This is the author’s version of a work that was submitted/accepted for pub-lication in the following source:
Perring, Adam,Pham, Kieu,Snow, Stephen, &Buys, Laurie (2014)
An investigation into the effect of infrastructure on fly-in fly-out mining work-ers.
Australian Journal of Rural Health, 22(6), pp. 323-327.
This file was downloaded from: http://eprints.qut.edu.au/79501/
c
Copyright 2014 National Rural Health Alliance Inc.
This is the pre-peer reviewed version of the following article: Perring, A., Pham, K., Snow, S. and Buys, L. (2014), Investigation into the ef-fect of infrastructure on fly-in fly-out mining workers. Australian Journal of Rural Health, 22: 323–327, which has been published in final form at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ajr.12117/full. Authors are not re-quired to remove preprints posted prior to acceptance of the submitted version.
Notice: Changes introduced as a result of publishing processes such as copy-editing and formatting may not be reflected in this document. For a definitive version of this work, please refer to the published source:
An investigation into the effect of infrastructure on fly-in fly-out mining workers
Running head: Infrastructure and FIFO workers
Perring, Adam., Pham, Kieu., Snow, Steve. & Buys, LaurieSchool of Design
Queensland University of Technology 2 George St, Brisbane, QLD 4000 Australia Contact: Laurie Buys
Phone: 07 3138 1146 Facsimile:07 3138 8114 Email: [email protected]
Abstract
Objective: To explore fly-in fly-out mining workers’ attitudes towards the leisure time they spend in mining camps; the recreational and social aspects of mining camp culture; the camps’ communal and recreational infrastructure and activities; and implications for health.
Design: In-depth semi-structured interviews.
Setting: Individual interviews at locations convenient for each participant.
Participants: A total of seven participants, one female and six males. The age group varied between 20-59. Marital status varied across participants.
Main outcomes: A qualitative approach was used to interview participants, with responses thematically analysed. Findings highlight how the recreational infrastructure and activities at mining camps impacted on participants’ enjoyment of the camps and their feelings of community and social inclusion.
Results - Three main areas of need were identified in the interviews, as follows: • On site facilities and activities
• the role of infrastructure in facilitating a sense of community • barriers to social interaction.
Conclusion - Recreational infrastructure and activities enhance the experience of FIFO workers at mining camps. The availability of quality recreational facilities helps promotes social interaction, provides for greater social inclusion and improves the experience of mining camps for their temporary FIFO
residents. The infrastructure also needs to allow for privacy and individual recreational activities, which participants identified as important emotional needs. Developing appropriate recreational infrastructure at mining camps would enhance social interactions between FIFO workers, improve their wellbeing, and foster a sense of community. Introducing infrastructure to promote social and recreational activities could also reduce alcohol-related social exclusion.
Introduction
The resources industry represents an important part of the Australian economy, accounting for approximately six percent of the total economy and generating $121 billion per annum.1 In 2012,
approximately 276,000 people were employed in the mining sector, with a significant proportion employed under fly-in fly-out (FIFO) conditions.2 FIFO workers have demanding rosters, which vary
depending on location, job type, and required skills.3 FIFO conditions are used in the Australian mining
sector to recruit staff and sustain remote operations in areas where labour needs cannot be met by local residents alone.3, 4 However, in certain instances, FIFO conditions have also been found to
exacerbate existing conditions of stress, depression, isolation and alcoholism.5-9 Mining companies aim
to retain their FIFO employees by offering generous remuneration packages, which can serve to offset difficult accommodation, lifestyle, or working arrangements.10
Understanding the social implications of FIFO is of importance in both maintaining the psychological health of FIFO workers and their families and ensuring the long-term social sustainability of an important pillar of Australia’s economy.11-13 Gaining this understanding is a challenging task due to
the diversity of FIFO worker, family, and community needs; local economies; regional authorities; and activities across the Australian mining sector. Until recently, the social impact of FIFO conditions on mining workers themselves has had relatively little attention.9 One study of women with FIFO partners
found that their happiness and wellbeing were influenced by their partners’ roster lengths and types; their partners’ distance from home; and the efficiency of communication technologies, with these factors sometimes causing strain on their relationships.14 However in another study, the time apart was
considered a positive factor, by way of time together becoming more valuable.8
FIFO workers spend intensive periods of time (generally between one to four weeks) living in mining camps before flying home for their days off. These mining camps provide the workers with
accommodation and recreational and social facilities for use during their leisure time. As such, the physical surroundings, infrastructure and the design of the built environment are likely to have an impact on the daily lives of FIFO workers. Research suggests that the built environment contributes to its inhabitants’ wellbeing and social interactions.15, 16 This public health challenge has significant
implications for policy and health and wellness programs.17 Health interventions that enhance physical
activity and social interaction are recommended by ICMA18 and the Center for Disease Control and
Prevention.19
However, the relationship between facilities in mining camps and FIFO workers and the role communal facilities play beyond their functional roles as places to eat or exercise has not been thoroughly explored. The purpose of this study is to provide a starting point for this enquiry through an initial investigation into the everyday experience of FIFO mining workers’ interacting with on-site mining camp facilities and the extent to which facilities contribute to or detract from a sense of community within the camps.
