ALBERTA SOUTHWEST REGIONAL ALLIANCE:

ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL PROFILE

Marianne Sorensen, PhD May, 2009

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A. INTRODUCTION The purpose of this report is to provide an economic and social profile of the Alberta SouthWest Regional Alliance (AlbertaSW). By providing such background information on the AlbertaSW, the report complements a study that is currently being conducted on urban-rural interdependence in Flagstaff. The report presents and analyzes 2006 Census data using two geographical systems: with an urban / rural dichotomy and with a more refined rural categorization called Metropolitan Influence Zone (MIZ).

B. URBAN-RURAL ECONOMIC INTERDEPENDENCE Overall, the commuting patterns presented in this section indicate relatively low levels of commuting from AlbertaSW to urban centres outside of the Region. There is, however, some variation in the labour mobility of AlbertaSW residents within the Region with those residing in No MIZ demonstrating a higher level of mobility and therefore a higher level of interdependence with other communities in the Region. Due to the small population size of No MIZ, however, its higher level of interdependence has a minor influence on the overall AlbertaSW economic interdependence analysis. Rather, the pattern in the two larger geographic zones dominate this analysis and we conclude that, at least based on commuting, there is relatively little economic interdependence between different levels of rurality.

C. POPULATION AND DEMOGRAPHIC INDICATORS In contrast to rural Alberta which experienced strong population growth of 14.1% between 2001 and 2006, the population in AlbertaSW declined slightly by -1.8%. Compared to the rest of rural parts of province, the total AlbertaSW population is slightly older, more likely to be married, and to be an immigrant.

D. SOCIAL INDICATORS The population of the Alberta SouthWest Regional Alliance is characterized by higher levels of educational attainment when compared to their provincial rural counterparts. A slightly larger proportion of homes in the Alberta SouthWest Regional Alliance are owned. Though there are likely important economic reasons for the lower value of housing observed in AlbertaSW, it may also in part be explained by their older age and greater level of disrepair.

E. ECONOMIC INDICATORS Most indicators suggest that AlbertaSW is at a greater economic disadvantage than found in rural Alberta as a whole. AlbertaSW has a lower labour force participation rate and median income and a higher incidence of government transfer income than observed in the province. Though there are likely several other important factors, the lack of interaction with urban centres may be a factor in explaining the less-than-positive economic situation in AlbertaSW.

TABLE OF CONTENTS A. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 1 B. REGIONAL ECONOMIC INTERDEPENDENCE ....................................................... 3 Key Findings ............................................................................................................................ 3 B.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 4 B.2 Urban-Rural Proximity ................................................................................................... 5 B.3 Geographic Zone Designation ...................................................................................... 6 B.4 Commuting Flows and Patterns ................................................................................... 8 Summary ................................................................................................................................ 11 C. POPULATION AND DEMOGRAPHIC INDICATORS ................................................ 12 Key Findings............................................................................................................................. 12 C.1 Population Change........................................................................................................ 13 C.2 Age Structure ............................................................................................................... 15 C.3 Minority Status .............................................................................................................. 17 C.4 Marital Status and Family Structure ............................................................................. 18 Summary .................................................................................................................................. 19 D. SOCIAL INDICATORS ............................................................................................... 20 Key Findings ............................................................................................................................. 20 D.2 Educational Attainment ................................................................................................ 21 D.1 Housing ........................................................................................................................ 23 Summary .................................................................................................................................. 25 E. ECONOMIC INDICATORS ......................................................................................... 26 Key Findings .............................................................................................................................. 26 E.1 Labour Market Indicators .............................................................................................. 27 E.2 Industry Employment Distribution ................................................................................. 29 E.3 Income Indicators ......................................................................................................... 32 Summary .................................................................................................................................. 34 References........................................................................................................................ 35 Appendix: Supplementary Table, Population Counts, 2006, 2001 and 1996 Alberta SouthWest Regional Alliance ..................................................................................... 37

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES TABLES Table 1: Population and Urban Proximity; Alberta SouthWest Regional Alliance ......................... 5

Table 2: Geographic Zone Designation; Alberta SouthWest Regional Alliance, 2001 ................. 7

Table 3: Place of Work by Geographic Zone; Alberta SouthWest Regional Alliance, 2006 ......... 9

Table 4: Work Commuting Patterns by Geographic Zone; Alberta SouthWest Regional Alliance, 2006 .......................................................................................................................................... 10

Table 5: Population Change by Geographic Zone; Alberta SouthWest Regional Alliance & Alberta....................................................................................................................................... 14

Table 6: Population Age Distribution by Geographic Zone; Alberta SouthWest Regional Alliance & Alberta, 2006 ......................................................................................................................... 16 Table 7: Minority Status by Geographic Zone; Alberta SouthWest Regional Alliance & Alberta, 2006 ............................................................................................................................ 17 Table 8: Marital and Family Status by Geographic Zone; Alberta SouthWest Regional Alliance & Alberta, 2006 ........................................................................................................................ 18 Table 9: Educational Attainment by Geographic Zone; Alberta SouthWest Regional Alliance & Alberta, 2006 ......................................................................................................................... 22

Table 10a: Housing Characteristics by Geographic Zone; Alberta SouthWest Regional Alliance & Alberta, 2006 ......................................................................................................................... 24 Table 10b: Housing Characteristics by Geographic Zone; Alberta SouthWest Regional Alliance & Alberta, 2006 ......................................................................................................................... 25 Table 11: Labour Force Activity by Geographic Zone and by Gender; Alberta SouthWestern Regional Alliance & Alberta, 2006............................................................................................. 28 Table 12: Industry Employment Distribution by Geographic Zone and Gender; Alberta SouthWest Regional Alliance & Alberta, 2006.............................................................. 30 Table 13: Income Indicators by Geographic Zone; Alberta SouthWest Regional Alliance & Alberta, 2005 ......................................................................................................................... 33 FIGURES Figure 1: Population Distribution by Geographic Zone; Alberta SouthWest Regional Alliance & Alberta, 2006 ........................................................................................................................ 8

A. INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this report is to provide an economic and social profile of the Alberta SouthWest Regional Alliance (AlbertaSW). By providing such background information on AlbertaSW, the report provides contextual and benchmarking information that will complement a larger study currently being conducted on urban-rural interdependencies in the province.

________________________________________________________

1

The overall objective of the larger study is to explore the nature of urban-rural interdependencies related to economic, social, and environmental sustainability and to determine their impact on the well-being and prosperity of regions. AlbertaSW is one of three Alberta economic regions comprising the study. Similar profile reports have been developed for the other two case-study regions of the Calgary Regional Partnership and HUB (and for a pilot study of the Flagstaff region). We begin the report by examining the economic interdependence in AlbertaSW in Section B, followed by a presentation of population / demographic, social, and economic indicators in Sections C, D, and E, respectively. Each section of the report begins with highlights of the key findings and concludes with a brief summary that ties the key findings together.

About the Alberta SouthWest Regional Alliance

Alberta SW is one of 13 Regional Economic Development Alliances (REDAs) in the Province of Alberta. REDAs are autonomous self-selected organizations that are supported by the Alberta government and that include over 250 communities in the province. More information on the province’s REDAs can be found at http://albertacanada.com/regionaldev/1218.html. Occupying the far southwestern corner of Alberta, the Alberta SouthWest Regional Alliance refers to the geographical area comprised of 15 municipalities, including 7 towns, 3 villages, 1 county, 3 municipal districts, and 1 improvement district (national park). Alberta SW The economic region was initially established in the late 1990s to draw more tourism to the area and to consolidate efforts to garner government support for community growth and prosperity. The region is involved in several partnership projects including the development of a movie map, collaboration with National Geographic Society on the Crown of the Continent Map Guide, and the Southern Alberta Energy Partnership, which has the objective “to nurture and facilitate our region's growth as an alternative energy provider, while at the same time introducing methods that will allow individuals and organizations who live here to become more self-sufficient energy users.” http://www.albertasouthwest.com/page.cfm?contentID=111. Further information on AlbertaSW can be obtained at www.albertasouthwest.com

________________________________________________________

2

The major source of data for this report was Statistics Canada’s 2006 and 2001 Censuses of Population.1 Two main classification systems form the core analysis in this report. First, a distinction is made between urban and rural areas. Since AlbertaSW is 100% rural, however, urban centres are factored in only insofar as they bear on rural to urban commuting. Second, the Metropolitan Influenced Zone (MIZ) system, developed by McNiven et al. (2000), is used to make distinctions within the rural and small town municipalities of AlbertaSW. The four MIZ categories are Strong, Moderate, Weak, and No MIZ, with each reflecting progressively greater rurality and less urban influence. When available, comparative data have been provided for Alberta using the same two classification schemes.

