogether, nearly 30% of the townspeople we talked with live in Gull Lake, 28% live in Leader, and 12% in Fox Valley. Those living in rural settings were asked to identify their community (a definable aggregation of households, interconnected by a common identity, and with a limited spatial extent). As is well known, people do not necessarily identify the nearest community as theirs. In fact, from Table 3.2 we can see that many of the respondents identify with a community outside the 8 RMs in the GSH area. Maple Creek is listed by 13% of our respondents as their community, for example. Table 3.2: Out-of-town respondents' community affiliations Farm/Ranch Residents (n=194) Which community do you most strongly identify with?

Gull Lake 13% Maple Creek 13% Fox Valley 10% Hazlet 10% Leader 9% Abbey 8% Lancer 7% Piapot 7% Sceptre 6% Tompkins 4% Golden Prairie 4% Other 4% Prelate 1% Cabri 1% Swift Current 1% Burstall 1% Liebenthal 1% Total 100% 3.2.3 TIME OF RESIDENCE IN THE AREA The population of the area can be characterized as highly stable. All RMs in the area contain very large proportions of people who have resided there for a very long time. Furthermore, the most important demographic trends in rural Saskatchewan, the aging population, rural depopulation and the out-migration of young people, are reflected in “time of residence in the community” reported by our respondents. It is difficult for rural

13

communities to attract new people. More than half of the people we interviewed have lived in their community 30 years or more. Only 30% have lived there for 20 years or less, while recent arrivals (within a year) account for only 1% of the sample. As Figure 3.6 illustrates, this situation is not distributed evenly across the 8 RMs of the GSH area. The most long-established populations are to be found in Miry Creek, Big Stick and Clinworth. Some of the newest populations are found in the RMs of Happyland, Gull Lake, Fox Valley, Pittville and Piapot. Happyland and Gull Lake contain the area’s two largest towns (Leader and town of Gull Lake). The RMs of Fox Valley, Happyland and Gull Lake and also contain some of the highest levels of gas industry employment, which could serve as a partial explanation for their newer populations (though the highest proportion of gas industry employment is found in the RM of Big Stick, which is also home to the second most long-established population).

Figure 3.6 Time in community by RM

5%

5%

13%

23%

19%

7%

17%

31%

5%

8%

25%

12%

20%

10%

6%

6%

14%

13%

11%

16%

18%

5%

14%

9%

76%

74%

51%

48%

43%

79%

64%

54%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Big Stick

Clinworth

Fox Valley

Gull Lake

Happyland

Miry Creek

Piapot

Pittville

<10 years 10 - 19 years 20 - 29 years 30+ years

3.2.4 KNOWLEDGE OF THE GSH CORE AREA Given that many of the questions concerned the impacts of economic activities upon the GSH area, we asked the respondents about their level of knowledge of the. Regarding knowledge of the area, approximately one-quarter of our respondents claim a “very high” level of familiarity with the GSH, another 22% claim a “high” level. A moderate level of knowledge is reported by about one-third (34%) of the respondents. Close to one-tenth (11%) indicate a “low” level and another 8% tell us that they have a “very low” level. Overall, the majority of respondents (81%) tended to rate themselves as having a moderate to very high level of knowledge about the Great Sand Hills (see Figure 3.7).

14

Figure 3.7 How would you rate your familiarity with the Great Sand Hills?

Very high25%

High22%

Moderate34%

Low11%

Very low8%

Familiarity with the GSH varies geographically, as seen in Table 3.3. The RMs whose residents report the lowest levels of familiarity with the GSH (Big Stick, Piapot and Gull Lake) are the three southernmost ones, meanwhile the highest levels of familiarity are found among residents of the two RMs in the north-east corner of the GSH region (Clinworth and Miry Creek). Perhaps the explanation for this phenomenon lies with the roads and highways in the area. People in the three southernmost RMs have the easiest access to Highway #1 and may, therefore, simply live a day to day life that involves more travel beyond the GSH area than is the case in the RMs to the north. Furthermore, road access to the GSH core area itself is largely found in the northern RMs, especially in the northeast. Also, given the fact that many of the larger ranches in the GSH area are found in the north and northeast, and that many of these cover parts of the core area, it is possible that the daily life and work of the northern and northeastern RM residents take them into the GSH core area more often and more intensively than is the case for people in the southern RMs. Within the 4 RMs that physically contain the core area of the GSH, 57% of the residents in our sample have a high or very high level of familiarity, 30% have a moderate level and only 13% say that they have only a low or very low level of familiarity with the GSH. By comparison, 23% of the respondents who live in the other 4 RMs have a low or very low level of familiarity, with 36% having a moderate level. Of the respondents who live within RMs that do not contain the main areas of the GSH, 40% report a high or very high level of familiarity with the GSH. Table 3.3: Self-rated level of familiarity with GSH, by RM of residence

High/Very high Moderate Low/Very low TotalBig Stick 33% 33% 33% 100%Clinworth 77% 21% 3% 100%Fox Valley 52% 33% 15% 100%Gull Lake 26% 39% 35% 100%Happyland 49% 37% 14% 100%

Familiarity with Great Sand HillsRM of residence

Miry Creek 60% 26% 14% 100%Piapot 49% 29% 23% 100%Pittville 51% 40% 9% 100%

15

As Table 3.4 shows, farmers and ranchers tend to report higher levels of familiarity with the GSH than do business people and the lowest levels of familiarity are to be found among people who are engaged in paid employment and people who are not in the workforce. People who live in those RMs that contain the core area of the GSH also tend to report higher levels of familiarity than those who do not. Table 3.4: Self-rated familiarity with GSH, by main occupational status

Familiarity with GSH Main occupational status High/Very high Moderate Low/Very low Total Farm/Ranch 52% 36% 13% 100% Own business 48% 38% 14% 100% Paid employment 44% 35% 21% 100% Not in workforce/other 44% 28% 28% 100% As Table 3.5 indicates, people who have been in the area longest tend to report higher levels on familiarity with the GSH than people who have not lived in the area as long. This is not just a function of age or having more education, as we can find no significant statistical relationship between age and familiarity, and education level and self-rated level of familiarity with the GSH. It seems familiarity has more to do with knowledge gained “on the ground” by the people who move in and through the area the most. Table 3.5: Self-rated familiarity with the GSH, by time in the community

Familiarity with GSH Time in Community High/Very high Moderate Low/Very low Total 14 years or less 33% 33% 35% 100% 15 to 29 years 35% 45% 19% 100% 30 years or more 58% 29% 13% 100% Knowledge and experience are different things, and when asked how often they visit the Great Sand Hills, it shows a lesser amount of direct experience on a frequent basis (Table 3.6). This leads to the question: if the great majority of respondents (76%) are in the Great Sand Hills only “every few months” or less, where do they get their knowledge from, if not from direct experience? Since investigation of the “sources of knowledge” was not within the scope of the phone survey project, we can only speculate. We were able, however, to establish a core of respondents who report both high levels of familiarity and frequent visits to the core area. This core consists largely of people involved in either agriculture, the gas industry or a combination of the two.

16

Table 3.6: How often do you visit the GSH?

Frequency of visits Percentage Daily 9% Weekly 7% Monthly 9% Every few months 10% Seasonally 16% Once a year 18% Less than once a year 23% Never 9%

Total 100%

3.3 SUMMARY An examination of the demographic characteristics of our sample, and a comparison of those characteristics with data from the 2001 census, show us that the sample is not radically different from the adult population of rural Saskatchewan. As such, we can consider it a fair representation of the population of the GSH area and can comfortably generalize our results:

• Agriculture still predominates in the region, being the largest occupational status category with over half of the respondents in the sample engaged in paid agricultural employment;

• A large proportion of the respondents –one-third– reported having a second or third job in addition to the main occupations, a phenomenon clearly related to the upheavals of the agricultural economy.

• In this context, the gas industry provides jobs and/or revenues that allow many regional households to cope with the uncertainties of the agricultural economy: forty percent of the respondents indicated that they are dependent on income from the gas industry.

• While the population of the region is declining overall, there is a certain stability in the composition of those communities, in that most of the people who live in the area have been there for a long time, and are likely to remain.

• Over four-fifths of the respondents tended to rate themselves as having a moderate to very high level of knowledge about the Great Sand Hills, although the number of respondents reporting periodical visits to the area is significantly lower. Levels of familiarity vary across the 8 RMs, with higher levels found in places where people’s day-to-day work and travel bring them closer to the core area, as well as where access to the core area is easy. In addition, farmers and ranchers tend to report higher levels of familiarity.

17

4.0 IMPACTS As was discovered in the ethnographic study that took place in the summer of 2005, several issues intersect and influence each other in the Great Sand Hills area. The main industries of natural gas, ranching/farming, and a budding tourism industry are all impacted by variations in the other industries. Likewise, each of these industries impact the communities and residents of the GSH area. The gas industry in the GSH area, for example, is unique in rural Saskatchewan, both in its extent and concentration and in the fact that these natural gas resources and industry activity are located in a particularly unique and sensitive environmental context. Revenues from the gas industry give the GSH area residents a unique advantage not seen in most other rural regions of the province. Many of the area’s farmers and ranchers, hard hit by the various crises in agriculture in recent years –such as the B.S.E. crisis or the “cost/price squeeze” in grain farming–, have access to a much-needed source of funding that their counterparts in other places do not. Often, these revenues are all that keep a family operation afloat. Ranching, on the other side, is a long-established industry in this part of the province and, as such, enjoys a particular prominence and respect in local tradition and culture. Ranchers are seen, by area residents, as responsible custodians of the land and environment, while ranching is seen by those engaged in the industry as not only their preferred occupation, but also as their preferred way of life. Like the gas industry, the nascent tourism industry is regarded as a potential rescuer for local families and communities. The GSH area has the advantage of a unique and beautiful landscape that could potentially form the basis of a profitable tourist industry. The current extent of that industry, however, is rather modest and still concentrated in leisure activities such as hunting. Like the gas industry, it offers hope for the future. Question items were included in the survey instrument that attempted to gauge people’s attitudes and opinions regarding the relevance of each of these three industries. We asked them, first of all, to tell us if they thought there were positive and/or negative impacts from each of these three industries at the level of their “individual household,” at the “community” level and at the broader level of the “GSH environment” itself. Respondents who told us that there were indeed impacts at these levels were asked to select what they viewed as the most relevant ones from a supplied list and describe any other relevant impacts outside the list. They were then asked a series of questions about the effects on their “households,” their “communities” and the “GSH environment” of an “increase” in each of the three industries and the effects of a “decrease” in each. In addition to the hypothetical increase and decrease in each industry, respondents were also asked to evaluate the effects of a continuation of each industry at its present extent. In most cases, however, 90% of respondents, or more, told us that there would be “no effect” on their families, their communities or the GSH in case of this potential

18

continuation. We decided, therefore, to limit the discussion in this report to the respondents’ evaluations of potential increases and decreases in the three key industries. Respondents were asked about their preferred scenarios in relation to each of the three economic activities. They were asked if they preferred more, the same, or a reduced development of gas, ranching, and tourism. Figure 4.0.1 compares the responses. Two thirds and three quarters of the respondents support an increase in the development of the gas industry and tourism respectively. Preferences in relation to ranching, on the other side, were more inclined to maintaining the existing level of development (although one third of the respondents choose more development). This choice is not a rejection of ranching but rather a recognition of the fact that the activity has natural limits for its expansion in the region. “Less development” as a preferred scenario appears as an important category only in the case of the gas industry, where 10% of the respondents expressed that inclination.

66%

24%

10%

36%

63%

1%

70%

26%

4%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Gas Ranching Tourism

Figure 4.0.1 Preferred levels of development: gas, ranching and tourism industries

More development Same amount of development Less development

The following section of this report details the results of the question areas discussed above. This section is divided into four subsections. There is a subsection for each of the three industries–gas, ranching and tourism–with the structure of the subsection echoing that of the survey itself. Thus, each begins with a discussion of the respondents’ perception of the existence of positive and negative impacts of each industry. Next, the nature of these impacts is detailed. Finally, we examine the perceived consequences of any hypothetical expansion or decline in that industry. Finally, the fourth subsection reports on peoples’ perceptions of the ways in which the three industries interact and influence each other. The cumulative responses to the various question items in each of these areas of the survey allow us to investigate the subjective perceptions of the main economic engines of

19

the GSH area from the perspective of the local people, as informed by their unique concerns, interests, and views. 4.1 GAS: CURRENT AND POTENTIAL IMPACTS The gas industry has been a feature of the landscape in the GSH region and an influence on the local communities and economies since the 1950s. The bulk of the gas activity takes place on the west side of the area with a smaller concentration in the northeast corner in the RM of Miry Creek. The long-established nature of the industry in the GSH area makes it largely a known quantity among area residents. People are mostly aware, through their lived experiences and those of their neighbours, of the various impacts of gas activity on their lives and environment. In recent years, the aging of rural populations and the out-migration of youth, combined with ongoing difficulties faced by people in the agriculture industry and the growing importance of natural gas in the global energy sector, have served to highlight the importance of the industry to the future of the GSH area communities in people’s minds. Of the area residents who took part in the ethnographic interviews in 2005, a large majority expressed enthusiasm for more development as the single factor that might ensure their communities’ futures. The gas industry was seen as an important element in ensuring the viability of the communities by providing taxes, revenue for landowners and employment, and promising future growth to an extent unmatched by any other local industry. The discussion of the relevance of the gas industry is separated into two sections: “Current Impacts” and “Potential Impacts.” The current impacts section will detail responses to a series of question items aimed at examining the effects on respondents’ households and communities as well as the GSH environment in the present. The Potential Impacts section contains an examination of the impact at these three levels of a potential increase or decrease in gas industry activity.

