1. Northern Plains Ethics Institute at NDSU
Untangling Quality of Life and Oil Development: The Case of Western North Dakota
By Felix Fernando
Northern Plains Ethics Institute at NDSU

2. Acknowledgements Graduate committee Northern Plains Ethics Institute
Dr.Dennis Cooley (Primary adviser)
Dr.Gary Goreham
Dr. Robert Hearne
Dr.Jack Norland
Northern Plains Ethics Institute
North Dakota Humanities Council
Dr.Kris Ringwall- Dickinson Research Extension Center
Leann Wolff
Jay Krabbenhoft
Tania Arseculeratne

3. Rational (Calculative)
Quality of Life (QoL)?
Place Based
Rational (Calculative)
Cost and Benefits
Emotional
Meanings, Attachments

4. The Challenge Lack of prior studies None in North Dakota
Novel type of oil and gas development-Horizontal drilling and fracking
2nd wave of oil and gas literature was just beginning

5. Methodological Approach
Content Analysis
Williston Herald
01/2010 to 12/2012
512 letters to the editor
3877 online comments in opinion article section
Qualitative Interviews and Focus Groups
89 in-depth, semi-structured, open-ended, face-to-face interviews
First-hand observation of behavior
05/2013-8/2013
Over 200 interviews total
Participants
Key community informants
University extension service
Personal acquaintances of friends and family
Snowballing/ Referral sampling
Quantitative Survey
Random delivery and pick-up approach
A core hub town
321
A periphery hub town
361
Non-Parametric significance testing
Hierarchical regression
Demographic
Age
Gender
Residency
Socio-economic
Income
Inflation
Preference index

6. Usefulness of Content Analysis
Design and development of open ended questionnaire
Identification of key informants and prominent people in the community as potential participants
Construct a preliminary understanding of QoL in the context of western North Dakota.

7. Findings

8. Letter to editor: “residents of western North Dakota are fed up with "man camps," unsafe communities and traffic, outrageous rental rates, and unsightly impacts to the very land which supports every aspect of life in western Dakota. Did any of the state "leaders" bother to ask if we WANTED to live in an "oil patch" no matter the impact on our way of life?... Most of us longtime Dakotans kind of liked what we had before this extreme "boom," namely the blue sky, good roads with light traffic, an agriculturally driven economy along with modest oil activity.”

9. Cost of Housing
Letter to editor: “the cost of rent is crazy! I recently read an ad for a five-bedroom mobile home for $8,500 per month!!! Who can afford this? No one can afford to pay these astronomical prices without compromising their family’s welfare. Most could not afford to bring their families to Williston due to the cost of living. It is really sad. I appreciate North Dakota for making a better life for my family, I just wish we could be together.”

10. Differences in Economic Positioning
Letter to editor: “people who do service jobs just can’t afford to live in Williston or the surrounding area anymore. Lots of folks are not willing or ABLE to work the long, hot, cold, tiring hours required in the oil patch. And let us face it: We need waitresses, gas station attendants, clerks, CNA’s, janitors, stock people and other service workers. And they need places they can afford to live and wages that will allow them to pay the upped prices.”

11. Qualitative Interviews

12. Community QoL Negative conditions Family experience
Increased traffic and accidents
Crime and issues of safety
Loss of small town environment
Lack of quality family time
Work experience
Long working hours
Overwhelmed services
Work associated stress
Social experience
Disproportionate male to female ratio
Rapid influx of people
Out-migration of longtime residents
Low degree of acquaintance and trust
Community experience
Rapid pace of change
Increased cost of living
Overtaxed community infrastructure and amenities
Noise and dust
Increased traffic on rural roads
Change in landscape
Transient people who don’t care for the community
Positive conditions
In-migration of young family members
Variety of good paying jobs
Range of employment opportunities
Opportunity for quick career advancement
New residents
In-migration of people with roots
Younger population
Increased diversity
Infrastructure investments
New business choices (retail, dining etc.)
New entertainment and recreation choices
QoL after the boom
Feeling of safety
Stable community
Small town environment
Low crime
Necessary amenities and services
Farming/ranching associated services
High degree of acquaintance
Trusting and helping each other
Laid back lifestyle
Low cost of living
Quiet and peaceful environment
Simple community needs
Access to outdoors and environmental based amenities
Out-migration of young people
Fewer job opportunities
Lower wages
Lesser opportunities for career progression
Older/declining population
Consolidation of amenities (both public and private)
Few additions to services (both public and private)
Few new businesses
Lack of vitality
QoL before the boom

13. QoL: “I think we had a real high quality of life here
QoL: “I think we had a real high quality of life here. Even if there wasn’t the highest and best employment opportunities people still stayed here because the quality of education was very high. The quality of recreational especially outdoors was very high. The quality of life the community was able to provide in terms of public safety and public services were also very high. So I think that’s what kept the people here prior to the boom.”
Positives: “I’ve lived here with my family for 38 years. Up until about 6-7 years ago this was really good place to raise your children. Very quiet town, everybody knew everybody, it always felt safe, and didn’t have to worry about locking your doors and that kind of stuff. It was a safe environment for the kids.”

