Transiency, Fly-in-Fly-Out Workers, and Sustainability: Perceptions From Within a Resource-Based Community

Abstract

The dynamics of the modern workforce required for large industrial development has changed over the last several decades. More specifically, many companies based in oil and gas extraction are opting to adopt a fly-in-fly-out (FIFO) workforce model, in particular those based on the extraction and production of oil and gas, in an attempt to minimize infrastructure costs and alter the cyclic boom/bust nature associated with resource extraction. Employing semi-structured interviews with key informants from Fort McMurray, Alberta, perhaps the most notorious resource-based community in Canadian history, this paper details how residents perceive the FIFO workers and what impacts this new employment strategy may have on their community. The primary findings indicate that while it is necessary to have access a large workforce, the use of FIFO workers negatively impacts the local community in several ways. First, the use of FIFO workers not only reduces the interaction that employees have with the nearby community, but alters their perception of that community. Second, FIFO workers access local infrastructure (e.g. healthcare) but do not support further development through taxes and discretionary income. Third, the transiency of FIFO workers affects place-attachment and long-term sustainability of the region. This research contributes to existing literature on resourcebased communities, sustainable urban development, and FIFO employment through use of a Canadian case-study that illustrates local experiences of the impacts of a relatively new employment model that has the potential to significantly impact resource-based communities.

Supporting social sustainability in resource‐based communities through leisure and recreation

“…A contributing factor to the negative social conditions often experienced in RBCs is the varying degrees and severity of social isolation that result from irregular patterns of daily life (e.g., shift work) (Haslam-McKenzie and Hoath 2014;Deacon et al 2017). These patterns are often incongruent with typical social and institutional activities that support social interaction between residents (Haslam-McKenzie and Hoath 2014).…”

“…These patterns are often incongruent with typical social and institutional activities that support social interaction between residents (Haslam-McKenzie and Hoath 2014). This social interaction encourages the development of support networks, which have been shown to provide protective health benefits against the stress caused by social isolation (e.g., referrals to access a wider range of resources, healthy behaviour modeling) (Greider and Krannich 1985;Coleman and Iso-Ahola 1993;House 2001;Deacon et al 2017).…”

“…In addition to deficits in basic urban infrastructure and services, RBCs often cannot supply auxiliary amenities that have been demonstrated to support social well-being and resident retention such as recreation facilities, retail shopping, dining, and entertainment options (Storey 2001;Nikiforuk 2011;Besser et al 2012;Franks 2012;Ennis et al 2013;Meinert 2013;Keough 2015;Soong et al 2015). The lack of such amenities contributes to high rates of transiency (Besser et al 2012;Deacon et al 2017)people reside in these communities temporarily to work and live elsewhere. Compounding this transiency is the unpredictable boom and bust nature associated with the natural resource sector, which reacts to any number of global events that can cause the economy to contract as quickly as it expanded (Marchand 2012;Keough 2015).…”