20

4.1.1 CURRENT IMPACTS OF THE GAS INDUSTRY While the gas industry is often reported as essential to maintaining the livelihoods of many households and communities in the region, Table 4.1.1 shows that while there is definitely a positive economic impact of this industry, there are also drawbacks. Table 4.1.1: Are there positive and negative impacts from the gas industry? Are there any positive impacts stemming from the gas industry on…

… your Household?

… your Community? …the GSH?

Yes 56% 86% 44% No 44% 14% 56%

Total 100% 100% 100% Are there any negative impacts stemming from the gas industry on…

… your Household?

… your Community? …the GSH?

Yes 15% 27% 50% No 85% 73% 50%

Total 100% 100% 100% For a large proportion of the respondents (86%) the community benefits most from the presence of the gas industry. Spin-offs would include more revenue for established local business, such as community restaurants, hotels, machinery shops, fuel retailers, and grocery stores. Enthusiasm about the positive impacts of the gas industry on communities is reduced, however, in relation to households (56%) and the GSH core area (44%). The impacts of the gas industry cannot be determined to be mainly positive or mainly negative. In terms of the relationship between the gas industry and individual households, Table 4.1.2 lists the reasons why the gas industry can both be a positive and negative influence on a household. The positive impacts are fundamentally economic, ranging from access to jobs to the generation of extra income. Negative impacts, on the other hand, involve a disruption of the household’s quality of life.

21

Table 4.1.2: Impacts of the gas industry on household, specified Positive impacts of the gas industry on household, specified Yes,

mentioned Not

MentionedIt provides their household with employment 49% 51% The gas income or revenue is a necessary supplement to their agricultural income 40% 60% Allows them to meet basic household expenses 36% 64% Allows them to afford extras like vacations, newer vehicles, leisure, higher standard of living, etc 23% 77% Revenue for the region, businesses 5% 95%

Negative impacts of the gas industry on household, specified Yes, mentioned

Not Mentioned

Damage to land from road/trail network, pad sites, etc 34% 66% Disruption to household from extra traffic, demands from gas workers, etc 28% 72% General disruption to quality of life 18% 82% Long term damage to agricultural land 17% 83% Difficulties or conflicts with gas employees 14% 86% Negative impacts to water 9% 91% Requires unpaid monitoring of land and property 8% 92% Damage to their roads 5% 95% Gas, chemicals, by-products etc. are toxic to people 4% 96% There is a higher proportion of respondents reporting negative impacts to the household among those with a “high” or “very high” level of familiarity with the Great Sand Hills area. One-fifth (21%) report negative impacts, compared to only 10% of those with a “moderate” level of familiarity and 8% for those with a “low” or “very low” level. This trend is again confirmed in Figure 4.1.1, where we find that a higher proportion of respondents who make “daily” visits to the Great Sand Hills area (22%) report negative impacts from the gas industry on their household. These daily visitors are mostly ranchers or farmers whose work and lifestyle have the potential to conflict with the activity of the gas industry. On the other hand, only 11% of the respondents who visit the GSH once a year or less report these negative effects on their households. These seasonal visitors might live further away from the Sand Hills, but enjoy using them for recreation or family outings. Considering tourist activity is at its height in the summer months and the gas industry, while at its height in winter, is also highly active in the summer, the visibility and presence of gas equipment and vehicles may negatively impact recreational use of the Great Sand Hills for “tourist season” visitors. But area residents who use the GSH only for seasonal recreation or family outings will likely not encounter the sorts of day-to-day negative effects of gas activity in their households.

22

Figure 4.1.1 Are there negative impacts from the gas industry on your household?, by frequency of visits to GSH

78% 85% 84% 89%

22% 15% 16% 11%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

Daily/Weekly Monthly/Every fewmonth

Seasonally/Once a yr <Once a yr/Never

YesNo

Those who own or lease agricultural land are more likely to report positive impacts from the gas industry on their household. The pattern then seems to contradict itself: those who own or lease agricultural land also say there are negative impacts. For this comparison, 68% of those who reported positive impacts to their household own/lease land. But at the same time, as Table 4.1.3 shows, three-quarters of the respondents who report negative impacts are also land owners/leasers. However, more than half of the respondents who told us that there are no negative impacts are land owners/leasers too, as are 44% of those who report no positive impacts. Again, in some cases the financial benefits of having gas wells on one’s property may overshadow the negative aspects. Still, landowners were more likely than non-land owners/leasers to report the existence of negative impacts. Table 4.1.3: Perception of negative impacts stemming from the gas industry on their household by ownership of agricultural land

Are there any negative impacts stemming from the gas industry on your household? Do you currently own or lease any

agricultural land? Yes No Yes 76% 55% No 24% 45%

Total 100% 100% Other trends were:

• Financial benefits were one of the most frequently cited positive aspects resulting from the gas industry. Those who had gas wells on their land would benefit financially from varying levels of compensation, as well as some local

23

employment, while those who lived in town and did not own or lease any land

•

those who have wells on leased land. Further, approximately 28% of the respondents leased or

•

ng no benefits from the gas wells on their household have those wells on deeded property, so lower revenues from wells on leased land are

•

arters (73%) of land owners/leasers report negative impacts, while only one quarter (27%) of non-land

•

se respondents living outside of the towns/villages, around two-thirds (63%) report positive impacts on their own

•

around 60% report seeing positive household impacts from the gas industry. Among respondents employed

(76%), business dollars (47%), and x revenue for the RM (35%). Of interest is the fact that very few (5%) considered the

also stand to benefit from employment in the gas industry.

Just over half of our respondents (52%) reported having gas wells on their property. In this group, 70% had gas wells on deeded land, 11% reported wells on their leased land, and 18% had wells on a combination of both deeded and leased land. The reason for differentiating between the presence of wells on deeded vs. leased land lies with the differing compensation levels. Typically, those with gas wells on deeded land receive a much higher level of revenue than

owned land within the defined core area of the Great Sand Hills.

As expected, roughly 71% of those who report positive impacts from the gas industry on their households have gas wells on their property. What is interesting is the 20% who report no positive impacts, yet do have gas wells. Most (80%) of those people reporti

not the explanation.

Again, results show both negative and positive reactions to the presence of gas wells on leased or owned land. Around three qu

owners/leasers report negative impacts to the household.

People who live in a town or village are less likely to report a positive impact on their household from the gas industry than are people living outside the settlements in the area. Among town dwellers, half report positive impacts and half do not. By contrast, among tho

households and one-third (37%) do not.

The perception of positive impacts on the household from the gas industry also varies by occupational status. People outside the workforce have the smallest proportion of respondents reporting positive impacts (42%). For both farmers/ranchers, and for people employed by others,

in their own businesses, that percentage rises to 68%. Positive impacts stemming from the gas industry on the community were most often regarded as highly beneficial (see Table 4.1.4). Through gas well revenues, tax revenue, and direct and indirect employment, life for residents in the GSH region depends fairly heavily on this industry’s financial inputs. This is evidenced in the top three mentioned positive impacts to the community level: employment tagas industry as a mechanism for population retention.

24

As is the theme throughout this report, there are two sides to everything. Despite the economic advantages of having natural gas in the area, the top three negative impacts to

e community from the gas industry are road damage (50%), issues with the transient mployees (10%).

ied

pecified me d Me d

thworkforce (17%), and feelings of alienation regarding gas e Table 4.1.4: Impacts of the gas industry on community, specif

Positive impact of the gas industry on community, s Yes, ntione

Not ntione

Provides employment to community members 76% 24% Brings in customers to local businesses and services 47% 53% Provides tax base revenue to the RM 35% 65% Provides donations and funding to the community 33% 67% Retains population 5% 95%

Negative impact of the gas industry on community, specified me d Me d Yes, ntione

Not ntione

Damage to roads 50% 50% Problems in the community from the transient workforce 17% 83% Feelings of alienation between community members and gas employees 10% 90% Gas industry employees not supporting the local economy 8% 92% Negative impacts from gas fumes/pollution 6% 94% Demanding/expecting businesses and services to work around their schedule 5% 95% Disrupts ranchers 5% 95% Negative impacts to water 4% 96% Destroys land 4% 96% When it comes to the perception of the relationship between the gas industry and the GSH environment, gas industry activity was perceived as having some positive impacts. Most commonly mentioned (see Table 4.1.5) was the fact that increased roads and trails throughout the Great Sand Hills are handy in the event of a grass fire. Secondly, when gas companies apply to drill on a particular area of land, they must first submit an Environmental Protection Plan (EPP). The knowledge and documentation contained in these EPPs may capture the presence of rare or endangered species in the process, which contributes to the knowledge base about the area. Finally, the development of water ources was cited as a positive impact from the gas industry in the Great Sand Hills.

y on the Great Sand Hills included damage to

sMuch of the wildlife and cattle make use of these increased water sources. However, parts of the Great Sand Hills area have already been established as ecologically sensitive. There is the potential for serious, irreversible damage to these delicate areas. As Table 4.1.5 makes evident, many of the respondents mentioned damage, or potential for damage, resulting from gas activity in inappropriate areas. It is interesting that roads and trails were the most-mentioned item for both positive and negative impacts. Again, there are positive uses for roads and trails, but they can also be destructive for grasses, birds, and other wildlife, and may foster soil and sand erosion. Once a trail is established, there is then the potential for more use on it, or inappropriate use, such as off-roading tourists. Other negative impacts of the gas industr

25

wildlife habitat, plants, and grasses in the area, as well as externally introduced damage, uch as noxious weeds or chemical spills.

Table 4.1.5: Impacts of the gas industry on GSH, specified

me d Me d

s

Positive impact of the gas industry on GSH, specified Yes,

ntioneNot

ntioneDevelops roads and trails that can be useful i.e. for fighting fires 45% 55% Through such things as EPPs identify and protect rare species 31% 69% Develops water sources 20% 80% revenue benefits agriculture 11% 89% gas industry has good environmental standards 7% 93%

Negative impact of the gas industry on GSH, specified me d Me dYes, ntione

Not ntione

Damage from construction of roads and trails 46% 54% Ecological damage to wildlife habitat 44% 56% Ecological damage from drilling 39% 61% Ecological damage to rare plants 35% 65% Ecological damage from spills 32% 68% Ecological damage from introduction of foreign species or noxious weeds 32% 68% Damage to water supply (including underground sources) 13% 87% Conflicts with ranching industry (i.e. cattle getting loose, broken fences, etc.) 10% 90% general environmental damage 10% 90% damage e. garbage 6% 94% from gas crews, i. 4.1.2 THE POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF AN INCREASE IN THE GAS

INDUSTRY The RM of Big Stick had the highest proportion of respondents (71%) indicating a preference for increased gas development (Table 4.1.6). Notably, all the RMs had a majority share indicating a preference for more gas development, with the smallest proportion (55%) coming from Miry Creek. An RM’s preference would seem to depend on many things: the political climate in the RM, the presence of other industries that would also provide income and revenue, the geographic nature of the land within the RM, nd the respondents’ perceptions, meaning whether they tended to have a more protective

gas development was harmless to the nvironment.

e 4.1.6: Preferred level of the RM

M s in

dev ent Sam unt

Le s in

dev ent

aview of nature, or whether they believed e

Tabl gas industry by

RM

ore gadustry

elopm e amo

ss gadustry

elopm TotalBig Stick 71% 14% 14% 100%

Clinworth 69% 21% 10% 100%

Happyland 69% 21% 10% 100%

Fox Valley 66% 28% 6% 100%

Gull Lake 65% 26% 9% 100%

26

Pittville 64% 28% 8% 100%

Piapot 60% 26% 14% 100%

Miry Creek 55% 29% 17% 100%

Most respondents are optimistic about the potential impacts on their households of an

crease in gas industry activity. In terms of the specific potential benefits listed in the sur ,more g

• positive/very

• om

•

•

day-to-day basis) as a result of increased gas industry activity. There would be no such

tive and negative impacts n employment opportunities and business/farm/ranch benefits from an increase in gas dustry activity are not evenly distributed across RMs. Positive impacts on employment

4.1.7: Impact of increas ho ’ e rtunities

pact

invey the proportion of respondents who expect to see some household benefit from

as activity in the GSH area is always over 50%.