14. Out-Migration: “well, I went to a country school, and that school did close in the 90’s. All during the time that I was raised here there was never any growth. I have two sisters, so when my last sister left that was really hard on him [my dad].”
QoL: “it was mostly agriculture. The community still had the things that they needed, the schools were there, we had places where we could get our groceries, you could still take your kids to the park, your friends were still there. It was safe. Life was good.”

15. In-Migration: “We have more people with diverse backgrounds
In-Migration: “We have more people with diverse backgrounds. You know, you see what used to be all white people essentially and now you see other people and that’s nice. I mean I like that.”
Amenities: “That’s the good part of the boom. We’re starting to get in some things we needed. We are getting in different business places, we are getting in more motels, apartments. We are getting in many different things that will benefit the city in the long run.”
Cost of Living: “The negative side of it to me is cost of living. It’s expensive to live here. I wish it was a more even, where everybody would say I do have an opportunity to financially advance myself because of the opportunities the oil is providing, but really lot of people don’t have extra money. It costs that much to live. It’s a stress for people because they look at that and say well I’m making more money but I’m not really taking and putting more money away.”

16. QoL Factors that Affect the Entire Community
Positive QoL
Negative QoL
Entrepreneurs and Mineral rights owners
Oil Industry Workers
Home Owners
Non-Oil service Industry and Public Service Workers
Renters
Senior Citizens
Positioning in Economic and Income structure
Status of Home Ownership
Positive Factors
Family experience
In-migration of young family members
Work experience
Variety of good paying jobs
Variety of economic opportunity
Opportunity for quick career advancement
Social experience
New residents
In-migration of people with roots
Community experience
Younger population
Better ethnic and racial diversity
Infrastructure investments (roads, housing, public services)
New businesses
New entertainment and recreation choices
Negative Factors
Increased traffic and accidents
Crime and issues of safety
Transient people (bad apples)
Loss of small town environment
Lack of quality family time
Long working hours
Overwhelmed services (retail etc.)
Work associated stress
Disproportionate male to female ratio
Rapid influx of people
Out-migration of longtime residents
Low degree of acquaintance and trust
Rapid pace of change
Increased cost of living
Overtaxed community infrastructure and amenities
Inaccessible services (healthcare etc.)
QoL Factors that Affect the Entire Community

17. Drivers of QoL Affordable Housing Investments in public services
Investments in infrastructure
Attracting new businesses
Community integration programs

18. Summary of Findings
Difference in perception of QoL between those who are in a position to benefit financially from the boom and those who are not.
Difference in perception of QoL between those who are subjected to an escalation in cost of living (especially housing) and those who are not.
The boom has created several new positive conditions at the expense of several positive Qol conditions that existed before development.

19. Survey

20. Socio-economic Status
People could benefit
Mineral rights or lease rights
Business ownership
Land Lord
Working in the oil industry
Selling resources (water) to the industry
Exposure to level of inflation
Owned housing (living with family)
Rented housing
Employee provided housing

21. Community QoL Preference Index
7 point scale
High density of acquaintance vs. low density of acquaintance
Safe stable community vs. changing and adapting community
High paying jobs vs. low cost of living
Small town rural environment vs. suburban type living
Conservative homogenous community vs. diverse community
Laid back life style vs. fast paced life style
Quiet and peaceful environment vs. opportunity for economic growth

22. QoL Rate QoL on a scale of -5 to +5
Rate Life Satisfaction on a scale of -5 to +5
Total QoL score a -10 to +10
Subsequently recoded as a binary response (0,1)

23. Results: QoL Perception Differences
QoL Differences- Demogrpahic
Hub_Core
Hub_Peri
Gender
0.94
0.086
Age- K-W
0.000
0.065
Residency- K-W
0.14
0.205
Female (Above and below 60)
0.147
0.115
Male (Above and below 60)
0.665
QoL Differences: Socio-Economic
Hub_Core
Hub_Peri
Benefit and don't benefit
0.000
Inflation: exposed and not
Female:Benefit and don't benefit
Male:Benefit and don't benefit
Female-Inflation: exposed and not
0.002
0.021
Male-Inflation: exposed and not
0.02
0.004

