The Canadian governments, and other relevant agencies, have increased concerns about individual and community preparedness for disasters, which are defined as the impact from natural hazards, technological hazards or conflict (not including war). Wildfires are particularly worrisome because they have affected 250 communities and 700,000 individuals in Canada in the last ten years. Disaster mitigation, which is incorporated under the role of the Canadian government, emphasizes actions that reduce or eliminate these impacts. Building resilient communities is a major theme of Canada's national mitigation policy. National (Emergency and Disaster Preparedness, Canada) and international governments (US Disaster and Terrorism Branch) and international agencies (Australian Red Cross) have expressed the need for more specific information about community-level responses among communities that experience disasters such as wildfires but there remains a paucity of research on this topic among rural communities that experience disasters. The concept of resiliency is used within disaster services to articulate the capacity building that occurs despite the impact of the disaster.
The specific research questions are: a) What are the types of local social dynamics and institutional structures that contribute to resiliency in rural settlements that have experienced disasters. b) How is resiliency manifested under these circumstances at an individual, household or collective level? For this project, we have worked with Barriere, British Columbia and La Ronge, Saskatchewan. These rural communities experienced significant wildfires that led to evacuations and property damages and losses (2003 McLure Fire & 1999 Mallard Fire). Working with these communities provided the opportunity to examine the ability of local governments to create secure, thriving settlements after a disaster, and the effect of such efforts on resiliency. In each community, we have two local individuals on our advisory team. These individuals have assisted with community meeting arrangements, provided information about community data and helped to develop a list of potential participants as well as helped to provide feedback to the communities about our findings. For this study, we have conducted interviews with community residents (community champions such as local government officials such as the mayor and evacuees; examined available data (historical, surveys, local administrative data) and, conducted a household questionnaire to assess variables such as health, well-being and social support. Community meetings have been held in each location and we have provided the community with the preliminary findings from the interviews. We are currently completing the Household Survey in each community. Community profiles of each site have also been completed.