• Just over half of the respondents expect to see a very positive or positive effect on their “employment opportunities” (56%) and on the “location of thoseemployment opportunities” (51%). More than half (58%) of the respondents would expect to see a positive impact on their “revenue from gas wells” if the industry were to expand. Potential positive or very positive impacts to one’s “business, farm or ranch” fran expanded gas industry were reported by 57% of the respondents. Around two-thirds of the respondents would anticipate a positive (27%) or very positive (37%) impact on their household income should gas activity increase. Only about a third of the respondents felt that their household would encounter negative or very negative impacts on their natural environment (the natural environment as experienced directly by members of the household on a

effect according to another 45% of the people in our sample, and 21% actually see a potential for positive/very positive impacts on their local environment.

As Tables 4.1.7, 4.1.10 and 4.1.11 illustrate, the expected posioinopportunities range from 48% in Piapot to 69% in Fox Valley. Table

ed gas activity on useholds mployment oppo

Im

RM Very/S what

Ne e No tVery/ what

P omegativ Effec

Someositive Total

Big Stick 5% 27% 68% 100% Clinworth 3% 45% 53% 100% Fox Valley 2% 29% 69% 100% Gull Lake 1% 44% 55% 100% Happyland 1% 48% 51% 100% Miry Creek 10% 33% 58% 100% Piapot 6% 45% 48% 100% Pittville 0% 40% 60% 100%

27

The number of respondents who are optimistic about the potential benefits on their household of increased gas industry activity in the GSH area generally runs at just over 50%, but when it comes to the potential positive impacts of increased gas activity on their communities the number of optimistic respondents jumps substantially. The enthusiasm for more gas industry activity was tempered somewhat for some respondents by the realization that there would be some drawbacks to such an increase: (a) negative or very negative impacts on the roads in the area were foreseen by 47% of respondents (and yet 43% actually felt that the roads would be improved); and (b) one-third of the respondents expressed concern about negative impacts on the local water supply, should the gas industry in the area expand (and yet 25% thought that an expanded

ld have positive effects on the water supply). Of those respondents lture, ranchers and people with mixed operations were more likely to

re timp v Other t

•

89% of the people in our sample, and 82% saw potential positive/very positive ects of such an increase on the population levels in their area.

Perceived impacts of increased gas industry y on comm oads, by agricultural

Impact on ads Farmer Rancher Mixed farm employment

gas industry woungaged in agricue

p dic negative impacts on community roads, while farmers were more likely to predict ro ements (Table 4.1.8).

rends are:

• Fully 92% of respondents told us that more gas activity would mean positive or very positive impacts on employment opportunities in their communities. Only 6% said there’d be no effect and only 2% saw negative/very negative impacts in their communities.

• Over three-quarters of our respondents expect a positive/very positive impact on tax assessment in their area stemming from an increase in gas activity. Businesses an• d services would be positively or very positively impacted by more gas industry activity according to 92% of our respondents. Two-thirds of the people who talked to us would expect to see positive or very positive effects on their local recreation and leisure facilities from an increase in gas activity.

• Respondents also seemed to see a potential for population retention. An increase in the gas industry was seen as an incentive for youth to remain in the area by

eff Table 4.1.8 activit unity remployment

No ag roNegative 36% 60% 59% 45% No effect 9% 11% 12% 10% Positive 55% 29% 29% 45%

Total 100% 100% 100% 100%

28

Even though a majority of the respondents in our sample express optimistic attitudabout the economic and social benefits of any potential increase in gas industry activiton their households and communities, their optimism is balanced somewhat by a concernfor the impacts of increased gas activity on the GSH environment.

es y

here seems to be a pattern with regard to concerns over the environmental impacts of cation. As illustrated by table 4.1.9, enthusiasm

r the positive environmental impacts tends to be higher among people with high school edu iactivity Othe t

• ds of the respondents also see negative or very negative impacts of increased gas industry activity on roads and trails, soil and sand erosion, and grasslands.

from an increase in gas activity, a third see no impact and one in ten foresee a positive impact.

rce a the GSH env , by education

Soil/sand erosion sslan W reso

Tincreased gas activity and levels of edufo

cat ons or less than high school, while concern over the negative impacts of more gas seem to increase with post secondary education.

r rends were noted here as well:

• Around two-thirds of the respondents predict a negative or very negative impact on the active sand dunes in the GSH following an increase in gas activity. Two-thir

• Half of our respondents see negative impacts on water resources in the GSH

Table 4.1.9 Pe ived impacts of increased gas ctivity on ironment

Gra ds ater urcesImpact: Increas

as on GSH

i s post sec

Hi s post sec

Hi s post sec

ed H gh school or less

Post ec/some gh school

or less Post

ec/some gh school or less

Post ec/some

G

Negative 60% 77% 55% 73% 44% 59% No effect 27% 17% 33% 22% 40% 35% Positiv 6% 12% 5% 16% 6% e 13%

Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 4.1.3 THE POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF A DECREASE IN GAS INDUSTRY

ACTIVITY As discussed in the previous section, respondents are very optimistic about the potential social and economic benefits of any increase in the gas industry in the GSH. The importance of that industry to the current social and economic structures of the area is illustrated by peoples’ responses when they are asked to consider the impacts of a potential decrease in gas activity in the GSH.

29

Res nactivitydowntu a negative or very negative impact on their ow o

•

•

. On the other side, respondents who are mostly self-employed in their own businesses had more

dustry activity in the GSH area. Only 19% foresaw no such impacts and only 10% would predict positive impacts on their own business.

ustry activity is not venly distributed across the eight RMs in the GSH area, as Tables 4.1.10 and 4.1.11 dicate.

10: Impact of a decreased gas a

pact

po dents were asked to consider the potential impacts of decreased gas industry on their households. Approximately half of the respondents tell us that a rn in gas industry activity would have

n h usehold and the other half indicate the absence of impacts.

• With regard to employment opportunities for their households, 51% of our respondents said there would be a negative or very negative impact resulting from a downturn in gas activity in the area.

• Negative or very negative impacts on their households’ revenue from gas wells were predicted by 47% of our respondents. Just over half (53%) of respondents said that less gas activity would have negative consequences for their households’ income. Negative impacts on their own business, farm or ranch from any downturn in gas activity were expected by 45% of the people in the sample. These proportions are roughly the same when responses are broken down by occupational status, although with some variations. Among farmers, nearly half (48%) predicted negative impacts on their operations, nearly half (45%) foresaw no impact at all and only 7% predicted positive effects on their farms

serious concerns. Of the business people in our sample, 71% expressed concerns about negative impacts on their businesses following a potential downturn in gas in

The distribution of the impact of a hypothetical decrease in gas indein

Table 4.1. ctivity on household income by RM Im

RM Very/ what

N e No tVery/S what

Po e Someegativ Effec

omesitiv Total

Big Stick 100% 0% 0% 100%Clinworth 53% 45% 3% 100%Fox Valley 80% 19% 2% 100%Gull Lake 41% 57% 2% 100%Happyland 49% 51% 1% 100%Miry Creek 45% 50% 5% 100%Piapot 43% 57% 0% 100%Pittville 46% 54% 0% 100%

30

Impact of a decrease gas act n respondents’ own business, farm, ranch, by

pact

Table 4.1.11:

ivity o RM

Im

RM Very/ what

N e No tVery/S what

Po e Someegativ Effec

omesitiv Total

Big Stick 81% 14% 5% 100%Clinworth 44% 51% 5% 100%Fox Valley 63% 35% 2% 100%Gull Lake 35% 62% 3% 100%Happyland 48% 51% 1% 100%Miry Creek 32% 63% 5% 100%Piapot 42% 55% 3% 100%Pittville 41% 53% 6% 100% As Figure 4.1.2 shows, a majority of respondents would expect a negative impact on their own household income if there were a decrease in the gas industry. But it might come as a surprise that slightly more people in the paid work force and people who own their own businesses foresee negative impacts in their household income, proportionally, than is the case for farmers and ranchers. Farmers/Ranchers are more likely to say that their income will not be impacted by a downturn in gas activity.

Figure 4.1.2 Impact of < Gas activity on HH income, by occupational status

58%

68%

63%

41%

26%

36%

2%

6%

1%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Farm/Ranch

Own business

Paid employment

Negative No Effect Positive

Not surprisingly, people who actually have gas wells are more likely to predict a negative impact on their households’ income than are people who do not have wells. The people with wells are mostly farmers and ranchers, but we must also remember that 36% of the people who own agricultural land report no employment in the agriculture industry. Of

31

the people who report having gas wells on their property, 77% told us that a downturn in the gas industry would have a negative effect on their finances and 21% said it would have no effect. By contrast, of the people who have no wells, 42% would predict a negative impact on their household income from a decrease in gas activity in the area, with 56% saying that there would be no effect on their own finances.

The uindustr o see more benefits of inc swhen a to express more con n

•

• tive effect on recreation and leisure facilities in their community. -

Fully 84% saw negative impacts on the businesses and services in their

cts of decreased gas activity on the GSH nvironment to be mostly on the beneficial side. However, when it comes to the potential

env nrespondenviron would actually have negativimpa t

• s and trails, soil and sand erosion and grasslands: In each case, 45% saw positive

ts. • r resources in the GSH would be positively impacted by

less gas industry activity. But 60% said that a lessened gas industry would not

s rvey also included questions about the potential impacts of a decrease in gas

y activity on their community. Just as respondents tend trea ed gas activity for their community than for their own household, respondents,

sked to think about a decrease in gas activity in the area, tendcer for their community than for their own personal situation.

Fully 86% of respondents say that less gas activity would result in negative impacts on employment opportunities in their community.

• Three-quarters express the concern that a lower amount of gas industry activity would mean a negative impact on tax assessment for their area. Around two-thirds of respondents felt that a downturn in the gas industry would have a nega

community following a drop in gas industry activity. • Almost three-quarters of the people who talked to us said that a downturn in the

gas industry would have a negative impact on population levels in their area, and 83% said that such a downturn would serve as a disincentive for youth to remain in the area.

Given the large scale and wide distribution of gas industry operations in the GSH region, one would expect the perceived impae

iro mental benefits to the GSH area from a lessening of gas, nearly half of the ents said that less gas industry activity in the area would actually have no mental impact at all, around 10% of them said less gase environmental impacts and the remainder (40%) saw positive environmental

c s stemming from less gas activity.

• When asked about the effect of less gas activity on active sand dunes, 51% of respondents said that there would be no impact, 40% said the impact would be positive and 10% foresaw negative environmental impacts. The same pattern holds for the perceived impacts of less gas activity on road

impacts, 45% saw no impact at all and around 10% predicted negative impacOne-third said that wate

affect the water resources in the GSH, and only 8% actually felt that there would be a negative impact on the water if the gas industry experienced a decline.

32

4.1.4 THE POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF GAS ACTIVITY REMAINING AT CURRENT LEVELS

For a large majority of our respondents the status quo is simply not problematic. When sked about the potential for an unaltered gas industry impacting on various aspects of

ese eemingly contradictory attitudes as ambivalence. A closer examination of people’s

responses f opposing attitudes c community members o ed in the gas industry in the GSH region, the high relative importance of each, and the awareness of the necessity to find a balance.

l issues as well.” “Gas and oil development in this area are the only industries

• upport further gas development. The benefits are perceived to be

•

• are reported among both rural and town residents,

ployment.

arespondents’ households and communities as well as the environment of the GSH, between 75% and 80% told us that there would be no impact at all. 4.1.5 SUMMARY The examination of the survey data leads one to characterize GSH area respondents’ attitude toward the gas industry as one of ambivalence. While a large majority of respondents hold a positive view of the industry and are in favour of its continuation and expansion, at the same time large numbers of those same people express concerns over the impacts of the industry at every level. Rather than finding discreet interest groups in favour of the industry and others opposed to it, we find the seemingly conflicting opinions largely within the same overall group and often expressed by the same individuals. It would be unfair, however, to characterize the juxtaposition of ths

in their proper context reveals instead that the co-existence oan be taken as evidence of a well-rounded knowledge among f the competing interests involv

“I feel strongly about the sand hills … we do need the gas industry for income in the area, but we do need to be aware of environmenta

maintaining rural SK employment and populations–this factor should always be considered along with any environmental concerns…”

GSH area residents

Most people smostly at the level of the community, with fewer people reporting benefits of the industry on their own household situation. Respondents mostly saw the negative effects impacts of gas industry activity as impacting on the GSH’s physical environment, rather than on households or communities. Benefits of gas activity farmers/ranchers and people in other industries. But people who live and/or work closer to the land (i.e. farmers/ranchers, people who live outside the settlements, people who visit the GSH area often) are more likely to see themselves benefiting from the activity of the gas industry. Those benefits tend to be financial and/or in the form of em

33

• Conversely, people who live and/or work close to the land (i.e. farmers, ranchers and other residents who live outside of the towns) also tend to experience the

• ase in the gas industry would have

• activity, are expressed about the effects at the community level.

