Northern B.C. shows how big resource projects can strain rural health care
-
Author: Gary N. Wilson | Professor of Political Science, University of Northern British Columbia
American tariffs and fears of a prolonged recession have increased calls to expand resource development and infrastructure projects in Canada. The pace and scope of expansion projects like these have major implications for Canada on many levels, including: commitments to environmental sustainability, relations with Indigenous Peoples and the quality of local health services.
In a study that I conducted with environmental health researcher Barbara Oke in northern British Columbia, we found that major resource projects can strain local health-care services in rural and remote regions. In particular, the influx of workers connected with development projects puts significant pressures on health-care providers. This is especially concerning as local health-care services are already experiencing funding, infrastructure and staff shortages.
Therefore, it’s critical that government and industry actively consider these pressures when planning new projects.
-
Author: Gary N. Wilson | Professor of Political Science, University of Northern British Columbia
American tariffs and fears of a prolonged recession have increased calls to expand resource development and infrastructure projects in Canada. The pace and scope of expansion projects like these have major implications for Canada on many levels, including: commitments to environmental sustainability, relations with Indigenous Peoples and the quality of local health services.
In a study that I conducted with environmental health researcher Barbara Oke in northern British Columbia, we found that major resource projects can strain local health-care services in rural and remote regions. In particular, the influx of workers connected with development projects puts significant pressures on health-care providers. This is especially concerning as local health-care services are already experiencing funding, infrastructure and staff shortages.
Therefore, it’s critical that government and industry actively consider these pressures when planning new projects.
This seems like a circular argument to me.
The area doesn’t have the infrastructure to handle the workers needed to build it, but we need to build infrastructure to solve the problem, but we cannot do that because we don’t have the infrastructure built to support the workers.
Unfortunately that means updating infrastructure is likely going to cause pain and strain, and doesn’t seem like a good argument against building these things.
-
This seems like a circular argument to me.
The area doesn’t have the infrastructure to handle the workers needed to build it, but we need to build infrastructure to solve the problem, but we cannot do that because we don’t have the infrastructure built to support the workers.
Unfortunately that means updating infrastructure is likely going to cause pain and strain, and doesn’t seem like a good argument against building these things.
Yup, I think the article is about making sure the healthcare side is accounted for when building, rather than not building
Major infrastructure projects contribute to both local and provincial economies. When managed well, the economic benefits of such projects can positively contribute to community health.
But when not managed properly, the pressures that major infrastructure projects place on local health-care services can be significant. Therefore, we strongly urge governments and businesses to consider their impacts on overburdened and hard-working health-care providers in rural and remote communities.
On site medical attention would help as well:
How well a project manages its health service impacts clearly matters. When project workers resided in well-managed camps supported by competent onsite medical service providers, the pressures on the local system were less than when workforces did not have adequate accommodation and health supports.
