Abstract
Securing safe and adequate drinking water is an ongoing issue for many Canadian First Nations communities despite nearly 15 years of reports, studies, policy changes, financial commitments, and regulations. The federal drinking water evaluation scheme is narrowly scoped, ignoring community level social factors, which may play a role in access to safe water in First Nations. This research used the 2006 Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada First Nations Drinking Water System Risk Survey data and the Community Well-Being Index, including labour force, education, housing, and income, from the 2006 Census. Bivariate analysis was conducted using the Spearman’s correlation, Kendall’s tau correlation, and Pearson’s correlation. Multivariable analysis was conducted using an ordinal (proportional or cumulative odds) regression model. Results showed that the regression model was significant. Community socioeconomic indicators had no relationship with drinking water risk characterization in both the bivariate and multivariable models, with the sole exception of labour force, which had a significantly positive effect on drinking water risk rankings. Socioeconomic factors were not important in explaining access to safe drinking water in First Nations communities. Improvements in the quality of safe water data as well as an examination of other community processes are required to address this pressing policy issue.
Highlights
The federal drinking water evaluation scheme is narrowly scoped, ignoring community level social factors, which may play a role in access to safe water in First Nations
The one exception to this trend was the labour force component of the Community Well-Being Index (CWB), which, surprisingly, had a positive association with water risk. This relationship increased in magnitude between the unadjusted and adjusted ordinal regression. We caution that this finding may not indicate a true relationship; it could reflect the effects of other theoretically relevant determinants of safe water, such as geographic factors, which have played a role in related work (Spence & Walters, 2012)
This work contributes to the body of work on this issue, beyond small scale case studies and descriptive data, by demonstrating the null effects of processes at the community level, focused on key socioeconomic determinants, including income, education, labour force, and housing
Summary
Why do some First Nations communities have safe drinking water and others not? This is a vexing question that has been the subject of great inquiry (White, Murphy, & Spence, 2012; White, 2012; Walters, Spence, Kuikman, & Singh, 2012; Spence & Walters, 2012; LaBoucane-Benson, Gibson, Benson, & Miller, 2012; Neegan Burnside Ltd., 2011; Swain, Louttit, & Hrudey, 2006; Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, 2003). Why do some First Nations communities have safe drinking water and others not? The Canadian federal government uses a risk-based approach to assess and manage health threats to First Nations drinking water systems. Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC) has been tracking the risk level (i.e., low, medium, high) of First Nations drinking water systems since 2001. The Risk Evaluation Guidelines assess the overall risk score using criteria in five categories (source water, design, operation, reporting and operator) (Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, Public Works and Government Service Canada, Environment Canada, Health Canada, 2005). The empirical evidence indicates that the federal policies and financial commitments over the past decade have not reduced the total number of high risk drinking water systems in First Nations inquiry (White, Murphy, & Spence, 2012).
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary 
Published Version (
Free)
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call