• olds in the sample.

•

s in the area mean

in ten actually sees less gas activity as negatively impacting the GSH

•

• sinesses

in the area are only able to survive because of the financial input and spin-offs that come with the gas industry. So it should not come as a surprise that people in the GSH area extend this attitude to the survival of their communities as a whole. The gas industry is seen as the only force that can rescue area communities from the various agricultural and demographic crises that threaten their future.

negative consequences of gas activity in the region. These negative effects tend to take the form of impacts on the respondents’ quality of life and on their local environment. Over half of the respondents feel that an increa positive impact on their families and lives. The highest levels of optimism, in terms of the positive impacts of any potential increase in gas Often over 90% of respondents would see particular benefits as likely in the event of an increase in the local gas industry.

• When talking about specific potential impacts of more gas development on the GSH environment, typically between half and two-thirds predicted negative consequences. A downturn in the gas industry in the area, by contrast, would have a negative impact on about half of the househ

• Again, GSH area residents perceive a much larger impact on their community than on their individual households. In the case of a downturn in the gas industry between 80% and 90% of respondents, discussing such specific impacts as decreased tax revenue, employment and depopulation, predicted negative consequences for the community. One might think that people would automatically perceive a retreat of the gas industry from the GSH as undeniably positive for the environment. But the complexity of the interconnectedness of people and industriethat this is not perceived as a simple one-to-one relationship. In fact, when discussing specific potential impacts of such a downturn in the gas industry only about 40% of the people we spoke with see immediate benefits. Around one respondent environment, and around half would predict no impact at all. Since attitudes toward the gas industry seem to be influenced by proximity to the land and by employment status, and because people and industries are not evenly distributed across the eight RMs in the region, attitudes tend to vary by RM of residence. Generally, GSH area residents seem to see the gas industry as a kind of lifeline for their communities. It is common knowledge that many farms and bu

34

4.2 RANCHING: CURRENT AND POTENTIAL IMPACTS Of the three regional industries, ranching is the longest established, with some operations in place for nearly a century. As such, ranching can be considered “traditional” in a way that the gas industry and tourism cannot, and it is therefore part of the very identity of the regional communities. Despite the fact that ranchers are a small group within the total population of the GSH area, they and their industry have had a large impact on the area–socially, economically and environmentally. Individual ranches can cover vast areas and operations can involve multiple families and multiple generations. Economic spin-offs can have great effects on area businesses and services. An entire section of question items aimed at examining ranching and its impacts were included in our survey instrument. The results are presented here, starting with the current impacts and followed by the perceived impacts of both an increase and decrease in ranching activity in the GSH area. Table 4.2.1 details the relative distribution of employment (either primary or secondary jobs) in farming and ranching in the GSH area. Table 4.2.1: Employment in Farming/Ranching by RM

RM Rancher Farmer Mixed farm

No ag employment Totals

Big Stick 51% 12% 15% 22% 100%Clinworth 4% 47% 7% 42% 100%Fox Valley 10% 17% 11% 62% 100%Gull Lake 6% 15% 4% 75% 100%Happyland 3% 24% 10% 63% 100%Miry Creek 11% 40% 9% 40% 100%Piapot 60% 8% 19% 13% 100%Pittville 17% 21% 11% 51% 100% 4.2.1 CURRENT IMPACTS OF RANCHING In general, the ranching industry is described in positive terms by most respondents. As seen in Table 4.2.2, respondents were evenly split as to the positive impacts to the household, with 49% mentioning a positive impact, and only a minority, 8%, reporting a negative impact. Regarding the ranching industry’s community impact, 89% note the positive impacts of ranching, and only 7% mention any negative impacts. In terms of the GSH area, almost three-quarters believe that ranching had positive impacts, and one-fifth mention negative impacts.

35

Table 4.2.2: Are there positive and negative impacts from Ranching? Are there any positive impacts stemming from Ranching on…

… your Household?

… your Community …the GSH?

Yes 49% 89% 74% No 51% 11% 26%

Total 100% 100% 100% Are there any negative impacts stemming from Ranching on…

… your Household?

… your Community …the GSH?

Yes 8% 7% 19% No 92% 93% 81%

Total 100% 100% 100% Respondents were provided with a list of statements specifying specific positive and negative impacts and asked to select those with which they agreed. The specific positive impacts of ranching on individual households (see Table 4.2.3) selected by the respondents included the “financial contributions” of the activity, followed by “a general enjoyment of ranching and the ranching lifestyle,” and the fact that ranching is “a family tradition.” This was mainly the case for both ranchers/farmers: among those employed in agriculture, 60% report that ranching has a positive impact on their household, compared to 40% of people not working in agriculture. Although economics is an important factor–everyone needs an income to survive–it is important to note the non-economic factors are high on the list as positive impacts of ranching. Table 4.2.3: Impacts of Ranching on Household, specified Positive impacts of Ranching on Household, specified Yes,

mentioned Not

MentionedThe financial contribution (income) from ranching 60% 40% They enjoy the ranching lifestyle 41% 59% It is important to carry on a family tradition 25% 75% Food/beef produced locally, good quality, low price 11% 89% Quality of/Way of life, generally 5% 95% Non-Ag economic benefits 4% 96%

Negative impacts of Ranching on Household, specified Yes, mentioned

Not Mentioned

Difficulty making a sufficient income 34% 66% Impact of BSE crisis 21% 79% The difficult nature of the work, long hours, etc. 15% 85% Monetary stress/low beef prices 10% 90% Environmental concerns, generally 9% 91% Ranching lifestyle issues, generally 6% 94% Conflict with other groups, generally 6% 94% The main negative impact identified by the respondents is the “difficulty in making an income from ranching.” In addition, the “BSE crisis” of the last few years has had a tremendous impact in this area, and may partially explain why the gas industry is perceived as a mainstay throughout this agricultural crisis.

36

At the community level, ranching has deep historical and social roots and the ranching “lifestyle” continues to be appreciated and valued. Positive impacts of ranching on the community listed by our respondents (see Table 4.2.4) include the perception that ranching helps “to retain population in the area”, and, just as commonly, that it “supports a variety of local business.” Third, “a sense of community is built among ranchers,” ties that are noticed and appreciated by the community. Table 4.2.4: Impacts of Ranching on Community, specified Positive impact of Ranching on Community, specified Yes,

mentioned Not

Mentioned It helps to retain population 61% 39% The ranching industry supports local business, i.e. feed, hay, farriers, etc. 61% 39% It builds a sense of community among ranchers 35% 65% It leads to ranching-related events, i.e. BBQs, rodeos, etc. 21% 79% Non-Ag economic benefits 9% 91% Sustaining population and Social cohesion 4% 96%

Negative impact of Ranching on Community, specified Yes, mentioned

Not Mentioned

General struggles from BSE, market prices, etc 42% 58% Stress on families, with related impacts on children, farm stress lines, etc. 35% 65% Less money going into the local economy as a result of lower family incomes 31% 69% Monetary stress/low beef prices 13% 87% Impact of BSE crisis 7% 93% The current economic challenges of ranching, identified in the category “the strain of the BSE and grain price crises,” are perceived as a negative impact on the community (see Table 4.2.4). The difficulty in maintaining a much-loved way of life is increasing as beef prices slowly recover, meanwhile the costs of feed, fuel, and living have increased. Other negative impacts identified by the respondents are “the stress of families” and that “lower income for ranchers means less money being circulated into the local economy.” We asked respondents to evaluate and describe their perceptions of the relationship between ranching and the GSH environment. As previously mentioned, ranching has a lengthy historical and social background in this area. Ranchers are commonly known as “stewards of the land,” having the reputation of being competent in managing the land, as they are the ones traveling throughout the pastures and fields on a frequent basis–a continuous activity that provides them with a unique experience of the area. As we see in Table 4.2.5, the most commonly reported positive impact of ranching on the Great Sand Hills is based on “the belief that well-managed ranching is the best use of the land,” a belief based on the idea that cattle made a similar use of the land as bison did a century ago.

37

Table 4.2.5: Impacts of Ranching on GSH, specified Positive impact of Ranching on GSH, specified Yes,

mentionedNot

MentionedBelief that well-managed ranching is the best use of the land 57% 43% Positive impacts to the ecosystem 44% 56% Water development has been positive for plants and animals in the area 22% 78% Environmental benefits, based on ranchers’ attitudes/activities 11% 89% Environmental benefits, physical benefits of ranching 7% 93%

Negative impact of Ranching on GSH, specified Yes, mentioned

Not Mentioned

Damage from overgrazing 54% 46% Damage from cattle trails or high-traffic areas around water 38% 62% Environmental concerns, generally 27% 73% Ranchers control of land and access 7% 93% In spite of this positive assessment of ranching, there are also concerns. As we see in Table 4.2.5, the main worries are related to “damage from overgrazing,” “cattle wearing down grass in high-traffic areas,” as well as some “general environmental concerns.” 4.2.2 THE POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF AN INCREASE IN RANCHING Overall, the majority of our respondents (63%) told us that they would prefer ranching to remain at its present level, 36% called for more ranching activity in the area and 1% called for less. The RMs that most commonly report a preference for increased ranching development are Clinworth, Fox Valley, and Gull Lake. There was not a strong argument at all for decreased ranching development from any of the RMs (see Table 4.2.6). This preference for increased ranching is usually accompanied by the caveat that if ranching were expanded, it would have to be done in a responsible manner, and to avoid the scenario of increased cattle intensity on the land.

“There is no more acreage to be put into ranch land. This leads to over use of the land. This is especially true in the Sand Hills region. Whatever is done, gas or ranching, both industries need to be properly managed to what areas they are in”.

GSH area resident

38

Table 4.2.6: Preferred level of Ranching by RM

RM More Ranching development Same amount

Less Ranching development Total

Big Stick 38% 62% 0% 100% Clinworth 47% 53% 0% 100% Fox Valley 40% 60% 0% 100% Gull Lake 41% 56% 3% 100% Happyland 35% 64% 1% 100% Miry Creek 14% 86% 0% 100% Piapot 29% 71% 0% 100% Pittville 33% 67% 0% 100% The perceived impacts of increased ranching were also addressed in a series of questions. To avoid misunderstandings, respondents were informed that when presented with the scenario of increased ranching activity, this meant an expansion in ranching acreage (such as seeding farmland back to grass) and not increased cattle intensity. In the case of each of the impacts of increased ranching on households, usually between two-thirds and three-quarters of the respondents predicted no impact on their household from an increase in ranching activity in the GSH. The remaining respondents foresaw a positive or very positive impact on their households following such an increase. On each question fewer than 2% of respondents saw negative impacts on their household resulting from more ranching. For instance, 68% of the people who spoke with us saw no potential impact on their own “household income” resulting from an increase in ranching, 30% would predict a positive impact on their family income, and only 2% expressed concern over a negative impact. When we break these numbers down by type of agricultural employment we find, not surprisingly, that a high number (47%) of ranchers report that such an increase would have a beneficial effect on their own income and that none predicted negative impacts (Table 4.2.7). It is interesting to note that the respondents who express the highest levels of optimism over the impact of more ranching on household income are those with mixed operations. Fully two thirds of these people told us that they would expect a positive impact on their own household income from an increase in ranching activity in the area. It may be that these are the only people who have both the ability and capacity to implement a meaningful expansion in livestock numbers.

39

Table 4.2.7 Perceived impact of increased ranching on household income, by agricultural employment

Impact Farmer Rancher Mixed farmNo ag

employmentNegative 2% 0% 2% 2% No effect 64% 53% 31% 81% Positive 34% 47% 67% 17%

Total 100% 100% 100% 100% The ethnographic study conducted in the summer of 2005 found that most of the ranching activity in the GSH area takes place in or directly beside the GSH core area itself. Not surprisingly then, respondents in the 4 RMs that contain the core area are more likely to report an optimistic attitude about the impact of more ranching on household income and people in the RMs outside the core area are more likely to foresee no impact at all. As we see in Table 4.2.8, a slight majority (52%) of those with a high or very high familiarity with the GSH reported that they thought that their employment opportunities would be positively affected. An increase in ranching activity would translate into more work for veterinarians, ranch employees, those in the feed industry, and the cattle transport industry, to name a few. Those with a moderate level of familiarity with the GSH showed roughly the same level of optimism for employment opportunities, roughly one-third indicated there would be no effect, while another third indicated a positive effect. Those with a low or very low level of familiarity were most likely to report that an increase in ranching would negatively impact their employment opportunities. A similar trend, as seen in Table 4.2.9, takes place regarding the periodicity of visits to the GSH core area; those who visit the GSH more often tend to have a more optimist view of the benefits of an increase in ranching for their households. Table 4.2.8: Impact of increased ranching on household: Your employment opportunities, by familiarity with the GSH

Impact of increased ranching on household: Your employment opportunities?