1 Discrepancies between the figures presented in this report and other Statistics Canada 2006 Census data is primarily due to the use of 20% sample data for most of the 2006 Census in the current report. These data have been weighted, are subject to rounding, and exclude institutional residents.

________________________________________________________

3

B. REGIONAL ECONOMIC INTERDEPENDENCE Key Findings B.1 Introduction All 15 of AlbertaSW municipalities meet the definition of ‘rural and small town’ compared to

compared to 21.2% of the provincial population. B.2 Urban-Rural Proximity All but Crowsnest Pass are within what is typically considered to be inside the urban

periphery of the City of Lethbridge. Alternatively, just under half of the communities are within the urban periphery of Calgary.

B.3 Geographic Zone Designation None of the municipalities are categorized as Strong MIZ, indicating that no more than 30%

of the local Alberta SW population commutes to work in an urban core of a large centre, and four municipalities are categorized as No MIZ since none of the local population is commuting to the urban core.

We conclude that though there is variation within the Region, most of the municipalities are not highly economically dependent on the City of Calgary or the City of Lethbridge.

B.4 Commuting Flows and Patterns A relatively modest proportion of AlbertaSW residents work in their own municipality

(34.2%), and this is especially the case for No MIZ (5.8%), the residents of which are most predominantly found to work within the Census Divisions of either Fort MacLeod or Banff (54%).

Further, 38.4% of the No MIZ population commutes to work in another municipality within AlbertaSW compared to just 18.0% of Moderate and 13.7% of Weak MIZ residents. Proportionally speaking, commuting within the other two MIZ geographies is not as common and tends to be within the same geographic zone (e.g., from Moderate to Moderate MIZ).

Summary Due to the small population size of No MIZ, its higher level of interdependence has less significance for the overall AlbertaSW economic interdependence and we conclude that, at least based on commuting, there is relatively little economic interdependence between different levels of rurality.

B.1 Introduction All 15 municipalities in the Alberta SouthWest Regional Alliance fit Statistics Canada’s geographical definition of ‘Rural and Small Town’ (see box at right). This compares to 21.2% of Alberta municipalities that are defined as rural and small town.

________________________________________________________

4

The rural designation of AlbertaSW has implications for its interdependency with urban centres and therefore its economic well-being. Rural communities can benefit economically from their interdependency with urban communities in a multitude of ways. For example, rural areas can gain economically from urban centres by having access to diverse employment opportunities, to large end markets for rural production, to resources for public and private investment in rural enterprise, to vibrant environments for knowledge creation and transfer, and to transportation hubs (Dabson, 2007; Core Cities, 2003; Slack et al., 2003). The extent to which these benefits are realized, however, depends on proximity to urban centres, with the greatest economic advantages accruing to rural communities within the urban periphery (Dabson, 2007; Partridge et al., 2007; Wensley and Stabler, 1998).

Definition of Rural and Small Town: Regions that have a population of less than 10,000 and where less than 50% of employed individuals commute to a Census Metropolitan Area (CMA) or Census Agglomeration (CA) (Statistics Canada, 1999a).

We conduct a regional economic interdependence analysis at two geographical levels: One between the rural community of AlbertaSW and its nearest urban centres (urban-rural analysis) and the other between the municipalities comprising the region of AlbertaSW (regional analysis). The urban-rural analysis begins by examining the proximity of each AlbertaSW municipality to its two closest and largest urban markets, which as noted above, bears on the extent to which rural communities can capitalize on the benefits of urban centres. For both the urban-rural and AlbertaSW regional analysis of economic interdependency, we use work commuting patterns as a measure of flows of people between localities.2 Commuting flows are more than just a measure of home to work journeys and access to labour markets since people tend to use services provided in the same regions where they work. Accordingly, our examination of commuting flows reflect both the economic and social connections between communities. The regional assessment is done first by drawing upon the Metropolitan Influence Zone (MIZ) system which exacts a more granular categorization of rural communities and, mostly notably, accounts for commuting flows from rural communities to the urban core (in this case, the Cities of Lethbridge and Calgary). The MIZ categorization system also forms the core basis of analysis for all subsequent sections in the report. The final and central analysis in this section entails an evaluation of place of work data and of work commuting patterns between MIZ

2 Other ways of understanding urban-rural interdependency including examining the flows of goods, flows of wastes; and sectoral interactions (e.g. urban farming, rural manufacturing) (Tacoli, 1998).

________________________________________________________

5

communities in the AlbertaSW. Hence, this final section moves the investigation from a simple one-directional commuting flow analysis from rural AlbertaSW to nearby urban centres, towards a more robust delineation of two-directional flows between a wider range of communities within AlbertaSW. B.2 Urban-Rural Proximity The Cities of Lethbridge and Calgary have been identified as major markets for AlbertaSW. As such, an examination of the proximity of AlbertaSW municipalities to these cities has implications for the degree to which the conditions are set for interdependency. The population of each community and their respective distance to the City of Calgary and the City of Lethbridge are presented in Table 1 below. The first observation of note from Table 1 is that all but Crowsnest Pass are within what is typically considered to be inside the urban periphery of the City of Lethbridge (which is typically deemed to be a 200 kilometer radius: see Partridge et al., 2007; Wensley and Stabler, 1998; or within a 90-minute commute: see Dabson, 2007). Alternatively, just under half (7 of 15) the communities are within the urban periphery of Calgary, suggesting that some municipalities are more likely to benefit from their close proximity to this larger urban centre than others.

Table 1: Population and Urban Proximity

Alberta SouthWest Regional Alliance

Municipality 2006

PopulationDistance to

Lethbridge (kms) Distance to

Calgary (kms) TOTAL ALBERTASW 34,068 -- Crowsnest Pass (town) 5,749 255 138 M.D. of Willow Creek 5,337 113 169 M.D. of Cardston County 4,037 87 263 Claresholm (town) 3,700 91 133 Pincher Creek (town) 3,625 102 219 Cardston (town) 3,452 76 234 M.D. of Pincher Creek 3,309 102 218 Fort MacLeod (town) 3,072 50 173 Stavely (town) 435 108 116 Granum (town) 415 77 152 Glenwood (village) 280 108 214 Cowley (village) 219 108 225 Hillspring (village) 192 120 246 Waterton Lakes National Park 160 148 265 M.D. of Ranchland 86 92 132

Source: Statistics Canada 2006 Census of Population and Travel Alberta Distance Calculator (http://www1.travelalberta.com/en-us/index.cfm?pageid=2155)

________________________________________________________

6

B.3 Geographic Zone Designation Rural municipalities can be further categorized into a system that captures varying degrees of ‘rurality’ called “Census Metropolitan Area and Census Agglomeration Influenced Zones” (MIZ). The MIZ allocation of municipalities is a good indicator of urban-rural economic interdependency as it captures the flows of rural populations to urban populations for work. Under the MIZ system, rural communities are classified into four MIZ categories based on the proportion of the population commuting to large urban centres. The MIZ definitions and the classifications of the 15 municipalities in the Alberta SouthWest Regional Alliance are displayed in Table 2. Of initial note is the fact that none of the municipalities are categorized as Strong MIZ, indicating that no more than 30% of the local Alberta SW population commutes to work in an urban core of a large centre. At the other end of the distance and commuting spectrum are four municipalities in which none of the local population is commuting to the urban core (i.e., No Influence Zone). We conclude that though there is variation with the Region, most of the municipalities are not highly economically dependent on the City of Calgary or the City of Lethbridge. The respective MIZ classifications of the AlbertaSW municipalities are important to keep in mind when interpreting the results presented in this report. As demonstrated across the country, not only do urban and rural communities depart significantly along a number of dimensions, but the further distinction brought by MIZ zone classifications is a strong determinant of the population, demographic, social, and economic characteristics of any rural community (Sorensen and de Peuter, 2006).