24. Logistic Regression- Total QoL Female- Level One
Hub_Core
Sig
Hub_Peri N
176
188
Omnibus Tests of Model Coefficients
Chi-Square
4.485
.106
7.318
.026
Nagelkerke R-Square
3.4%
5.1%
Hosmer and Lemeshow Goodness of Fit Test
Chi-square
.030
.862
.022
.882
Variable Estimates B
Exp (B)
Age (60 and below)
-.993
.370
.075
.756
2.130
.074
Residency
-.303
.739
.406
.618
1.855
.086

25. Logistic Regression- Total QoL Female- Level Two
Hub_Core
Sig
Hub_Peri N
176
188
Omnibus Tests of Model Coefficients
Chi-Square
73.958
.000
52.621
Nagelkerke R-Square
47%
32.6%
Hosmer and Lemeshow Goodness of Fit Test
Chi-square
7.368
.498
7.353
.499
Variable Estimates B
Exp (B)
Age
-1.528
.217
.023
.639
1.894
.191
Residency
-.917
.400
.092
-.077
.926
.897
Benefit
1.597
4.937
1.049
2.856
.002
Inflation
-1.779
.169
.001
-1.594
.203
.010
Pref-Index
1.670
5.312
1.302
3.676

26. Logistic Regression- Total QoL Male- Level One
Hub_Core
Sig
Hub_Peri N
145
173
Omnibus Tests of Model Coefficients
Chi-Square
22.310
.000
5.354
.069
Nagelkerke R-Square
19.4%
4.1%
Hosmer and Lemeshow Goodness of Fit Test
Chi-square
1.542
.463
1.750
.417
Variable Estimates B
Exp (B)
Age (60 and below)
-2.015
.133
-.209
.811
.624
Residency
-.279
.757
.520
-.806
.446
.038

27. Logistic Regression- Total QoL Male- Level Two
Hub_Core
Sig
Hub_Peri N
145
173
Omnibus Tests of Model Coefficients
Chi-Square
97.348
.000
Nagelkerke R-Square
 66.5%
66.9%
Hosmer and Lemeshow Goodness of Fit Test
Chi-square
8.521
.289
4.525
.807
Variable Estimates B
Exp (B)
Age
-1.408
.245
.029
-.521
.594
.384
Residency
-1.858
.156
.060
-1.878
.153
.176
Benefit
3.170
23.801
3.763
43.089
Inflation
-1.999
.135
.044
-1.590
.204
.277
Pref-Index
2.999
20.071
1.860
6.423

28. Concluding Remarks
Demographic variables had low explanatory power in QoL perceptions
Socio-economic variables had comparatively more explanatory power
Whether they benefit or not is an important determinant for men than women
Preferences about QoL characteristics influence QoL perceptions
Level of exposure to inflation influences QoL perceptions of women
For new-comer women exposure to inflation influences negative perceptions of QoL

29. Non-Oil service Industry and Public Service Workers Renters
Potential trends for the next 5 years
Level of economic activity will remain the same or increase
Interest for employment in the area will remain the same
Population will become younger
Housing demand will continue to increase
Drivers and conditions that will improve QoL
Affordable Housing
Reduction in cost of living
Potential for new businesses and enhanced public services.
Opportunity for better community financial condition
Opportunity to attract new permanent community members
Prevent out-migration
Investment in Community Infrastructure
Less issues of traffic and accidents
Recreational and entertain opportunities to suit a younger population
Retention of new residents
Investment in Public Services
Better sense of safety and security
Available and accessible services
Community Integration Programs
Build unity and trust
Attraction of New Businesses
Wider variety of products and services
Better Choices for daycare etc.
Drivers and conditions that will worsen QoL
Lack of Affordable Housing
Cause of out-migration
Barrier to new and existing businesses
Barrier to enhance public services
Barrier to bringing families of employees
Highly transient population
Lack of investment in Community Infrastructure
Traffic and safety issues
Waiting lines and long commuter times resulting in frustration and stress
Overtaxed public services
Safety and security issues
Worker stress and potential turnover issues
Lack of Community Integration
Lack of unity and trust within the community
Lack of attachment to community of new community members
Lack of social support groups and networks for new and longtime residents.
Better QoL
Worse QoL
Non-Oil service Industry and Public Service Workers
Renters
Senior Citizens
Entrepreneurs and Mineral rights owners
Oil Industry Workers
Home Owners
Present status of QoL

30. Questions?