Familiarity with GSH Negative No effect Positive High/Very high 50% 45% 52% Moderate 17% 34% 34% Low/Very low 33% 21% 14%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

40

Table 4.2.9: Impact of increased ranching on household: Household income, by how often visit GSH

Impact of increased ranching on household: Household income

How often visit GSH Very/Somewhat

Negative No EffectVery/Somewhat

Positive TotalDaily/Weekly 2% 55% 44% 100%Monthly/Every few months 2% 67% 30% 100%Seasonally/Once a year 1% 74% 25% 100%Less than once a year/Never 2% 70% 28% 100% When asked to consider the potential impacts of an increased ranching on the community, respondents showed much more optimism about the positive spin-offs of such an increase than it was the case for their individual households. While large majorities (66% to 75%) predicted no impact on their own households following a hypothetical increase in ranching activities, when it came to potential impact on their communities only about half of the respondents foresaw no effect at all for each of the potential impacts that we listed. As an example, only 46% said that there would be no effect at all on “employment,” while 52% predicted a positive impact and only 2% predicted a negative one. The current state of the ranching industry in the GSH area is not promising, so not many ranchers can afford to hire as much help as they may want or need. In the positive sense, if increased ranching translated into more net income, it may be logical to assume that it would lead to increased direct ranching employment. It may also mean that there would be more indirect ranching-related employment, such as veterinary staff, feed suppliers, horse trainers, and equipment suppliers. Pittville, Happyland, Gull Lake and Clinworth were the RMs that had the highest proportion of respondents reporting a somewhat or very positive potential impact to “employment opportunities” if ranching increased, as we can see in Table 4.2.10. Table 4.2.10: Impact of increased ranching on community: Employment opportunities, by RM

Impact of increased ranching on community:

Employment opportunities

RM of Residence Very/Somewhat

Negative No EffectVery/Somewhat

Positive Total Big Stick 5% 60% 35% 100% Clinworth 0% 46% 54% 100% Fox Valley 2% 56% 42% 100% Gull Lake 2% 42% 57% 100% Happyland 2% 40% 58% 100% Miry Creek 0% 62% 38% 100%

Piapot 6% 52% 42% 100% Pittville 0% 34% 65% 100%

41

Levels of optimism expressed by our respondents about potential impacts on “employment opportunities” are about the same as those for such issues as “tax assessment,” “incentives for youth to stay in the area,” “population levels” and the state of “recreation and leisure facilities in the community.” For each of these issues around half of the respondents can see no effect at all, while another half see a positive effect and less than 2% foresee negative effects. However, the perception of positive spin-offs from increased ranching increases dramatically when respondents talk about the benefits to “businesses and services in their community”: two-thirds of the respondents foresaw positive spin-off effects. Not surprisingly, the people who feel that ranching should increase are more likely to see positive impacts from such an increase. The perception of negative impacts on more ranching increases somewhat when respondents talk about “roads in the area” and “water resources.” On these issues two-thirds of the respondents still saw no impact, but the number predicting negative impacts increases to about one-sixth. In reflecting on the potential impacts of increased ranching on the GSH, around half of the participants tended to see no impact. With regard to the impact of increased ranching in the GSH area on active sand dunes, and roads and trails, almost 55% saw so impact and 34% saw negative consequences, with the remaining 12% predicting positive environmental impacts. For the issues of soil and sand erosion and grasslands, just under half saw no potential effect emerging from more ranching in the area, almost 40% predicted negative consequences, and the final 12% actually believed that there would be positive impacts from such an increase. The large number of respondents who cannot foresee any environmental impact from increased ranching likely reflects a high level of trust that local people have in ranchers. The term “stewards of the land” comes up again and again in the transcripts of the open-ended questions in this section of the survey data. Ranchers are often cited as those who have intimate knowledge and awareness in the areas of cattle behavior, and the behavior of other animals in the GSH. For example, generational knowledge has been passed down, and the nuanced changes to an area would be noticed by ranchers, but not necessarily scientists coming in for cross-sectional or ‘snapshot’ research. Respondents seem to feel that the people who are closest to the land are its best managers, a feeling that it is clearly expressed in statements such as:

“The ranchers are good at land stewardship”.

GSH area resident Indeed, farmers, ranchers and others who live outside the towns are the ones who tend to express concerns about the impacts of all of the main industries on the GSH. However, this trust cannot be generalized to all respondents. Those who know the dangers of improper land management are clearly more concerned. People who live

42

outside of the town and people involved in agriculture are more likely to fear negative consequences emerging from more ranching than is the case for townspeople and people not involved in farming and ranching. 4.2.3 THE POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF A DECREASE IN RANCHING We asked about potential impacts of decreased ranching on respondents’ households, focusing on impacts to “employment,” “income” and “respondents’ businesses, farms/ ranches.” In terms of “employment,” and “location of employment opportunities,” about two-thirds of the respondents saw no potential impact, and one- third saw a negative impact. In talking about the impact of less ranching in the area on their “income,” “farm/ranch or business,” just over half were not concerned about any impact and just under half were concerned about a negative impact. As Table 4.2.11 shows, the highest proportion of respondents who believed that a decrease in ranching would have a very or somewhat negative impact to their “household’s income” came from the RM of Piapot, followed by Big Stick and Pittville. Table 4.2.11: Impact of decreased ranching on households: Household income, by RM

Impact of a decrease of ranching on households: Household income

RM of Residence

Very/Somewhat Negative No Effect

Very/Somewhat Positive Total

Big Stick 62% 33% 5% 100% Clinworth 41% 59% 0% 100% Fox Valley 38% 60% 2% 100% Gull Lake 33% 65% 1% 100% Happyland 35% 65% 1% 100% Miry Creek 39% 61% 0% 100% Piapot 77% 21% 3% 100% Pittville 46% 51% 3% 100% People living in rural areas and those employed in agriculture were more likely to express fears of negative impacts from less ranch activity in the GSH area than were townspeople and people not employed in agriculture. Those people who are not ranchers or living on farms/ranches are more likely to report seeing no impact on their own households following a hypothetical decrease in ranching. Among the RMs, Gull Lake, Happyland, and Miry Creek had the highest proportion of respondents indicating that there would be very negative or somewhat negative impacts to their “business/farm/ranch” if there were a scenario of decreased ranching activity (Table 4.2.12). This may be partially explained by the dominant industry in each RM. Gull Lake and Happyland contain some of the larger towns in the study area, and thus have more of the business activity of the region.

43

Table 4.2.12: Impact of decreased ranching on household: Impacts to your business, farm, or ranch, by RM

Impact of ranching on household: Impact to your business, farm or ranch

RM of Residence

Very/Somewhat Negative No Effect

Very/Somewhat Positive Total

Big Stick 5% 95% 0% 100% Clinworth 13% 85% 3% 100% Fox Valley 8% 90% 2% 100% Gull Lake 17% 82% 1% 100% Happyland 22% 79% 0% 100% Miry Creek 23% 73% 5% 100% Piapot 9% 86% 6% 100% Pittville 18% 82% 0% 100% In general, higher levels of concern tended to be expressed over the potential impacts of decreased ranching on respondents’ communities. There was very little mention of positive impacts in the case of a scenario of decreased ranching activity. People have the perception, for example, that “employment opportunities” will either be unchanged (41%), or somewhat or very negatively affected (58%). Very few respondents (1%) predicted positive impacts on employment. As we see in Figure 4.2.1, this is the case, regardless of how long a respondent has lived in the area.

Figure 4.2.1 Impact of decreased ranching on community employment ops, by time in community

20%29%

17%

45%33%

35%

34% 38%46%

1% 0% 1%0% 0% 0%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

14 yrs or less 15 to 29 yrs 30 yrs or more

Very positive

Somewhat positive

No Effect

Somewhat negative

Very negative

A similar pattern is displayed in the context of “incentives for youth to remain in the area” as we could see in Figure 4.2.2. There is very little notion, regardless of how long people have been in the community, that if the ranching industry were to decrease there would be positive impacts on the communities’ ability to retain their youth. Again,

44

overall, nearly 60% of the respondents feared negative impacts and 40% did not foresee any impact at all. People who call for more ranching are more likely to predict negative consequences for the population levels in the area if ranching decreased than are those who want the ranching to remain at current levels. Those respondents who think that ranching should remain at its current level in the area, or should actually decrease were more likely to tell us that less ranching activity would have no effect at all on the population of the GSH area.

F igure 4 .2 .2 Impact o f decreased R anching o n C o mmunity: Incent ive fo r yo uth to remain in the area, by t ime in co mmunity

18%24%

18%

46%39%

33%

36% 37%48%

1% 0% 0%0% 0% 0%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

14 yrs or less 15 to 29 yrs 30 yrs or more

Very posit iveSomewhat posit iveNo EffectSomewhat negat iveVery negat ive

When it comes to “tax assessment” and “recreation and leisure facilities,” just over half of the respondents could see no impact from less ranching and just under half foresaw negative effects. Greater levels of concern are expressed, however, when it comes to the potential consequences of a decrease in ranching on community “businesses and services.” In this case 73% of our sample fear negative consequences and only 26% say that there would not be any effect. We find a greater diversity of opinion when it comes to potential impacts of decreased ranching on the GSH. Generally, we see a majority of respondents, between 50% and 60%, expressing no concern about any impacts at all, while the remaining proportion is divided between those who see positive effects and those who see negative ones. In more specific terms, when asked about the effects of less ranching on “active sand dunes,” “roads and trails,” “soil and sand erosion” and “grasslands,” around 60% of respondents saw no impact, about a quarter saw positive impacts and one in six saw negative impacts. Once again, people who live on the land and are involved in agriculture are more likely to express concerns over both positive and negative effects of decreased ranching than are those who live in towns and work in other industries. As Table 4.2.13 shows, the proportion of respondents saying that less ranching would have no effect on “grasslands” decreases as frequency of visits to the GSH increases. Furthermore, as frequency of visits

45

increases, opinions on such a decrease become more evenly split between positive perceived impacts and negative ones. Table 4.2.13: How often do you visit the Great Sand Hills?: Impact of decreased ranching on GSH: Grasslands

Impact of Ranching on GSH: Grasslands

How often visit GSH Very/Somewhat

Negative No EffectVery/Somewhat

Positive TotalDaily/Weekly 26% 50% 24% 100%Monthly/Every few month 23% 50% 27% 100%Seasonally/Once a year 14% 56% 31% 100%Less than once a year/Never 8% 62% 30% 100% 4.2.4 RANCHING SECTION SUMMARY

• Ranching is positively viewed by most, especially in terms of its impacts on the community level.

• Non-economic factors, such as family tradition, and enjoyment of the lifestyle, are important factors for ranchers.

• The main positive impact of ranching on households was its financial contribution, and the most negative effect was the stress involved in ranching today.

• At the community level ranching is thought to hold communities together economically through support of local businesses, and socially through aiding in the retention of population and supporting community events.

• Respondents trust ranchers to make responsible management decisions with regard to the environment, though they are aware that the presence of cattle will inevitably have an impact on the GSH. Ranchers are considered “stewards of the land” and, as such, have the confidence of the community.

• Relatively few people believe that either an increase or decrease in ranching will have an effect on their own households. Those who do see their own household being impacted tend to be involved in agriculture.

• There is a rather higher level of concern when it comes to the impact of a change in the level of ranching on the community. Most people feel that more ranching will benefit the businesses and services in their community, with few negative repercussions. In addition, most people fear that a decrease in ranching activity would be harmful to their communities.

• Most of the respondents do not feel that there would be any impact on the GSH environment if ranching were to either decrease or increase. Farmers/ranchers are more likely to show concerns about such impacts. Those people who do express concerns about the impacts of more or less ranching are divided when it comes to whether those impacts would be environmentally positive or negative.

46

4.3 TOURISM: CURRENT AND POTENIAL IMPACTS Tourism, along with farming, ranching and the gas industry, is one of the economic activities that characterize the GSH region. This economic activity, however, is still underdeveloped and focused mainly on recreational activities such as hunting, and on natural and man-made features found in and around the village of Sceptre. The survey instrument contains a large number of question items aimed at area residents’ perceptions of the tourism industry and its potential future influence. Respondents were asked to tell us how they see their communities, the GSH, and their own households being impacted by a continuation of the existing conditions of the tourism industry or by changes–in terms of both increase and decrease–in the development of this economic activity 4.3.1 CURRENT IMPACTS OF TOURISM As Table 4.3.1 illustrates, a large majority of the respondents see positive benefits to their community (78%) and the GSH core area (75%) from the tourism industry. This assessment, however, changes in relation to the positive impacts of the tourism industry on households. Only about one in five respondents report experiencing positive impacts in their own family situation. The reason is obviously related to the incipient development of the industry in the region, which means that very few families have been able to experience directly the impacts of this industry. Conversely, relatively few people see negative impact from tourism on their own households and communities, but one in four say that there are negative impacts on the GSH. It is important to note that the 25% of respondents who told us that there are “negative impacts” from tourism on the GSH are not necessarily the same 25% who said that there are “no positive impacts.” In fact, there are many respondents who said that there are both positive and negative impacts and there are others who say there are no impacts at all. Table 4.3.1: Are there positive and negative impacts from the tourism industry? Are there any positive impacts stemming from the tourism industry on…

… your Household?