Method
Design and participants
In order to explore the research question, ‘how do facilities located within on-site mining camps support the everyday life of FIFO mining workers?’, this qualitative study utilised semi-structured interviews with seven current FIFO mining employees who at the time were residents of an on-site mining community in Queensland. Approval was given by the QUT Human Ethics Committee and all participants gave informed consent prior to the commencement of the interviews. A summary of participants is presented in Table 1.
Table 1: Summary of participant characteristics
Number of participants 7
Gender Male: 6
Female: 1
Age bracket 20-29 years: 5
30-39 years: 1 50-59 years: 1
Marital status Single: 4
Married: 2 De facto: 1
Data collection and analysis
Face-to-face interviews were conducted in April and May 2013 at locations convenient for each participant. Interview questions were aimed at eliciting information about how satisfied participants were with living in mining camps, how often they used on-site recreational facilities and infrastructure, and if and how these facilities could be designed to better meet their needs. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed in full. The data were analysed using a thematic analysis process to identify categories, themes and patterns.
Results
On-site facilities and activities
Although the design and layout of participants’ camps varied, some recreational facilities existed at all camps, including gymnasiums, basketball courts, pubs, and dining halls. The majority of FIFO employees said that they were generally satisfied with the existing facilities. Five participants said they used them more than once a week, mainly to engage in fitness, sport, and other recreational activities, such as soccer, touch football, and group fitness activities.
“Well they have... fitness programs or after-work programs…I participate in a few CrossFit activities and touch football and sports activities.” Participant 6
All participants described a culture of drinking at all of the camps. While this culture was accepted and participated in by the majority of the participants, it was not always described as a positive aspect of the mining camps.
“For the most part the drinking culture [is the worst] because they stay up really late, [are] really loud, and don’t really care about other people” Participant 4
Use of facilities by FIFO workers
The issue of limited spare time was mentioned by all the participants in relation to the accessibility and desirability of the existing facilities. Participants had long shifts and travel times to and from their work sites, which limited their time for recreation. These time constraints were not consistently viewed as negative, with two participants treating the camps as places to work and exercise rather than to socialise. Other participants preferred not to socialise after work due to fatigue.
“If I was spending four or five waking hours while I was there after work, and I didn’t have a big commute, then maybe you would look at a bit more social activities...” Participant 3
“I don’t like associating or socialising after work, I prefer to treat it as a base to really focus on recreational activities…” Participant 5
Two participants described a noticeable segregation between skilled and unskilled workers at their camps, which served to shape the use of facilities. Participant 2 said there was a tendency to “sit with your own people” and not interact with other groups.
“...at the end of the shift for the operational guys they’ll come back and will catch up with their 15 to 20 - 30 mates… they’ll have BBQs and go to the pub and that sort of stuff.” Participant 2 The management and up-keep of facilities emerged as being discussed in the context of the use and acceptance of the facilities at the camps. Facilities management extended from general maintenance matters through to the organisation of more structured social activities.
“Oh [there is] just a little one [swimming pool]. It’s got to be a proper one. It’s not very clean and I wouldn’t even call it a swimming pool.” Participant 7
“I think if I was a CEO of the mining camp I would maybe organise more activities that involve the whole camp…” Participant 3
“… maybe get together for some foods...have a BBQ…” Participant 6
Management in the form of rules governing communal infrastructure also shaped the use and attitudes toward shared facilities.
“… at the mining camp we can’t [cook], they are really strict… they are more concerned with your safety…they just look after their backside pretty much…in case there is a fire.” Participant 7
The role of infrastructure in facilitating a sense of community
Most of the participants highlighted the importance of feeling a sense of community and the feeling of inclusion in a group. Five participants said that they experienced a sense of community to some degree, either through friendships with colleagues, or through organised and impromptu sporting and fitness activities. The role of infrastructure in facilitating social interaction and contributing to a sense of community was highlighted in participants’ descriptions of existing and desired facilities and infrastructure as places for meeting, socialising, and exercising.