________________________________________________________

7

Table 2: Geographic Zone Designation by Municipality Alberta SouthWest Regional Alliance

Geographical Designation Municipality Definition

Rural & Small Town Strong Influence

--

Between 30% and 49% of the employed workforce commutes to the urban core of any large urban centre, suggesting that this population is strongly integrated with the urban economy

Moderate Influence Cardston County, Town of Cardston, Waterton Park, M.D. of Willow Creek, Fort MacLeod, Stavely

At least 5% but less than 30% of the employed workforce commutes to the urban core of any large urban centre, suggesting that this population is moderately integrated with the urban economy.

Weak Influence M.D. of Pincher Creek, Town of Pincher Creek, Granum, Claresholm, Crowsnest Pass

More than 0% but less than 5% of the employed workforce commutes to the urban core of any large urban centre, suggesting that this population is weakly integrated with the urban economy.

No Influence

Glenwood, Hillspring, Cowley, M.D. of Ranchland

0% of the employed workforce commutes to the urban core of any large urban centre (plus any CSD that has less than 40 people in its employed labour force), suggesting that this population is not at all integrated with the urban economy.

Source: Statistics Canada Population, 2006 Figure 1 shows the population distribution between the urban and rural and MIZ designations for the AlbertaSW and for the province of Alberta. In addition to illustrating the full rural designation of AlbertaSW, the figure shows that nearly half of the population falls within each of Moderate and Weak MIZ, respectively, compared to just 6.8% and 11.0% within the province. Hence, the AlbertaSW population is not only 100% rural, but it also has a rural population that is less integrated with the urban core than is the case in the province. Once again, therefore, we have evidence of a relatively low level of urban-rural interdependence.

Figure 1: Population Distribution by Geographic Zone Alberta SouthWest Regional Alliance and Alberta, 2006

0.0

100.0

0.0

48.5

49.1

2.4

78.8

21.2

2.5

6.8

11.0

0.8

Urban Total

Rural/Small Town Total

Strong MIZ

Moderate MIZ

Weak MIZ

No MIZ

0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0Percent

AlbertaSW AlbertaGeographic Zone

AlbertaSW is entirely rural, compared to just

21.2% of the province of Alberta.

Source: Statistics Canada 2006 Census B.4 Commuting Flows and Patterns Table 3 presents place of work (commuting) data which has important implications for the interdependence of municipalities within AlbertaSW. The main observation to note is the relatively modest size of the AlbertaSW residents working in their own municipality (34.2%). In part, this is because of the higher than expected proportion working at home (22.3%, which likely reflects the predominance of farming occupations in the Region) and working elsewhere in the province or the country (11.9%). One in five (19.7%) AlbertaSW residents works outside of their own municipality but within the same Census Division of their residence. This figure, however, is significantly higher for No MIZ, 54% of whom work within the Census Divisions of either Fort MacLeod or Banff. Thus, the No MIZ population is much more geographically mobile than those residing in Moderate and, especially, Weak MIZ parts of AlbertaSW.

________________________________________________________

8

Table 3: Place of Work by Geographic Zone Alberta SouthWest Regional Alliance, 2006

Percent

Place of Work

ALBERTASW

TOTAL Moderate

MIZ Weak MIZ

No MIZ

(17,295) (8,540) (8,325) (430)

No fixed work address1 11.3 9.3 13.5 9.3

Work at home 22.3 29.0 15.4 24.4 Work in same municipality as residence 34.2 25.4 44.7 5.8

Work in same Census Division2 19.7 24.5 13.0 53.5

Work elsewhere in Alberta or Canada 11.9 11.1

________________________________________________________

9

Source: Statistics Canada 2006 Census (numbers may not add up due to rounding and area suppression)

13.0 5.8

Work elsewhere in the world 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.0

1 Includes “persons who do not go from home to the same workplace location at the beginning of each shift.” In Canada, these persons are most likely to be truck drivers, construction workers (especially carpenters), cleaners, and landscape and grounds maintenance labourers (see http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census06/analysis/pow/10_construction.cfm) . 2 There are 2 Census Divisions represented by the AlbertaSW, including Fort MacLeod and Banff. We are not able to tell from these data, however, whether residents of AlbertaSW are primarily commuting to urban centres outside of the region or to other rural communities within the region. Table 4 provides the details of out- and in-commuting patterns for the total commuting population of the AlbertaSW and for the three MIZ geographies. The table captures 16% of the total population or 83% of the population working within the same census division (of the 19.7% from Table 3). Since Table 4 only represents commuting within AlbertaSW, we can conclude that the majority (83%) of commuting within the same census division is being done within the geographic parameters of AlbertaSW.

Rural Commuting Patterns in Canada: Recent Canadian research supports the findings for AlbertaSW: In rural areas with weaker linkages with urban centres, most rural commuters travelled to the same type of rural area as where they lived (Harris et al, 2008).

The table further reinforces the finding from Table 3 that the population residing in No MIZ are much more likely to commute to work than are those living in the other two zones; 38.4% of the No MIZ population commutes to work in another municipality within AlbertaSW compared to just

________________________________________________________

10

18.0% of Moderate and 13.7% of Weak MIZ residents. Though there are only 85 AlbertaSW residents in-commuting to No MIZ, because of its small population size, this contributes nearly 50% to the local labour force. Interestingly, none of the in-commuters are from other municipalities within No MIZ, but are split somewhat evenly between Moderate (54.5%) and Weak MIZ (45.5%). The net commuting rate for No MIZ is a loss of 32.0% of the working population (e.g. 80 people more people leave to work elsewhere than come in to work). Proportionally speaking, commuting within the other two MIZ geographies is not as common. In contrast to No MIZ in which none of the residents are commuting to other No MIZ municipalities, however, residents of Moderate and Weak MIZ are the most likely to commute to other Moderate or Weak MIZ municipalities (64.2% and 84.2%, respectively).

Table 4: Work Commuting Patterns by Geographic Zone

Alberta SouthWest Regional Alliance, 2006 Geographic Zone

Work Commuting Indicators AlbertaSW

Total Moderate

MIZ Weak MIZ

No MIZ

# of Out-Commuters (leaving municipality to work elsewhere in AlbertaSW) 2,840 1,535 1,140 165

% of local employed population 16.4% 18.0% 13.7% 38.4% # of In-Commuters (coming into municipality from elsewhere in AlbertaSW) 2,840 1,265 1,490 85 % Contribution to Local Labour Force1 19.5% 22.0% 15.7% 49.4% % Commuting from Moderate MIZ 54.0% 64.2% 32.9% 2.9% % Commuting from Weak MIZ 40.1% 12.3% 84.2% 3.5% % Commuting from No MIZ 5.8% 54.5% 45.5% 0.0% Net Commuting Rate2 0.0 -9.6% 13.3% -32.0%

Source: 2006 Census Statistics Canada: Table 97-561-XCB2006008; Commuting Flow Census Subdivisions: Industry - North American Industry Classification System 2002 (21) for the Employed Labour Force 15 Years and Over. 1 Calculations are based on the ratio of in-commuters from Table 4 to those working at home, at no fixed address, and in the same municipality (from Table 3), plus in-commuters from Table 4. Though we have no way of knowing if those working “at no fixed address” are working locally (e.g., within the same municipality as their place of residence) and therefore, have no information to base a decision on whether or not to include them in the calculations, we have chosen to include them in these calculations. As such, the local labour force size data presented in this table should be viewed as over-estimates of the actual size of the local labour force for each geographic point.. This, in turn, means that the percentage of commuters comprising the local labour force are likely under-estimates. 2 The Net Commuting Rate is the difference between in- and out-commuting divided by the sum of in- and –out-commuting. Residents of AlbertaSW who commute for work are most likely to be accessing jobs in healthcare (14.3% largely in the towns of Claresholm, Cardston, and Pincher Creek), agriculture (11.4%, largely in Fort McLeod and Cardston), retail (9.9%, largely in Cardston and Pincher Creek) and education (9.9%, largely in Cardston, Clareholm, and Pincher Creek).