… your Community The GSH

Yes 19% 78% 75% No 81% 22% 25%

Total 100% 100% 100% Are there any negative impacts stemming from the tourism industry on…

… your Household?

… your Community The GSH

Yes 5% 4% 25% No 95% 96% 75%

Total 100% 100% 100% Of the respondents who reported positive impacts of tourism on their individual households, most seem to see their families benefiting from improved economic conditions in their communities and from the higher levels of attention paid to the local environment. Table 4.3.2 lists these benefits, as well as the most common negative impacts that respondents reported to us. The respondents who reported negative impacts

47

from tourism on their households expressed many concerns related to the nuisances and inconveniences of simply having larger numbers of people in the area: higher prices, traffic problems and more wear and tear on road surfaces. Some people also expressed concerns related to personal safety. There is a potential for accidental fires and for dangers to people and livestock from hunting accidents. Table 4.3.2: Impacts of tourism on household, specified

Positive impacts of Tourism on Household, specified Yes, mentioned

Not Mentione

d Provides employment opportunities, either directly or indirectly related to tourism 58% 42% Brings attention to the need for conservation of the area 39% 61% More customer/income for local businesses 16% 84% Unique area brings people here, get to meet new people 10% 90% Increases/raises awareness of GSH 5% 95% Hunters control animal populations 4% 96%

Negative impacts of Tourism on Household, specified Yes, mentioned

Not Mentione

d Disruption from trespassing/lost tourists or hunters 57% 43% Risk to family members and livestock during hunting season 20% 80% Traffic, problems with more people in area, general tourist problems 20% 80% Increased fire risk to the whole GSH area from increased human activity 8% 92% Insecurity because landowners are liable for third party access on their lands 5% 95% Roads, increased traffic could make them even worse 5% 95% Prices for things could go up, e.g. fuel 5% 95%

As expected, there are variations about these impacts. People, for example, who own business are more likely to say that tourism has a positive impact on their households than are farmers and others, as Figure 4.3.1 shows.

48

Figure 4.3.1 Are there any positive impacts stemming from the tourism industry on your household, by occupational status

18%

48%

17% 17%

82%

52%

83% 83%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Farm/Ranch Own business Paid employment Not in workforce/other

Yes No

There also seems to be a relationship between education level and perception of negative impacts from tourism on the GSH environment. As Figure 4.3.2 indicates, the perception of the existence of negative consequences of tourist activity in the GSH seems to rise with education.

21%

79%

21%

79%

24%

76%

33%

67%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

< High school High school Some Post sec Completed Post sec

Figure 4.3.2 Are there negative impacts from the tourism industry on the GSH, by level of education

Yes No

49

It seems that townspeople tend to be somewhat more optimistic about the prospects for their households in terms of an increase in tourism and its potential benefits. As table 4.3.3 shows, the only people who foresee negative consequences for their own households live outside the settlements. Table 4.3.3: Perceived impact of increased tourism on household income by residence in town, or out of town

Impact on Household Income In town Out of

town/farm/ranch Positive 23% 18% No Effect 77% 79% Negative 0% 3%

Total 100% 100% On the other hand, 83% of the people who told us that more tourism has a negative impact on their households are employed in farming and/or ranching. Furthermore, three-quarters of the people who expressed concern about tourism and its impact on their households are located in one of the four RMs that contain the core area of the GSH. If most residents of the GSH area are skeptical about any real impact on their households from an increase in tourism, they tend to be somewhat more optimistic when it comes to impacts of tourism at the community level (see Table 4.3.4). The same patterns of specific benefits and problems we see at the household level are repeated at the level of the community. Respondents who report impacts on their community from tourism see a positive influence from the increase in customers and revenue to local businesses and from a greater awareness of the unique environment of the GSH. Negative impacts were, again, nuisances and inconveniences related to larger numbers of people in the area. Over half of the respondents who listed negative impacts of tourism on the community mentioned disruptions in the community from tourists and hunters as an issue. One in ten expressed concern that tourism could cause problems for the operation of the gas industry.

50

Table 4.3.4: Impacts of tourism on community, specified Positive impact of Tourism on Community, specified Yes,

mentioned Not

Mentioned Tourism provides revenue to local businesses 80% 20% It brings visitors to the area 73% 27% Tourism provides employment opportunities for the community 40% 60% Unique area brings people here, get to meet new people 2% 98% Increases/raises awareness of GSH 2% 98%

Negative impact of Tourism on Community, specified Yes, mentioned

Not Mentioned

Disruption in the community from tourists or hunters 52% 48% Traffic, problems with more people in area, general tourist problems 11% 89% Businesses and services cater to visitors, not locals 10% 90% Cause problems for gas industry 10% 90% Roads, increased traffic could make them even worse 5% 95% Prices for things could go up, e.g. fuel 5% 95% Garbage left around 5% 95% Hunters, nuisance and/or danger from 4% 96% Opinions on the impact of tourism on the physical environment of the GSH reflect both the concern of the respondents about the effects of the human presence on the land, and their ambivalence about balancing economic and environmental priorities.

• The main benefit of tourism on the GSH, according to our respondents, stems from the greater levels of environmental awareness and attention that come as a result of tourism development. As Table 4.3.5 illustrates, three-quarters of the people who see positive impacts from tourism cite the education and awareness spin-offs of tourism as a major benefit of the presence of tourists to the GSH environment.

• At the same time, our respondents are also aware of the potential damage to that environment caused by the movement of large numbers of people through the GSH. Of those people who told us that tourism has negative impacts on the GSH environment, nearly half (48%) complained of the “increased garbage left by tourist.” Others spoke of problems with “disruptions from increased traffic in the area” (40%) and the “damage caused by tourists and hunters leaving designated paths and trails” (36%). Some respondents talked about the accidental or deliberate damage to plant life in the area. Table 4.3.5 lists the most commonly expressed environmental concerns revolving around the impact of the tourist industry.

51

Table 4.3.5: Impacts of tourism on GSH, specified

Positive impact of tourism on GSH, specified Ym

Nes, entioned M

ot entioned

It promotes education and awareness about the GSH 7 24% 6% It brings attention to conservation of native prairie areas 5 47% 3% Exploration and travel in the area are somewhat controlled 2 76% 4% Hunters control animal populations 2 9% 8% Keeps environmental hazards down, must be sensitive to environment 1 9% 9%

Negative impact of tourism on GSH, specified Ym

Nes, entioned M

ot entioned

Increased garbage left from tourists 4 58% 2% Disruption from increased traffic in the area 4 60% 0% Damage from tourists and hunters leaving designated paths and trails 3 66% 4% Increased fire risk from cigarettes, exhaust pipes, etc. 3 62% 8% Ecological damage from tourists picking rare/endangered species of plants or flowers 2 78% 2% Damage to grass/plants from foot traffic 1 90% 0% Damage from vehicles, ATVs and Crazy Carpets 6 9% 4% Loss of food sources for wildlife when tourists pick berries 4 9% 6% Vandalism 3 9% 7% Respondents who see a potential positive impact of increased tourism in the GSH, oddly enough, tend to be concentrated in the 4 RMs that don’t contain the core area of the GSH. In fact, 60% of them are found within the RMs of Gull Lake and Happyland, home to the two largest centres in the study area, Leader and Gull Lake. Most of the people who see disruptions at the community level from tourism activity also tend to be those who live and/or work on the land, and those who live closer to the core area. Concerns about the impacts of tourism on the GSH, by contrast, are expressed in nearly equal levels by town and rural residents, and by people who farm or ranch and those in other industries. In all of these cases about a quarter of the respondents say that tourism has a negative impact on the GSH. It would seem that people who are most familiar with the GSH and live closest to them and to the land in general are most likely to express a desire for less tourism activity. As Figure 4.3.3 shows, a majority of respondents at all levels of familiarity with the GSH think that there should be more tourism activity in the region than there is now. Only small minorities of respondents feel that there should actually be less tourism. But it’s interesting to note that the size of that group increases as familiarity levels increase.

52

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Very high High Moderate Low Very low

Figure 4.3.3 Desired level of tourism, by level of familiarity with the GSH?

More tourism devmnt Same amount of tourism dev Less tourism devmnt

Similarly, while healthy majorities of both town and farm/ranch dwellers support increased tourism, more farm and ranch dwellers than town folk think that levels should remain where they are. As Figure 4.3.4 illustrates, many of the respondents living on a farm/ranch would like to see less tourism. Because the area is so vast and difficult to monitor, and because there are currently no resources to provide guides or attendants, there may be a fear that visitors left to their own curiosities may cause damage. In such cases, it is the locals who deal with lost tourists, fires, and picking up garbage. Thus, many who are open to the idea of increased tourism mention the caveat that it must be promoted responsibly, with sufficient funds to monitor and manage extra tourism capacity.

53

Figure 4.3.4 Prefered level of tourism, town vs rural

75%

64%

24%29%

1%7%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

In town Out of town, farm/ranch

More tourism devmnt Same amount Less tourism devmnt

Figure 4.3.5 further illustrates this trend. The enthusiasm for more tourism development is supported by a large majority of all respondents, but is tempered somewhat among those in the agriculture industry, most especially among ranchers.

F igure 4.3.5 P referred level o f to urism by emplo yment in agriculture

54%

68%

76%

22%

34%31%

23%

9%12%

1% 1%

69%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Farmer Rancher M ixed farm No ag employment

M ore tourism devmnt Same amount Less tourism devmnt

High levels of enthusiasm for increased tourism development are found in all the RMs in the area, but are not uniformly distributed. The highest levels, again, are found within the RMs that contain the two largest towns in the area (Gull Lake and Happyland), and generally in those that do not contain the core area of the GSH. Lower levels, generally, seem to be found in those RMs that contain the core area, as seen in Figure 4.3.6. But as

54

Table 4.3.6 shows, 74% of respondents in Fox Valley, which does contain some of the core, support more tourism, compared to only 60% of those in Miry Creek, which does not contain any of the core area. Table 4.3.6: Preferred level of tourism by RM

RM More tourism development Same amount

Less tourism development Total

Big Stick 68% 32% 0% 100%Clinworth 64% 28% 8% 100%Fox Valley 72% 22% 6% 100%Gull Lake 74% 23% 3% 100%Happyland 80% 18% 2% 100%Miry Creek 60% 40% 0% 100%Piapot 51% 37% 11% 100%Pittville 64% 33% 3% 100% Figure 4.3.6 Prefered level of tourism, By RM proximity to

GSH

29%

24%

7%

2%

74%

64%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

RMs with Sandhills RMs near Sandhills

More tourism devmnt Same amount Less tourism devmnt

55

4.3.3 THE POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF AN INCREASE IN TOURISM In order to assess opinions of the potential impacts of increased tourism on their households, we asked respondents if an increase in tourism activities would have an effect on their own employment prospects, chances to find employment closer to home, income from gas well and income generally. They were also asked about potential effects on their business or farm/ranch. Results were similar for each of these issues:

• Tourism is assessed as a non-risk economic activity. Less that 2% saw a negative impact from increased tourism on each of these aspects of their lives.

• However, the assessment of tourism as a non-risk activity does not translate into a promise of positive benefits for the household. Only one-fifth of the respondents thought that there would be a positive or very positive impact, while approximately three-quarters of the respondents felt there would be no impact at all.

• The percentages are about the same when it comes to the impact of increased tourism on people’s businesses, farms and ranches.

We asked our respondents to consider the likely impacts of an increase in tourism on their community. Respondents tended to express more optimism about the benefits of a growing tourism industry on their communities as a whole, than was the case for their particular households.

• A large majority of the respondents would predict either a very positive impact (24%) or just positive impact (45%) on employment opportunities in their communities if tourism were to increase. Only 1% saw negative impacts, and only 30% predicted no effect at all.

• A positive impact from increased tourism on tax assessment was predicted by 42% of respondents and a negative impact from decreased tourism was predicted by one-third of respondents.

• Around half of respondents say that increased tourism would not provide any incentive for young people to stay in the area, the other half see a positive or very positive impact.

• Just over half of the respondents said there would be no impact on roads in the area from more tourists moving through, 14% feared negative impacts on the roads, and around one-third of the respondents thought there would be some positive impacts on the roads if there were an increase in tourism.

