NISKU, Alta. – Despite falling incomes and greater distances to schools
and services, 98 percent of rural residents in the four western
provinces think they have a good life, a survey of people in rural
communities shows.
Philippe Ricard, with Socio-Graphic Studies in Quebec, said he has
never seen such an overwhelming show of support for quality of life.
In the survey of 1,968 farmers and non-farmers who lived in rural areas
of the four western provinces, 43.2 percent rated their quality of life
Read Also
Going beyond “Resistant” on crop seed labels
Variety resistance is getting more specific on crop disease pathogens, but that information must be conveyed in a way that actually helps producers make rotation decisions.
as good and 54.9 percent rated it very good.
“I survey quite a bit in urban areas and you don’t get such good
results for quality of life,” said Ricard, who conducted the survey for
the Western Agri-Food Institute, a group set up with funding from
western provinces to research and promote western agriculture and rural
development.
“As you can see, it is a good place to live,” said Ricard, as he
unveiled the research to the members.
Manitoba farmer Owen McAuley, chair of the institute, said the positive
attitude is a sign that life in rural areas is good.
“I think that speaks well for us. It’s a significant difference than
you would have got in urban areas,” said McAuley.
Former federal agriculture minister Charlie Mayer said he’s not
surprised by the results.
“I think people live in the country by choice,” said Mayer who lives in
St. Francois Xavier, about 20 minutes outside Winnipeg.
The study was commissioned by the Western Agri-Food Institute to find
the similarities and differences between farmers and non-farmers in
rural areas of the Prairies and British Columbia.
By understanding the attitudes toward agriculture, the group hoped to
better understand where agriculture would fit into the rural economy of
the future.
Instead of highlighting the differences between farmers and non-farmers
in rural areas, the study pointed out their similarities. Both groups
of rural residents said there was a need for good health care, roads
and education.
There was also little difference among attitudes toward intensive
livestock operations, genetically modified crops, pesticide use or
economic development.
When the rural residents were asked what they would do if a project
with economic benefit to their community had a negative impact on the
environment, 58 percent said they would try to find a compromise.
Eight percent said they would accept or defend the project and 34
percent said they would disagree with or oppose the project.
Gaye Lenderbeck of the Manitoba Rural Adaptation Council said she was
surprised by the willingness of people to co-operate on major projects.
“We tend to get a little hot about hog barn development. I think there
really are 58 percent who are willing to compromise but you don’t hear
that message,” said Lenderbeck.
Ricard said if the opposition is weighed slightly against large
projects, it’s because the people have chosen to live in rural areas
for the quality of life.
“The compromise leans more towards nature,” he said.
Jeff Turple of Target Ag-Ventures in Calgary said the survey shows
governments must realize agriculture policy isn’t necessarily rural
development policy.
While there is little difference in attitudes between farmers and
non-farmers, the survey showed there are clear differences in attitudes
among provinces.
The survey conducted in December and January showed 63.3 percent of the
people in Manitoba feel hog barns and intensive livestock have had a
negative impact on the environment, significantly higher than the 33.8
percent of people in Saskatchewan, the 25.5 percent in Alberta and 2.4
percent in B.C.
The Alberta residents said oil and gas activity and garbage and waste
disposal had the most negative impact on the environment.
Canadian Wheat Board support is greatest in Manitoba and Saskatchewan,
while the majority of Alberta and B.C. residents thinks the board
hinders producers.
For the prairie sample the study’s margin of error is 3.8 percent for
farmers and 3.7 percent for non-farmers.
Across the West, the margin is 3.1 percent for farmers and non-farmers.