________________________________________________________

11

Summary Overall, the commuting patterns presented in this section indicate relatively low levels of commuting from AlbertaSW to urban centres outside of the Region. There is, however, some variation in the labour mobility of AlbertaSW residents within the Region with those residing in No MIZ demonstrating a higher level of mobility and therefore a higher level of interdependence with other communities in the Region. Due to the small population size of No MIZ, however, its higher level of interdependence has a minor influence on the overall AlbertaSW economic interdependence analysis. Rather, the pattern in the two larger geographic zones dominate this analysis and we conclude that, at least based on commuting, there is relatively little economic interdependence between different levels of rurality. This conclusion, however, must be tempered by keeping in mind that though commuting patterns provide a good indication of regional interdependencies, a more fulsome examination would also include examining the economic relationships and partnerships within AlbertaSW.

________________________________________________________

12

C. POPULATION AND DEMOGRAPHIC INDICATORS

KEY FINDINGS C.1 Population Change In contrast to rural Alberta which experienced a population growth of 9.3% between 1996

and 2006, the population of AlbertaSW contracted by -1.8%. C.2 Population Age Structure AlbertaSW has a slightly older age demographic than both urban and rural Alberta, with

Weak MIZ containing the largest proportion of seniors and Moderate MIZ the smallest proportions of mature adults and seniors.

C.3 Minority Status Compared to rural and small town Alberta, the Alberta SouthWest Regional Alliance is home

to somewhat smaller Aboriginal and visible minority populations. Representation of immigrants, however, is slightly higher in AlbertaSW than in the province,

irrespective of geographic zone. C.4 Marital Status and Family Structure The marital status of each geographic zone within the AlbertaSW population is comparable

to that of the province. Single parent families are less common in AlbertaSW than in rural and small town Alberta.

Summary Compared to the rest of rural parts of province, the total AlbertaSW population is slightly older, more likely to be married, and to be an immigrant. They are less likely, however, to be Aboriginal or a visible minority.

C.1 Population Change Table 5 presents population percentage change between 1996 and 2006 for AlbertaSW (See Appendix Table for total population figures for each community, geographic zone, and census year). The figure demonstrates a small decline in population of 1.8% between 2001 and 2006 and between 1996 and 2006. The constant rate of population decline for the smaller and larger time frames is due to variability within the Region. While Weak MIZ declined the most in the most recent inter-census period (-1.9%), Moderate MIZ and especially No MIZ decline to a greater extent in the earlier inter-census period (for a total 10-year decline of -2.1% and -13.3%, respectively). Thus, the population in Moderate and No MIZ areas stabilized since 2001.

________________________________________________________

13

These population declines are in stark contrast to the population growth that occurred during the same periods in rural Alberta (9.3%). The disparity is most apparent within No MIZ in which AlbertaSW declined by -13.3% while Alberta grew by 32.0%.3

AlbertaSW Compared to Rural and Small Town Canada and Alberta: Population change in the rural and small town communities of AlbertaSW contrasts with small growth in rural Canada between 2001-2006 of 1.0% and is significantly lower than that of Alberta, which experienced the fastest-growing rural population of all provinces during the same period of +3.8%. (Martel and Malenfant. 2007). Rural population change in Canada, however, varies greatly by proximity to urban centres; rural communities close to urban centres, in fact, experienced population increases between 2001 and 2006. Due to a net migration loss, more remote rural communities experienced population reductions during this most recent inter-census period (Statistics Canada, 2008).

3 Since the Alberta figures are drawn from a different census tabulation (i.e., they are not the 20% sample used for AlbertaSW), caution should be taken when making comparisons between AlbertaSW and the province.

________________________________________________________

14

Table 5: Population Change by Geographic Zone

Alberta SouthWest Regional Alliance & Alberta, 2006

2001-2006 (5-year) 1996-2006 (10-year)

Geographic Zone

Population Count

Change %

Change

Population Count

Change %

Change

TOTAL ALBERTASW -642 -1.8% -633 -1.8%

Moderate MIZ -306 -1.8% -361 -2.1%

Weak MIZ -341 -1.9% -153 -0.9

No MIZ 5 0.6% -119 -13.3

TOTAL ALBERTA1 315,543 10.6% 593,524 20.9%

Urban n/a n/a n/a n/a

Rural & Small Town Total2 n/a 3.8% n/a 9.3%

Strong MIZ n/a 12.9% n/a 25.6%

Moderate MIZ n/a 3.4% n/a 9.3%

Weak MIZ n/a 1.6% n/a 3.4%

No MIZ n/a 14.1% n/a 32.0% Source: Statistics Canada 2006, 2001 and 1996 Census of Population 1 Population change for the province is not available for the 20% Census samples for 2001 and 1996. Population percentage changes for Alberta are from published data in Table 2 of www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/21-006-x/2007007/t/6000469-eng.htm. Since these figures draw upon different census data using different tabulation methods and are adjusted for constant 2006 boundaries, caution should be taken when making comparisons between AlbertaSW and Alberta.

________________________________________________________

15

C.2 Population Age Structure With slightly smaller proportions of children, youth, and young adults, the age structure of the Alberta SouthWest Regional Alliance is not only older than urban Alberta, but is also somewhat older than rural Alberta (Table 6). There are, however, noteworthy differences within AlbertaSW. Moderate MIZ is the least likely to be in the two oldest age categories, thereby more closely resembling their provincial counterparts. Weak MIZ is notable for its larger-than-average senior population of 19.4% (compared to 15.4% and 17.3% for Moderate and No MIZ, respectively, and 11.8% for rural Alberta). Lastly, when compared to all comparison groups, No MIZ contains a much higher-than-average youth population (of 26.9%), These age distributions have implications for the demand for services targeted to children in Moderate MIZ areas and to seniors in all geographic zones of AlbertaSW.

________________________________________________________

16

Table 6: Age Distribution by Geographic Zone Alberta SouthWest Regional Alliance & Alberta, 2006

Percent Distribution

Geographic Zone TOTAL Children (0 to 14)

Youth (15 to 24)

Young Adults

(25 to 44)

Mature Adults

(45 to 64) Seniors

(65+)

TOTAL ALBERTASW 100.0 20.1 12.1 21.1 29.3 17.4

Moderate MIZ 100.0 23.2 13.7 20.7 26.9 15.4

Weak MIZ 100.0 17.2 20.7 21.6 31.4 19.4

No MIZ 100.0 16.7 26.9 17.9 32.7 17.3

TOTAL ALBERTA 100.0 19.4 15.0 30.0 25.5 10.2

Urban 100.0 18.7 15.2 31.0 25.3 9.8

Rural & Small Town Total 100.0 22.0 14.1 25.9 26.3 11.8

Strong MIZ 100.0 20.5 13.3 26.5 29.6 10.2

Moderate MIZ 100.0 20.9 13.3 24.6 27.9 13.3

Weak MIZ 100.0 22.6 14.7 26.7 24.8 11.3

No MIZ 100.0 27.2 14.0 24.6 23.2 11.0 Source: Statistics Canada 2006 Census (numbers may not add up due to rounding and area suppression)

C.3 Minority Status Table 7 presents data on gender, Aboriginal identity, visible minority status, and immigrant status. Though gender parity is more or less observed for all geographic zones, Aboriginal representation is significantly lower in AlbertaSW than in rural and small town Alberta, with the difference most notably occurring within No MIZ (14.3% compared to 43.2% for the province). Visible minority representation in AlbertaSW is comparable to that of rural Alberta, though No MIZ areas are notable for having no visible minorities whatsoever in their population. Conversely, when compared to their provincial counterparts, immigrants are more highly represented in all geographic zones of SWAlberta.