• Two-thirds of our respondents believe that recreation and leisure facilities in their community would have a positive impact from more tourism. When asked if increased tourism would have an effect on the water supply, three-quarters of the respondents said that it would not. Only 7% thought that there would be a negative impact, while 19% predicted a positive impact.

The place where the vast majority of GSH area residents perceive a positive impact of more tourism is on the businesses and services in their communities. Fully 82% of

56

respondents tell us that there would be either a positive (51%) or very positive impact on the businesses in the area if tourism were to increase. Only 17% saw no impact, and less than 1% predicted a negative impact. The high levels of optimism for the positive outcomes of a growth in the tourism industry that people express when talking about their communities and families are tempered somewhat by the concerns that many of them feel over the potential negative outcomes and impacts of increased tourism on the GSH environment. Among the respondents, 42% are concerned with the possibility that an increase in tourism would have a negative impact on the active sand dunes, for example. Another 42% say that there would be no effect and 16% say the impact would be a positive one. Similarly, 46% of respondents see greater tourist activities as having a negative effect on soil and sand erosion, while 43% say there would be no effect. 4.3.3 THE POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF A DECREASE IN TOURISM When we talk about a potential decrease in tourism activity in the GSH area, we must remember that this industry plays a direct role in the lives of only a small proportion of area residents. For the general population, a robust tourist industry in the GSH exists mainly as potential future development. They may see a role for the industry in their future and in their communities’ futures, but if the industry actually declines the impacts in most people’s eyes would be minimal. It’s hard to miss what you never had. In discussing the possible impacts of decreased tourism on the respondents’ households, more than 80% think that there would be no impact at all on their employment prospects, income or on their businesses, farms and ranches if tourism were to decline from its present levels. On each of these issues less than one in five respondents would predict negative or very negative impacts on their lives from a drop in tourism. Even it most people cannot see any impact on their lives from less tourism, when it comes to potential impacts of decreased tourism on respondents’ communities, the number of people concerned rises somewhat. The only areas in which more than half of the respondents expressed fears about decreased tourism were in regard to the impacts on businesses and jobs in their communities.

• Two-thirds of respondents saw no potential impact on the roads from a decrease in tourism activity in the area, 24% said that fewer tourists would have a negative impact on the roads in their area, and 12% thought that fewer tourists would be good for the roads.

• A decrease in tourism activities would have a negative or very negative impact on employment opportunities in the community according to 50% of respondents, and no effect according to 49%.

• Just under half of the respondents think that they’d see a negative impact on their communities’ recreation and leisure facilities if tourism dropped off and just over half think that there’d be no impact at all.

57

• Only a third of respondents say that there would be no impact on community businesses and services if tourism were to decline, while two-thirds would predict a negative impact.

• Two-thirds of the respondents said that a decrease in tourism from present levels would have no effect on the population levels in their area. One-third said that such a decrease would have a negative impact.

With respect to opinions on the potential impacts of decreased tourism on the GSH environment, most of our respondents did not foresee any such impacts.

• Only 25% of respondents say that decreased tourism would be good for the active sand dunes. Around two thirds felt that less tourism would make no difference.

• Around 30% say that less tourism would be good in terms of soil and sand erosion and 60% say that it would not make any difference.

4.3.4 TOURISM SECTION SUMMARY

• An increase in tourism development is generally supported by more than two-thirds of our respondents.

• Most respondents see advantages for their community as a whole rather than for their own households. The people who do see benefits for their families tend to live in one of the towns or villages, while those who perceive or foresee negative impacts tend to live outside the towns/villages.

• Since tourism is not currently a significant factor in most people’s lives there is little fear of impacts at the household level of any decrease in tourist activity. Greater concern is expressed by more of our respondents when it comes to the potential negative consequences for employment and businesses in local communities from such a decrease.

• Although most respondents tend to downplay the potential negative impacts to the GSH, most call for a careful and controlled approach to tourism development.

• Concern over the various impacts of tourism is most keenly felt among those who are closest to the land in general, and to the GSH in particular. When it comes to the GSH, it seems, familiarity breeds concern.

• Ultimately, area respondents tend to express a mixture of hope and ambivalence when it comes to the tourism industry in the GSH. While most acknowledge that there are some existing and potential problems involved, they also see tourism as potentially part of the economic salvation of their communities. These sentiments are summarized in the following quotes from respondents’ concluding remarks following the survey.

58

“Tourists should not be allowed in the sensitive areas of GSH and the oil/gas companies should also be restricted from developing those areas–they should be redirected to Sceptre only to view the dunes/area.” “The GSH would do better if they were promoted. They need porta-potties, picnic tables etc. They need tourism in the area to keep the area alive.” “The more gas and tourists the better.”

GSH area residents

59

4.4 THE CROSS IMPACTS OF GAS, RANCHING, AND TOURISM. The interview also contained questions designed to assess residents’ perceptions of the ways in which the three main industries in the area impact upon each other. Though we did not specifically ask people to list “positive” or “negative” impacts between the three industries, their responses tended to sort naturally into these broad categories. In discussing the impacts of the gas industry upon ranching, it is well known that the nature of the work has the potential to negatively affect the ranching industry, as well as the native flora and fauna of the area. Environmental concerns are the top-cited impact of the gas industry on the ranching industry. This speaks to the first set of concerns, in that further safeguards may need to be in place to satisfy both industries. Many feel that gas activity should not be conducted at all in certain areas of the GSH. It has been suggested that improved technology and gas industry management should be in place before further development should be allowed. For both industries to co-exist and thrive, one industry should not be dominated or coerced by the other. As seen in Figure 4.4.1, the majority (63%) of respondents share the opinion that the gas industry has the potential to impact the ranching industry. The specific concerns most often mentioned are outlined in (Table 4.4.1). The positive impacts cited by the respondents are all focused on the financial benefits of the industry to the GSH area’s ranchers and their communities. Negative impacts focussed on the gas industry’s footprint on the land as it affects the ranching industry. These impacts include damage to pasture land (15%), disruption of the cattle themselves (8%) and the issues of contamination and overuse of available water supplies in the area (7%). In addition to these environmental issues, some respondents also spoke of the damage done to the quality of life for ranchers.

Figure 4.4.1 Do you think the gas industry has the potential to impact the ranching industry?

Yes63%

No37%

60

Table.4.4.1: Potential impacts of the gas industry on ranching, specified Impacts Yes,

mentioned Not Mentioned

Positive impacts on ranching: Extra income for ranchers 32% 37% Keeps agriculture afloat 15% 68% Employment opportunities for ranchers 3% 85% Brings tax dollars for area 3% 92% Negative impacts on ranching: Gas development bad for pastures/grass/grazing 15% Impacts to cattle, damage and disruption 8% 93% Water problems, contamination and overuse 7% Disruption to quality of life for ranchers 7% 93% In relation to the impacts of the gas industry upon tourism, nearly one-third (30%, Figure 4.4.2) of the respondents believe that such impacts exist. The most commonly listed impacts cited by that group of respondents are shown in Table 4.4.2.

Figure 4.4.2 Do you think the gas industry has the potential to impact the tourism industry?

Yes30%

No70%

61

Table 4.4.2 Potential impacts of gas industry on tourism, specified Impacts Yes,

mentioned Not Mentioned

Positive impacts on tourism: Injects money locally 22% 88% Good for tourism (people want to see gas wells, development, etc) 18% 82% Community support from gas companies, funds for tourism development 5% Roads and trails enhanced by gas industry, can be used by tourists 5% Negative impacts on tourism: Gas wells are an eyesore 15% 95% Gas destroys natural environments aesthetics 15% 95% Gas traffic is negative 5% 95% Roads and trails damaged by gas industry, not useable by tourists 3% 97% Gas development is bad for hunting 1% 99% Many respondents feel that the economic benefits of the gas industry can be beneficial to the development of the tourism industry. Others, meanwhile, express concerns about the environmental and aesthetic disruptions from the gas industry that might degrade the tourist potential of the area. Tourists, it is felt, will want to see a pristine environment free of the “eyesores” associated with gas wells. Concerning the impacts of ranching on gas and tourism, as Figure 4.4.3 illustrates, over a quarter (28%) of our respondents expressed the viewpoint that the ranching industry has the potential to impact on the gas industry.

Figure 4.4.3 Do you think the ranching industry has the potential to impact the gas industry?

Yes28%

No72%

62

The only positive impact of ranching on the gas industry that people mentioned is summarized by the quote below. The current difficult state of the cattle industry (the B.S.E. crisis, etc.) creates a context that is far more open to, and enthusiastic about, gas development than would likely be the case if the ranching industry were in better health.

“Few ranchers say no when a gas company comes knocking. I guess if they did, they could make it tough for the gas industry. I don't think that's going to happen.”

GSH area resident The negative impacts cited by our respondents of ranching on the gas industry involve the shared use of the land. Ranchers might act as an obstacle to gas industry activity through their control and monitoring of the environment (Table 4.4.3). Table 4.4.3 Potential impact of ranching on the gas industry specified Impacts Yes,

mentioned Not Mentioned

Positive impacts on gas: Gas development welcomed by ranchers who need the revenue 8% 86% Negative impacts on gas: 92% Ranchers conflict with gas re: ranchers restrict access to land 46% 98% Ranchers conflict with gas re: ranchers restrict land use 14% 98% Rancher are sensitive to any contamination of land and water by gas 2% 98% Cattle are destructive to gas infrastructure 2% In terms of the impacts of ranching on tourism, 26% (Figure 4.4.4) of the respondents tell us that ranching has an impact on tourism in the GSH area. Many people see ranching and tourism as potentially complementary endeavours with fewer conflicting interests than is the case with tourism and the gas industry. Ranching could play an important role in tourist activities in the area. Or, it just might disrupt those activities. Some respondents mentioned the large areas of land owned and/or operated by ranchers who control access to those areas and could limit tourist activities in many areas if they chose to do so.

63

Figure 4.4.4 Do you think the ranching industry has the potential to impact the tourism industry?

Yes26%

No74%

Among those respondents who see ranching as having an impact on tourism, most report positive impacts. Again, there is a perception that the two industries are, or at least could be, complementary. Ranching is not seen as aesthetically destructive or disruptive of the natural environment that draws tourists to the area (though 2% of people see it as destructive–see Table 4.4.4 below). Indeed, the ranching industry itself is seen by many (28%) as an attraction.

“Ranching and tourism get along just fine as ranching creates/promotes tourist ventures related to ranching and the protection of the land.”

GSH area resident Table 4.4.4 Potential impact of ranching on tourism, specified Impacts Yes,

mentioned Not Mentioned

Positive impacts on tourism: A dude/guest ranch sector could be enhanced for tourism 28% 72% Ranching is more aesthetically pleasing than gas wells 27% Negative impacts on tourism: 73% Ranchers deny access to tourists 21% 79% Ranchers deny access to hunters 4% 96% Ranching is destructive to the land 2% 98% The tourist industry, rather than simply being impacted by gas and ranching, can also have an effect on those industries as well, according to our respondents. Only around one respondent in ten (11%, see Figure 4.4.5) expressed the opinion that tourism could impact the gas industry. The people who hold this opinion see tourism influencing gas activities mainly by imposing demands upon the gas industry in

64

prioritizing environmentally sensitive approaches in its operations (Table 4.4.5). The aesthetic concerns of the tourism industry could lead to more limitations on where the industry could operate. An increased awareness of the unique environmental issues of the area could lead to further demands that the gas industry operate in an environmentally sensitive manner. Only 11% said that tourism might impact the gas industry by making it more environmentally accountable, however. In addition, 9% actually see tourism bringing positive attention to the gas industry.

Figure 4.4.5 Do you think the tourism industry has the potential to impact the gas industry?

Yes11%

No89%

Table 4.4.5 Potential impact of tourism on gas industry, specified Impacts Yes,

mentioned Not Mentioned

Positive impacts on gas: Brings positive attention to the gas industry 9% Negative impacts on gas: Tourism could lead to protection/conservation, and calls for less development 39% Tourism could make the gas industry more environmentally accountable 11% 61% More human presence requires more responsibility/vigilance 7% 89% Tourism sites would be unavailable for development 5% 91%

65

“Tree huggers will keep it natural … not to be sarcastic but people can ruin a good thing … tourism should be controlled in the area.” “(Tourism)…lets people discover the GSH area, and might lead to greater awareness and conservation of the area.”

GSH area residents The impact of tourism on ranching, as cited by 20% (Figure 4.4.6) of the respondents, takes the form of either mutual benefits for both industries, or the problems involved in having more people tramping all over the countryside.

Figure 4.4.6 Do you think the tourism industry has the potential to impact the ranching industry?