AlbertaSW and Immigration Rates: AlbertaSW is a choice location for immigrants somewhat more than is typically observed in other rural regions and to some extent challenges a long-standing Canadian pattern of immigrants choosing to reside in urban centres. In 2006, just 2.8% of recent immigrants to Canada lived outside a census metropolitan area or a census agglomeration (Statistics Canada, 2008).

Table 7: Minority Status by Geographic Zone Alberta SouthWest Regional Alliance & Alberta, 2006

Percent

Geographic Zone Female Aboriginal Identity1

Visible Minority2 Immigrant

TOTAL ALBERTASW 50.6 4.9 1.7 8.3 Moderate MIZ 51.3 5.9 1.5 7.9 Weak MIZ 50.0 3.5 2.0 8.8 No MIZ 49.1 14.3 0.0 6.2 TOTAL ALBERTA 49.9 5.8 13.9 16.2 Urban 50.1 4.1 17.2 18.9 Rural & Small Town Total 49.3 11.9 2.0 6.0 Strong MIZ 49.2 3.2 1.6 6.7 Moderate MIZ 49.6 6.1 1.9 6.4 Weak MIZ 49.0 15.1 2.2 5.9 No MIZ 50.1 43.2 1.4 2.8

Source: Statistics Canada 2006 Census 1 Aboriginal Includes individuals identifying with at least one Aboriginal group including North American Indian, Métis or Inuit, and/or those who reported being a Treaty Indian or a Registered Indian and/or those who reported they were members of an Indian band or First Nation. 2 Visible Minority is defined as persons, other than Aboriginal peoples, who are non-Caucasian in race or non-white in colour.

________________________________________________________

17

________________________________________________________

18

C.4 Marital Status and Family Structure The marital status of each geographic zone within the AlbertaSW population is comparable to that of the province: There are smaller proportions of singles and higher proportions of married people in rural areas than in urban areas (Table 8). Within rural AlbertaSW, slightly higher proportions of the population in Weak MIZ communities are found to be widowed, thus reflecting the larger senior populations in this zone (Table 6).

Table 8: Marital1 and Family Status2 by Geographic Zone Alberta SouthWest Regional Alliance & Alberta, 2006

Percent

Geographic Zone Single Married Divorced Widowed

Single Parent Family

TOTAL ALBERTASW 24.7 61.0 7.4 6.9 6.0 Moderate MIZ 26.1 62.6 5.8 5.6 4.6 Weak MIZ 23.4 59.3 9.0 8.3 7.6 No MIZ 26.9 64.9 6.0 2.2 1.5 TOTAL ALBERTA 34.0 53.0 7.7 4.4 14.4 Urban 35.0 52.9 7.9 4.2 15.0 Rural & Small Town Total 30.2 57.8 7.0 5.0 12.2 Strong MIZ 26.4 62.3 7.8 3.5 9.6 Moderate MIZ 26.7 61.0 7.2 5.1 10.9 Weak MIZ 32.7 55.6 6.5 5.2 13.1 No MIZ 39.7 47.5 7.4 5.4 20.6

Source: Statistics Canada 2006 Census (numbers may not add up due to rounding and area suppression) 1 Expressed as a percentage of all individuals greater than 15 years of age. 2 Expressed as a percentage of all census families. Table 8 also shows that the family in AlbertaSW is less likely to be structured as a single-parent family than elsewhere in the province, and this is especially the case in No MIZ regions (only 1.5% are single parent families compared to 4.6% in Moderate MIZ, 7.6% in Weak MIZ AlbertaSW, and 20.6% in No MIZ Alberta), We have no readily-available explanation for this finding other than to speculate that the higher rates of immigrants in AlbertaSW translates into a higher rate of religiosity which may in turn explain the lower rates of single-parenthood in the Region.4

4 Research shows that recent immigrants tend to have a higher degree of religiosity than the Canadian-born. In 2001, 4 in 10 immigrants who arrived in Canada between 1982 and 2001 had a high degree of religiosity compared to just 26% of people born in Canada (Statistics Canada, 2006).

________________________________________________________

19

Summary In contrast to rural Alberta which experienced strong population growth of 14.1% between 2001 and 2006, the population in AlbertaSW declined slightly by -1.8%. Compared to the rest of rural parts of province, the total AlbertaSW population is slightly older, more likely to be married, and to be an immigrant. They are less likely, however, to be Aboriginal or a visible minority. These findings hold for virtually all geographic zones, though No MIZ stands out as especially different on a number of dimensions when compared to the provincial data for No MIZ (e.g., much smaller Aboriginal status population and significantly lower prevalence of single parent families).

________________________________________________________

20

D. SOCIAL INDICATORS

Key Findings D.1 Educational Attainment The population of the Alberta SouthWest Regional Alliance is characterized by higher levels

of educational attainment when compared with rural zones of the province. D.2 Housing Indicators A slightly larger proportion of homes in the Alberta SouthWest Regional Alliance are owned,

yet they are less costly, older, and more likely to require major repair than in the province. Summary The educational attainment of AlbertaSW residents is, on average, higher than their rural Alberta counterparts. Though there are likely important economic reasons for the lower value of housing observed in AlbertaSW, it may also in part be explained by their older age and greater level of disrepair.

The population of the Alberta SouthWest Regional Alliance has, on average, a somewhat lower level of educational attainment than observed in the province (Table 9). When comparing rural-to-rural zones, however, higher levels of education are observed for AlbertaSW. This finding is applicable to all geographic zones, and once again, is most notable for No MIZ in which 45.5% have at least some post-secondary education compared to just 33.1% of the population residing in No MIZ regions of the province. Given the well-documented lower educational attainment among Aboriginal Canadians, part of this difference may lie in the smaller Aboriginal population residing within No MIZ of AlbertaSW. Nonetheless, with higher rates of high school incompletion in AlbertaSW than in the province as a whole and with most post-secondary institutions requiring a high school diploma for admittance, high school completion is an important first step towards increasing education levels in this Region. The larger share of children in Moderate MIZ than elsewhere in the AlbertaSW (23.2% compared to 17.8% and 16.7% for Weak and No MIZ, respectively; Table 6), further highlights the importance of developing initiatives designed to increase high school completion rates in these communities of the Region.

D.1 Educational Attainment

________________________________________________________

21

Rural Education in Canada: “Rural Alberta has one of the highest rates of high school drop-outs in the country at about 25%, presumably spurred by the promise of attractive pay for relatively unskilled work. However, this leaves these youths ill-prepared to deal with the consequences of a slump in the industry” (Cross and Bowlby, 2006: 3.11).

________________________________________________________

22

Table 9: Educational Attainment1 by Geographic Zone

Alberta SouthWest Regional Alliance & Alberta, 2006 Percent Distribution

Geographic Zone

Less than High

School High

School Any Post-secondary

Certificate Diploma Degree Total

TOTAL ALBERTASW 30.8 26.1 43.1 32.9 10.3 100.0

Moderate MIZ 32.4 25.9 41.6 30.7 10.9 100.0

Weak MIZ 29.8 25.8 44.3 34.6 9.8 100.0

No MIZ 20.9 20.9 45.5 37.3 5.9 100.0

TOTAL ALBERTA 23.4 26.2 50.4 32.9 17.5 100.0

Urban 20.8 26.3 52.9 33.1 19.8 100.0

Rural & Small Town Total 33.6 25.9 40.5 32.3 8.2 100.0

Strong MIZ 25.4 28.0 46.6 35.9 10.7 100.0

Moderate MIZ 31.7 26.4 41.9 33.6 8.3 100.0

Weak MIZ 35.6 25.6 38.8 31.1 7.7 100.0

No MIZ 47.5 19.4 33.1 27.2 5.9 100.0 Source: Statistics Canada 2006 Census (numbers may not add up due to rounding and area suppression) 1 Educational attainment is for the population 15 years of age and older.

D.2 Housing Indicators Tables 10a and 10b present information on housing for the Alberta SouthWest Regional Alliance and for Alberta. Beginning with the first column in Table 10a, it is evident that home ownership is slightly more prevalent in the AlbertaSW than in their rural provincial counterparts, with 81.7% of houses owned compared to 78.7.1% in rural Alberta. Housing values are lower in AlbertaSW than in all of their corresponding geographic comparison groups for the province. The cost of maintaining housing is also lower, with AlbertaSW residents making smaller monthly mortgage and utility payments. This difference is especially notable for Weak MIZ ($694 compareed to $827) despite that housing values are only marginally lower in AlbertaSW than in this geographic zone of the province ($171,158 compared to $187,633). AlbertaSW / provincial differences in rents follow much the same pattern as mortgage payments. The period of housing construction provides an indication of economic and population growth. The greater the percentage of houses constructed more recently in a region, the greater the likelihood that communities in those zones have experienced economic and population growth. Given the lack of population growth in the AlbertaSW (Table 5), it is not surprising that homes in the Alberta SouthWest Regional Alliance are older and more likely to require major repair than those in the province (Table 10b). Homes in No MIZ are notable for being the oldest in AlbertaSW (with 90.2% constructed before 1996) and in the greatest disrepair (21.3% of houses require major repair).

AlbertaSW Compared to Rural and Small Town Canada: Ownership is the predominant form of tenure in rural Canada (82 per cent in rural vs. 64 per cent in urban areas), however, the stock of housing in rural areas is older, on average, than it is in urban areas (CMHC, 2003).

________________________________________________________

23

________________________________________________________

24

Table 10a: Housing Characteristics by Geographic Zone

Alberta SouthWest Regional Alliance & Alberta, 2006

OWNED HOUSES RENTED HOUSES

Geographic Zone %

Owned Average Value ($)

Average Monthly

Payments ($)1

% Rented

Median Rent ($)

TOTAL ALBERTASW 81.7 $180.590 $727 18.3 $582

Moderate MIZ 81.4 $192,247 $783 18.6 $524

Weak MIZ 82.0 $171,158 $694 18.0 $625

No MIZ 78.7 $119,233 $608 21.3 $583

TOTAL ALBERTA 73.1 $293,811 $1,063 26.3 $804

Urban 71.7 $313,451 $1,112 28.2 $1,669

Rural & Small Town Total 78.7 $215,808 $866 18.6 $673

Strong MIZ 86.4 $345,563 $1,085 13.5 $770

Moderate MIZ 82.8 $214,382 $857 16.5 $664

Weak MIZ 75.5 $187,633 $827 21.2 $669

No MIZ 63.1 $140,809 $670 16.1 $560 Source: Statistics Canada 2006 Census (numbers may not add up due to rounding and area suppression) 1 Includes average monthly total of all shelter expenses paid by households that own their dwelling. The owner's major payments include, for example, the mortgage payment and the costs of electricity, heat and municipal services.

________________________________________________________

25

Table 10b: Housing Characteristics by Geographic Zone

Alberta SouthWest Regional Alliance & Alberta, 2006 Percent

Geographic Zone Dwellings Constructed

Before 1996 Dwellings Requiring

Major Repair TOTAL ALBERTASW 87.3 12.3 Moderate MIZ 85.1 13.8 Weak MIZ 88.9 10.8 No MIZ 90.2 21.3 TOTAL ALBERTA 76.1 6.7 Urban 75.0 5.5 Rural & Small Town Total 80.6 11.6 Strong MIZ 69.5 7.1 Moderate MIZ 79.4 11.1 Weak MIZ 83.5 12.2 No MIZ 84.0 20.9

Source: Statistics Canada 2006 Census (numbers may not add up due to rounding and area suppression) Summary The educational attainment of AlbertaSW residents is, on average, higher than their rural Alberta counterparts. Though there are likely important economic reasons for the lower value of housing observed in AlbertaSW, it may also in part be explained by their older age and greater level of disrepair.

________________________________________________________

26

E. ECONOMIC INDICATORS Key Findings E.1 Labour Market Indicators Labour force participation (LFP) is generally lower in AlbertaSW than in rural Alberta but so

too are unemployment rates. E.2 Industry Employment Distribution Two in five of the population in Alberta SouthWest Regional Alliance work in the goods-

producing sector, with jobs most likely to be found in agriculture (19.9%), especially in Moderate (28.7%) and No MIZ regions (23.6%).

Like rural Alberta, the population in AlbertaSW is most likely to work in the service sector with three in five of its labour force working in these industries, most predominantly in health and social services (10.6%), retail (9.1%), and accommodation and food services (7.1%).

E.3 Income Indicators Compared to elsewhere in the province, the Alberta SouthWest Regional Alliance exhibits

lower average incomes and is more likely to garner its income from government sources. At the same time, however, residents of AlbertaSW are less likely than Alberta residents to meet the criteria for low income status.

Summary Most indicators suggest that AlbertaSW is at a greater economic disadvantage than found in rural Alberta as a whole. AlbertaSW has a lower LFP rate and median income and a higher incidence of government transfer income than observed in the province. Though there are likely other important explanations, the lack of interdependence with urban centres may partly explain the less-than-positive economic situation in AlbertaSW.

UPDATE: Alberta Labour Market: “Employment fell in several provinces in March, with the largest declines in British Columbia (-23,000), Alberta (-15,000), and Ontario (-11,000). Since October, these three provinces also had the fastest rate of employment decreases . . . . Following a large decline in February, employment in Alberta fell a further 15,000 in March, pushing the unemployment rate up to 5.8%. Since October, employment losses have totalled 48,000 (-2.4%), mainly in the goods-producing sector.” (Statistics Canada, The Daily, April 9, 2009).

E.1 Labour Market Indicators The labour force participation (LFP) and unemployment data presented in Table 11 represent a mixed set of indicators. While LFP is generally lower in AlbertaSW, unemployment rates are also lower than found in rural Alberta. Once again, the No MIZ data for AlbertaSW counter the usual pattern found across the country whereby the least influenced zone is typically the most disadvantaged: Both LFP and unemployment rates are more favourable in No than in Weak MIZ zones and this is especially the case for males.

________________________________________________________

27

________________________________________________________

28

Table 11: Labour Force Activity by Geographic Zone and by Gender

Alberta SouthWest Regional Alliance & Alberta, 2006 Labour Force Participation Rate1 Unemployment Rate2

Geographic Zone Total Male Female Total Male Female

TOTAL ALBERTASW 67.0 73.9 60.4 3.6 3.1 4.0

Moderate MIZ 70.6 79.0 62.7 3.1 3.4 2.6

Weak MIZ 63.7 69.1 58.5 4.1 2.9 5.3

No MIZ 66.4 77.1 54.7 3.4 3.7 5.7

TOTAL ALBERTA 74.0 80.3 67.7 4.3 4.1 4.4

Urban 74.5 80.6 68.5 4.2 4.1 4.4

Rural & Small Town Total 72.3 79.4 65.0 4.4 4.4 4.5

Strong MIZ 75.6 82.3 68.7 3.2 2.9 3.5

Moderate MIZ 71.9 79.1 64.7 3.7 3.6 3.8

Weak MIZ 72.5 79.7 65.0 4.8 4.8 4.9

No MIZ 62.0 68.8 54.9 9.7 10.5 8.6 Source: Statistics Canada 2006 Census of Population 1 The Labour Force Participation Rate is the ratio of individuals who are currently employed or who are out of work (but looking for work) to the total number of individuals in the population who are over the age of 15. 2 The Unemployment Rate is based on the ratio of individuals who are currently unemployed to those who are in the labour force.

Like rural Alberta, the population in AlbertaSW is most likely to work in the service sector with three in five of its labour force working in these industries, most predominantly in health and social services (10.6%), retail (9.1%), and accommodation and food services (7.1%). Differences between SW Alberta and the province within Moderate MIZ are much less apparent than those found between the comparison geographies of Weak and especially No MIZ. With respect to the latter, the population in AlbertaSW No MIZ is noticeably more likely to be employed in administrative and support, waste management and remediation services (7.9% compared to 3.3%) and educational services (13.5% compared to 8.5%) and less likely to be working in public administration (0.0% compared to 10.6%) and health & social services (5.6% compared to 9.4%). The comparative lack of these types of typically more stable (and unionized) public sector jobs in No MIZ regions of AlbertaSW is a finding worth highlighting.