Yes20%

No80%

The tourism industry is not perceived as holding much clout against the ranching industry. Comments of this nature indicated that tourists can impact ranchers by becoming lost and requiring assistance, or by causing trouble by leaving gates open, etc. As an industry, however, tourism is not yet developed enough to restrict or impact ranching in a major way. Both have similar aims of maintaining the “natural” state of the land, either for grazing cattle, or for the aesthetic enjoyment of tourists. As such, many of the impacts of tourism on ranching (Table 4.4.6) cited by our respondents could be characterized as positive for the ranching industry as whole, albeit with an increased “nuisance factor” for individual ranchers.

66

Table 4.4.6 Potential impact of tourism on ranching industry, specified Impacts Yes,

mentioned Not Mentioned

Positive impacts on ranching: It can be mutually beneficial, i.e. Dude ranches 20% 80% Encourages good land management and education 15% More tourism is positive for ranchers, i.e. Income 10% Negative impacts on ranching: 85% Tourism involves extra work for ranchers, i.e. vigilance for lost tourists 22% Nuisances from increased traffic, leaving gates open, chasing cattle 5% 90% Hunters are problematic for ranchers/ranching (stray/misdirected bullets, etc) 3% 95% More tourism is negative for ranchers, i.e. Less land use 1% 97% CROSS-IMPACT SECTION SUMMARY As the key industries of the area continue to intersect geographically, ecologically, and economically, we can draw some conclusions with respect to the main concerns brought forward by residents of the GSH region. Access to land continues to be an issue for ranchers and gas industry workers and tourists. Once access is granted, what assurances or accountability is there for damage or difficulties? What kind of protection or framework is in place for everyone involved?

• Two-thirds of our respondents tell us that the gas industry has the potential to impact the ranching industry. The positive impacts cited are all financial in nature, owing to the current situation in agriculture in Saskatchewan. The negative impacts reflect the competing interests of the two industries occupying the same territory.

• Three out of ten respondents see the gas industry impacting tourism in the GSH area. The main positive benefits of the gas industry on tourism take the form of funding and infrastructure. The negative impacts are perceived to be environmental and aesthetic in nature. The gas industry is seen as damaging the very environment and landscape that draws tourists to the area.

• More than a quarter of our sample expressed the opinion that the ranching industry has the capacity to impact the gas industry. The sole positive impact cited is the fact that the gas industry can expect a warm welcome, due to the current state of the cattle industry in Saskatchewan (B.S.E., etc.) and the fact that ranchers need the revenue from gas wells at this point more than they might at any other time. The negative impacts stem from ranchers role as “stewards of the land.” They control access and activities on large tracts of land and, due to their presence on the land, tend to closely monitor the environment.

• Around a quarter of the respondents felt that ranching can impact on the tourism industry in the GSH. Mostly, the two industries were regarded as mutually complementary, and therefore positive, since both are oriented toward the natural environment of the area and many of their interests overlap. But some respondents

67

warned that the tourism industry might be frustrated at times by the ranchers control over access to a large proportion of land in the area, and over the activities that can be conducted there.

• Only 11% of our respondents said that tourism could have an impact on the gas industry. Of those who did, only 9% felt that tourism would bring positive attention to the gas industry. Many more expressed the concern that tourism might frustrate the efforts of the gas industry in the area through more widespread calls for environmental protection, through a need for the industry to demonstrate its commitment to environmentally sound practices, and to avoid development in designated tourist areas.

• One respondent in five (20%) told us that tourism can also have an impact on ranching. On the positive side, tourism is seen as a potential source of revenue for ranchers. On the other hand, negative impacts spring largely from the “nuisance factor” of having more people in the area. The presence of hunters is seen as a potential danger to ranchers and their cattle.

The general response shows that the ranching industry may indeed be dominated by the gas industry, as in all cases, the majority believes the ranching industry does not have the potential to impact the gas industry. A similar relationship is seen between the gas and tourism industries. Tourism and ranching are largely seen as mutually beneficial. These statements expressed by the broad range of stakeholders that spoke with us, taken as a whole, should serve as a warning sign to developers and planners in the area, and measures should be taken to avoid domination and extinction of one industry by another. Each is important to the GSH area, but a monoculture of gas activity will not be sufficient to maintain population or income levels, either. Indeed, as the lifespan of the natural gas reserves has yet to be calculated with certainty, it would seem prudent to maintain the ability for other industries to operate in the meantime, and with sufficient provisions for the future.

68

5.0 CONCLUSIONS The series of in-depth ethnographic interviews with GSH area residents conducted in the summer of 2005 identified a number of trends and issues relevant to the GSH region and its inhabitants with regard to the complex interrelationships between the people, the economy and the land. The telephone survey phase of the larger GSH study was intended to explore the opinions of the GSH population about some of these trends and issues. The survey was geared toward an assessment of people’s attitudes toward the three key industries in the GSH region: gas, ranching, and tourism. Questions were formulated to allow people to express their opinions about (a) the impacts of these industries on individual households, communities, and the physical environment of the GSH; (b) the effects of a hypothetical increase or decrease in each industry; and (c) the ways in which the key industries interact and affect each other. In addition, we asked several basic demographic questions, including age, gender, education and occupation, and questions specific to the region. They included questions about the spatial distribution of the respondents’ residences–among RMs, between rural and town settings, and the township and range numbers–their time of residence in the area, their level of knowledge of the GSH core area, and land ownership. Many of these demographic question items were used as independent variables in the analysis of the survey data to verify possible variations among the opinions of different types of respondents regarding the impacts of the three industries. With the goal of producing results that could be confidently generalized to the population of the GSH, a survey instrument was designed to address these issues and a stratified sampling strategy was developed to allow us to contact potential respondents that represent the range of diversity of the inhabitants of the 8 RMs in the region. The telephone survey was conducted in the spring of 2006. A team of interviewers completed interviews with a total of 432 adult residents of the 8 RMs (out of a total of about 2,700 households in the region). An examination of our demographic variables shows that our sample is a close reflection of the population in terms of gender balance, age and education levels. The existence of a vigorous gas industry in the area, and the considerable financial infusion which that industry provides to people, businesses and communities, sets this region apart from other areas of the province. The people of the GSH region–as many other rural regions–are vulnerable to the upheavals of agricultural markets and climate events. In this context, the presence of a gas industry contributes to a reduction of that vulnerability by providing additional revenue and employment to a large number of households (56% of the respondents recognized positive impacts of the industry on households). For a large proportion of the respondents (86%), the community benefits most from the presence of the gas industry. These benefits involve more revenues for established local business, employment for local people and a larger tax base revenue to RMs, although concerns are expressed about road damage and issues related to the existence of a transient workforce. This enthusiasm, however, is less strong regarding the

69

positive impacts of the industry upon the GSH core area. Only 44% of the respondents recognized positive impacts of the industry upon the area, while the rest expressed concerns about damage resulting from road development, chemical spills, and damage to wildlife habitat, plants, and grasses in the area. In this context, it is not surprising that most people tend to support further gas development in terms of the benefits for households and communities. Around two-thirds of the respondents would anticipate a positive or very positive impact on their household income should gas activity increase, but when it comes to the potential positive impacts of increased gas activity on their communities, the number of optimistic respondents jumps substantially. Over 90% of the respondents expected positive impacts from the expansion of gas industry on employment opportunities and local businesses and services. However, between half and two-thirds of the respondents predicted negative consequences for the GSH core area as a results of more gas development. The support is, as expected, strong among those who own or lease land–they benefit from the existence of gas wells–and yet, they are the same people who express concerns about the negative impacts of gas activity, in terms of quality of life and environmental issues. Two-thirds of those who reported positive impacts to their household stemming from the gas industry are people who own/lease land. Still, landowners were more likely than non-land owners/leasers to report the existence of negative impacts Ranching, being a traditional and long-established industry in the region, was assessed positively by most of the respondents and ranchers were perceived as responsible users of the land. In terms of the impacts of the ranching industry on the regional household, close to half of the respondents (49%) reported a positive impact, and only a very small minority (8%) report negative impacts. Regarding the industry’s community impact, 89% of the respondents note the positive impacts of ranching, especially in terms of retaining population, support for local business, and contributing to social cohesion. Negative impacts of ranching upon households and communities were not directly associated with the activity but rather with the strains of dealing with external problems, such as the B.S.E. crisis. In terms of the GSH area, almost three-quarters believe that ranching had positive impacts, arguing the well-managed ranching is the best use of the land. Yet, concerns were raised in relation to “damage from overgrazing,” or “cattle wearing down grass in high-traffic areas.” When asked to think about an increase or decrease in ranching and the effect of this change, the majority of our respondents (63%) indicated a preference for ranching to remain at its present level and only a minimal minority, 1%, called for less. The rest–36%–called for more ranching activity in the area. In the case of a hypothetical expansion of ranching, over two-thirds of the respondents predicted no impact on their households. When asked to consider the potential impacts of increased ranching on the community, respondents showed much more optimism about the positive spin-offs of such an increase than was the case for their individual households. In reflecting on the potential impacts of increased ranching on the GSH core area, over one-third of the respondents expressed concerns about negative impacts on active sand dunes, roads and trails, and soil and sand erosion and grasslands. Most concerned were those who know the dangers of improper

70

land management. People living outside of the town and people involved in agriculture are more likely to fear negative consequences emerging from more ranching than is the case for townspeople and people not involved in farming and ranching. Of the three industries, tourism is the least developed and the one that exists mostly in the form of a potential to be developed. The assessment of the current impacts of tourism on communities and the GSH core area were highly positive. In both cases over three-quarters of the respondents considered that the impacts were positive. Conversely, relatively few respondents–one in five–recognized positive impacts upon the household. Most of the enthusiasm for tourism is expressed by people who live in the towns and villages and among those employed in their own businesses, as opposed to farmers and ranchers, employees, or people outside the workforce. Tourism is not widely seen as damaging to the GSH environment. On the contrary, close to three-quarters of the respondents argued that the main benefit of tourism on the GSH stems from the greater levels of environmental awareness and attention that come as a result of tourism development. At the same time, many respondents were also aware of the potential damage to that environment caused by the movement of large numbers of people through the GSH. Those people who do express concern over the impact of tourism on the environment are more likely to be people who live and/or work close to the land, rather than in the towns. While there is no total consensus when it comes to attitudes toward the gas, ranching and tourism industries, the three of them enjoy the support of a large majority of the respondents. Levels of enthusiasm for the continuation and expansion of all three tend to be rather high. While levels of enthusiasm and levels of concern for one form of development or another tend to vary somewhat, there is no simple division into groups of “favour” and “opposed.” There are no discreet interest groups standing at odds with other interests. The survey data is characterized by a remarkable uniformity of opinion across categories where one might expect more conflict. When it comes to ongoing gas activity, the survival of ranches, and the building of a tourist industry, everyone has a stake, which explains the complexity of the survey results.

71

6.0 References Saskatchewan Environment, “Map: Government of Saskatchewan, Saskatchewan

Environment, Great Sand Hills Representative Area Ecological Reserve, 2005-02-22-mda-SE”, Available from: http://www.se.gov.sk.ca/GSH/Page2.htm. [Accessed Sept 15, 2006]

Statistics Canada, Statistical Area Classification: Highlight Tables, 2001 Counts, for

Canada, Provinces and Territories. Catalogue no. 97F0024XIE2001016 www.statcan.ca

72

7.0 Acknowledgements The authors would like to acknowledge the significant assistance of Eleanor Bowie, from the Great Sand Hills Planning District Commission, for her guidance, hospitality, and facilitation of this research project. We would also like to acknowledge the energy and efforts of the group of interviewers who contributed to the success of the project. They are: Laura Alfaro, Marie Bonner, Aynsley Calder, Lori Evert, Lois Fabians, Shirley Herauf, Gail Huck, Donna Koch, Kathryn Moorman, Kuldip Naik, Ried Nelson, Kimberley Nerbas, Louise Procyshyn, Shelley Skelding, Gaylene Spence, Amy Stensrud and Hitomi Suzuta. We would like to express our gratitude as well to the Sample Survey and Data Bank Unit of the University of Regina for facilitating the implementation of the survey. Harold Riemer of the faculty of Kinesiology and Health Studies at the U of R was instrumental in arranging our access to the unit and its CATI facilities; and we would particularly like to thank Erwin Karreman, research assistant attached to the unit, for his tireless efforts in helping us set up the CATI system in time for our fieldwork and maintain both the system and the multitude of files we generated during the interviewing period. Thanks also to André Magnan for his assistance with development of the questionnaire instrument and with the programming of the CATI system. The staff of the Canadian Plains Research Centre was tremendously helpful throughout every stage of our project. We would especially like to gratefully acknowledge the help and support provided by Lisa Drinkwater, Lorraine Nelson, Diane Perrick, Bonnie Galenzoski and Lorena Patino. Thanks, as well, to Brian Mlazgar for his editorial assistance with this report. Finally, our thanks to those residents of the Great Sand Hills area who enthusiastically agreed to participate in this study.

73