Two in five people living in the Alberta SouthWest Regional Alliance work in the goods- producing sector, with jobs most likely to be found in agriculture (19.9%; Table 12). Though similar proportions of rural Albertans work in the goods-producing sector, slightly smaller proportions are employed in agriculture, forestry, fishing, and hunting (14.5% compared to 19.9%). Within AlbertaSW, agriculture dominates the workforce in Moderate MIZ (29.7%) and No MIZ (23.6%). The latter finding is the most remarkable, given the much smaller proportion of the population employed in this sector within No MIZ regions of the province (just 7.7% compared to 23.6% in AlbertaSW).

________________________________________________________

29

E.2 Industry Employment Distribution

Employment in Agriculture in Canada: In Canada, employment in agriculture declined by slightly more than 4.2% between 2001 and 2006 with most of the decline occurring in 2001/02. Since then, employment in the industry has grown, but it remains below its 2000/01 level (HRSDC, 2007).

Table 12: Industry Employment Distribution by Geographic Zone Alberta SouthWest Regional Alliance & Alberta, 2006

Alberta SouthWest Regional Alliance

Alberta

Total Mod. MIZ

Weak MIZ

No MIZ Total Urban

Rural & Small Town

Strong MIZ

Mod. MIZ

Weak MIZ

No MIZ

Total Goods Sector 39.8% 43.9% 36.0% 39.3% 27.8 24.9 39.6 39.5 41.6 38.8 34.4 Agri. forestry, fishing, & hunting 19.9% 29.7% 9.8% 23.6% 3.9% 1.3% 14.5% 11.3% 17.5% 13.8% 7.7% Mining, oil & gas extraction 6.3% 2.0% 10.7% 5.6% 7.0% 6.2% 10.1% 9.8% 8.7% 10.9% 12.5%

Utilities 0.8% 0.5% 1.3% 0.0% 0.9% 1.0% 0.9% 0.7% 0.8% 1.0% 0.7%

Construction 7.1% 5.7% 8.7% 5.6% 8.8% 8.8% 8.6% 11.0% 8.9% 7.8% 9.9%

Manufacturing 5.7% 6.0% 5.5% 4.5% 7.2% 7.6% 5.6% 6.7% 5.8% 5.3% 3.6% Total Services Sector 60.2% 56.3% 64.0% 60.7% 72.2 75.1 60.4 60.5 58.4 61.2 65.6

Wholesale trade 2.9% 2.6% 3.2% 4.5% 4.4% 4.8% 3.2% 4.2% 3.3% 2.9% 3.0%

Retail trade 9.1% 8.5% 9.9% 5.6% 10.7% 11.0% 9.5% 8.8% 8.8% 10.0% 9.0%

Transportation & Warehousing 3.2% 3.1% 3.2% 4.5% 5.1% 5.1% 5.3% 4.8% 5.1% 5.6% 5.2%

Information & Cultural Ind. 0.6% 0.4% 0.8% 2.2% 1.9% 2.1% 0.8% 1.2% 0.8% 0.7% 0.9%

Finance & Insurance 2.0% 2.7% 1.4% 0.0% 3.1% 3.4% 2.0% 2.7% 2.0% 1.8%

1.5%

CONT’D

________________________________________________________

30

________________________________________________________

31

Source: Statistics Canada 2006 Census (numbers may not add up due to rounding and area suppression).

Table 12: Industry Employment Distribution by Geographic Zone (Cont’d) Alberta SouthWest Regional Alliance & Alberta, 2006

Alberta SouthWest Regional Alliance Alberta

Total Mod. MIZ

Weak MIZ

No MIZ Total Urban

Rural & Small Town

Strong MIZ

Mod. MIZ

Weak MIZ

No MIZ

Service Sector Cont’d Real Estate & Rental / Leasing 1.3% 0.9% 1.7% 0.0% 2.0% 2.1% 1.3% 1.7% 1.1% 1.4% 0.5%

Prof. sci. & tech. 3.7% 3.3% 4.2% 0.0% 7.5% 8.5% 3.6% 5.9% 3.6% 3.0% 2.6%Mngmt. of Companies & Enterprises 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.2% 0.1% 0.2% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0%Admin. / support, waste mngmt. & remediation serv. 2.8% 2.3% 3.0% 7.9% 3.7% 4.0% 2.6% 2.8% 2.7% 2.5% 3.3%

Educational serv. 6.3% 7.1% 5.1% 13.5% 6.2% 6.3% 6.0% 5.0% 6.0% 6.1% 8.5%Health & social serv. 10.6% 9.4% 12.1% 5.6% 9.1% 9.3% 8.4% 7.4% 8.6% 8.4% 9.4%

Arts, entertainment, & recreation 2.7% 2.3% 3.0% 2.2% 1.9% 2.0% 1.6% 1.6% 1.6% 1.5% 1.2%

Accommodation & food serv. 7.1% 5.7% 8.6% 6.7% 6.6% 6.7% 6.3% 4.9% 5.3% 7.3% 5.4%

Public Admin. 4.1% 4.6% 3.7% 0.0% 4.7% 4.7% 4.5% 3.5% 3.9% 4.8% 10.6%

4.5%Other Services 3.8% 3.3% 4.0% 7.9% 5.1% 5.1% 5.3% 5.8% 5.5% 5.2%

100.0%100.0%100.0%TOTAL 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%100.0% 100.0%

E.3 Income Indicators Three income indicators for AlbertaSW and Alberta are presented in Table 13. Compared to the province, the Alberta SouthWest Regional Alliance exhibits lower incomes. This finding is observed for all but Weak MIZ which, on average, has roughly the same median individual income as the comparison provincial figure ($24,154 versus $24,505). With nearly one-third of AlbertaSW residents working outside their own municipality, however, care should taken in attributing these income distributions solely to the communities comprising each of the MIZ regions. Still, explanations for the lower average income of AlbertaSW residents does not appear to stem from education (which, as displayed in Table 9 are on par with their rural provincial counterparts), though they may be a function of lower labour force participation and higher unemployment rate (except No MIZ; Table 11), or they may be due to the predominance of employment in agriculture (Table 12). Table 13 also presents two measures of income insecurity. Government transfer income refers to the proportion of economic families receiving such transfer payments as old age security, Canada Pension Plan installments, employment insurance, and child tax credits. If a group of people derives a relatively greater percentage of income from social transfer payments, as opposed to employment income or personal investments, this suggests greater economic dependency for members of that group. The second measure used to illustrate the relative economic well-being of residents within each geographic zone of AlbertaSW is the share of the population with low incomes (as measured by the percent of the population living in households with incomes below the low-income cut-offs (LICOs)). This indicator refers to the proportion of individuals with incomes below the cost of basic necessities including food, shelter, and clothing.5 Once again residents of AlbertaSW are notable for their relative economic disadvantage when compared to rural Alberta. The higher proportion of the population relying on government transfer payments may, in part, reflect the larger proportion of seniors in AlbertaSW (Table 6). The very high proportion of No MIZ residents relying on government sources of income (19.1%) is not, in contrast, explained by their age demographic since they are no more likely than the other two geographies to be children or seniors (two groups which are entitled to receive Old Age Security, Pension Plan income, and Child Tax Credits). Nor is it explained by their unemployment rate (and entitlement to employment insurance), again which is comparable to the rest of the Region. Hence, short of an explanation (at least with the data reviewed in this

Earnings and Education in Canada: As for all previous censuses, the 2006 Census reaffirmed that higher education is a gateway to higher earnings (Statistics Canada, 2008)

________________________________________________________

32

5 Along with family size, level of urbanization is factored into the estimated costs of necessities for each census individual, thereby determining the low-income cut-off value. The indicator assumes, quite rightly, that a higher cost of living amount coincides with a higher level of integration with urban centres. LICOs are, by Statistics Canada's admission, not a measure of poverty. There is also considerable debate about whether LICOs are a valid measurement of low income (see, for example, Webber; 1998).

________________________________________________________

33

report), we are left to conclude that the figure reflects an artificial inflation factor due to the rounding effect on such a small population size in No MIZ (of 225 economic families).

Table 13: Income Indicators1 by Geographic Zone

Alberta SouthWest Regional Alliance & Alberta, 2005

Geographic Zone

Median

Individual Income2

($)

Government Transfer Income3 (% of Economic

Families)

Low Income4 (% of Economic

Families)

TOTAL ALBERTASW $22.805 12.8 7.2

Moderate MIZ $21.901 13.5 6.7

Weak MIZ $24,154 12.1 7.6

No MIZ $18,529 19.1 6.8

TOTAL ALBERTA $28,896 6.4 8.7

Urban $29,919 5.9 9.2

Rural & Small Town Total $24,775 6.7 6.7

Strong MIZ $30,003 5.1 5.1

Moderate MIZ $24,204 9.9 7.0

Weak MIZ $24,505 9.4 6.8

No MIZ $20,172 14.0 6.7 Source: Statistics Canada 2006 Census of Population 1Income refers to total income received by persons 15 years and over during the calendar year 2005 as wages and salaries, net income from a non-farm unincorporated business and/or professional practice, and/or net farm self-employment income. 2 Median income is used because, unlike mean income values, median measures are not as unduly influenced by extreme values, whether high or low. 3 Government transfer income refers to all government transfer payments to individuals including Old Age Security, Canada/Quebec Pension Plans, Employment Insurance and Child Tax Credits and is expressed as a ratio of the amount of government transfer payments to the total average income among the population 15 years and over. 4 The incidence of low income is calculated as the number of individuals living in a household with an income below the low-income cut-offs (LICOs) divided by the total number of individuals. Lastly, the similar rate of low income families observed in rural regions of AlbertaSW and the province stands in contrast to other economic data reviewed in this section and may reflect the higher cost of living in other parts of rural Alberta (as indicated by housing prices in Table 10, which is an important factor in calculating low income).

________________________________________________________

34

Summary Most indicators suggest that AlbertaSW is at a greater economic disadvantage than found in rural Alberta as a whole. AlbertaSW has a lower LFP rate and median income and a higher incidence of government transfer income than observed in the province. Countering this conclusion somewhat, however, are the slightly lower unemployment and low income rates found in AlbertaSW. Still, though there are likely several other important factors, the lack of interaction with urban centres and therefore presumably the lost opportunity to capitalize on the benefits of urban centres (as noted in Section B), may be a factor in explaining the less-than-positive economic situation in AlbertaSW.

________________________________________________________

35

REFERENCES Alberta Human Resources and Employment. 2005. Understanding Alberta’s Labour Force: Looking to the Future. A Discussion Document, September 2005 Bollman, Ray and and Neil Rothwell. 2008. Structure and Change in Canada’s Rural Demography, Small Town and Rural Analysis Bulletin 7(7). Available from: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/21-006-x/21-006-x2007007-eng.htm CMHC. 2003. Housing Needs of Low Income People Living in Rural Areas: The Implications for Seniors, Research Highlight. Socio-Economic Series 03-012. Cooper, Merrill (2008) Kafé 12 (2008) Overcoming The Educational Challenges Faced By Calgary’s Youth, Guyn Cooper Research Associates Ltd., January 24, 2008 Core Cities, Department of Trade and Industry and England’s Regional Development Agencies. 2003. Cities, Regions and Competitiveness: Second Report from the Working Group of Government Departments. June. Dabson, Brian. 2007. Urban-rural Interdependence: Why Metropolitan and Rural America Need Each Other. A Background Paper Prepared for The Blueprint for American Prosperity. Metropolitan Policy Program at Brookings. November. Harris, Spencer, Allessandro Alasia and Ray D. Bollman. 2008. Rural Commuting: Its Relevance to Rural and Urban Labour Markets, Rural and Small Town Canada: Analysis Bulletin, Vol. 7, No. 6 (September 2008, Statistics Canada). Human Resources and Social Development Canada. 2007. Monitoring and Assessment Report. Human Resources and Social Development Canada. 2008. Appendix D: Labour Market Situation in Urban and Rural Areas by Province in 2006, Selected Indicators in Supporting and Engaging Older Workers in the New Economy Expert Panel on Older Workers. Martel, Laurent and Éric Caron Malenfant. 2007. Portrait of the Canadian Population in 2006, Statistics Canada, Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 97-550-XWE2006001 McNiven, Chuck, Henry Puderer and Darryl Janes. 2000. Census Metropolitan Area and Census Agglomeration Influenced Zones (MIZ): A Description of the Methodology, Geography Working Paper Series No. 2000-2. Ottawa: Statistics Canada Partridge, Mark, Dan Rickman, Kamar Ali and M. Rose Olfert. 2007. Lost in Space: Population Dynamics in the American Hinterlands and Small Cities. Philip Cross and Geoff Bowlby. 2006. The Alberta economic juggernaut: The boom on the rose, The Economic Observer, Statistics Canada, Catalogue no. 11-010-XIB

________________________________________________________

36

Porter, Michael, with Christian H.M. Ketels, Kaia Miller, and Richard T. Bryden. 2004. Competitiveness in Rural U.S. Regions: Learning and Research Agenda. Harvard Business School Institute for Strategy and Competitiveness. Available online from: http://www.eda.gov/ImageCache/EDAPublic/documents/pdfdocs/eda_5frural_5fregions_2epdf/v1/eda_5frural_5fregions.pdf

Slack, Enid, Larry S. Bourne and Meric S. Gertler. 2003. Vibrant Cities and City-Regions: Responding to Emerging Challenges. A paper prepared for the Panel on the Role of Government. August 13. Sorensen, Marianne and Jennifer de Peuter. 2006. Rural Canada Profile: A Ten-Year Census Analysis, Canandian Rural Partnership: Rural Research Analysis. Statistics Canada. 2008. Report on the Demographic Situation in Canada: 2005 and 2006, Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 91-209-X, Ottawa. Statistics Canada. 2008. Study: Who’s Religious? The Daily, May 2, 2006. http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/060502/dq060502a-eng.htm Statistics Canada, 2008, Structure and Change in Canada’s Rural Demography: An Update to 2006, Rural and Small Town Canada Analysis Bulletin, Volume 7, number 7, catalogue number 21-006-X. Statistics Canada. 2009. Labour Force Survey, March 2009” The Daily. Stauber, Karl N. 2001. Why Invest in Rural America—And How? A Critical Public Policy Question for the 21st Century. Economic Review 86 (2): 57-87. Tacoli, Cecilia. 1998. Rural-urban interactions: A guide to the literature. Environment and Urbanization. Vol. 10(1): 147-66. Wensley, Mitch R. D. And Jack C. Stabler. 1998. Demand-threshold estimation for business activities in rural Saskatchewan. Journal of Regional Science. Vol. 38(1): 155-77.

APPENDIX: SUPPLEMENTARY TABLE

________________________________________________________

37

Community Geographic

Zone 2006

Appendix Table: Population Counts 2006, 2001 & 1996

Alberta SouthWest Regional Alliance

2001 1996 Cardston County Moderate 3452 3475 3417 Town of Cardston Moderate 4037 4325 4565 Waterton Park Moderate 160 155 279 M. D. of Willow Creek Moderate 5337 5412 5106 Fort MacLeod Moderate 3072 2990 3034 Stavely Moderate 435 442 453 TOTAL MODERATE MIZ 16493 16799 16854 M.D. of Pincher Creek Weak 3309 3197 3172 Town of Pincher Creek Weak 3625 3666 3659 Granum Weak 415 392 337 Claresholm Weak 3700 3622 3427 Crowsnest Pass Weak 5749 6262 6356 TOTAL WEAK MIZ 16798 17139 16951 Glenwood No 280 258 295 Hillspring No 192 193 220 Cowley No 219 225 273 M.D. of Ranchland No 86 96 108 TOTAL NO MIZ 777 772 896 ALBERTASW TOTAL 34068 34710 34701

Source: Statistics Canada 1996, 2001, and 2006 Censuses