“It’s pretty good actually, because there are a lot of young guys and a lot of other engineers, so we play soccer twice a week and touch footy once a week…” Participant 2
“I reckon it does [help bring us together] …they try to provide facilities… basketball courts and stuff like that… and our group of people, we like to play basketball a lot, or table tennis…” Participant 7
Despite this, the importance of communal infrastructure providing for personal time and individual activities was also emphasized.
“… it would be good to have some kind of screening in there, plants or stuff. Just somewhere you can have your dinner in peace, sometimes you want to be less social.” Participant 2
“It’s a really long day, it’s 45 minutes [drive] to work… a 12 hour day, and then 45 minutes home. I just want to go to work, come home, and relax…” Participant 4
Discussion
The on-site experiences of FIFO workers, and their use of mining camp recreational facilities and infrastructure, varied according to the availability and quality of facilities, management of the facilities, and the workers’ individual preferences and needs. These FIFO workers felt that the infrastructure that facilitated and supported formal and informal sporting and social activities had the potential to enhance their working experience. Providing quality infrastructure within mining camps and communities has been identified as a key motivator for improving workers’ quality of life and health outcomes.12, 16, 17 Our
preliminary findings suggest that well maintained facilities along with pro-active management may enable workers to maintain their existing lifestyles, facilitate socialising and promote their emotional and physical wellbeing as well as developing a sense of community.16 12 Interventions that enhance
physical activity and social interactions address health and wellness outcomes for workers and their communities.17, 18 Although most participants said that they did not have time to fully utilise all of their
camps’ recreational facilities and infrastructure, all participants placed a high value on these facilities. Contributing to worker health and well-being has been found to increase productivity and worker satisfaction,20 thus bringing into focus the importance of available facilities and infrastructure provided
by mining companies.
Rules, organisation and management of the camp facilities also emerged as being closely related to the use and acceptance of facilities. It may be possible that the combination of adequate communal facilities along with pro-active management of these facilities in the form of organised social or sporting events may potentially bring about a greater sense of community. When participants took part in social and sporting activities, which were either promoted by camp management or initiated by workers, they described a positive impact on their daily lives, including an increased sense of community membership.16 The positive intersection between facilities and management may provide a pathway to
break down the social exclusion between the different groups of mining employees residing at the camp; between drinkers and non-drinkers and potentially limit negative outcomes from alcohol consumption identified by.12
Due to the small sample size and Queensland focus, the results cannot be generalised to the wider population of FIFO mining workers in Australia. As a pilot study, the operators and managers of the facilities were not included as participants. However, the findings are a useful starting point for exploring the ways in which recreational facilities at mining camps may affect the daily routines, satisfaction, and wellbeing of FIFO workers. Future research is needed to explore in greater detail, the interactions between design, maintenance and accessibility of recreational facilities and sense of
community for FIFO workers. Mining camp facilities and infrastructure need to be considered not only within the context of the daily lives of FIFO workers but within the management strategies used by the operators. Thus further research may be extended to include camp managers and operators to better understand and unpack the relationships between FIFO workers, mining camp facilities and the management of these facilities.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank our participants for their generosity in giving their valuable time, and C Apetrei, S Botefuhr and J Swanepoel for their assistance in data collection.
What does this study add?
• This study suggests that recreational facilities and infrastructure can have a positive effect on the satisfaction and wellbeing of FIFO workers in mining camps,
• Results indicate that most FIFO mining workers place a high value on the provision of communal recreational facilities and infrastructure that support social and sporting activities.
What is already known on the subject?
• Most of the research into FIFO mining work has focused on the effect of FIFO operations on local communities and FIFO families;
• Previous studies have examined the decision making processes of FIFO employees when it comes to accessing formal mental health services and,
• Previous studies have suggested that the built environment can influence people’s sense of community and the wellbeing of members of transient populations.
Reference list
1. Minerals Council of Australia. 2011-2012 Pre-Budget Submission [Internet]. 2011 [updated 2011 Feb; cited 2013 Oct 15]. Available from:
http://www.mineralscouncil.com.au/file_upload/files/submissions/MCA_Pre%20Budget_FINAL.pdf 2. Australian Bureau of Statistics. 4102.0 Australian Social Trends, April 2013 [Internet]. 2013
[updated Jul 24; cited 2013 Aug 24]. Available from:
http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/[email protected]/Lookup/4102.0Main+Features10April+2013#p2 3. Storey K. Fly-in/Fly-out and Fly-over: mining and regional development in Western Australia.
Australian Geographer. 2001;32(2):133-48.
4. McKenzie FH. Fly-in fly-out: The challenges of transient populations in rural landscapes. Demographic Change in Australia's Rural Landscapes: Springer; 2010. p. 353-74.
5. Carrington K, Hogg R, McIntosh A. The resource boom's underbelly: Criminological impacts of mining development. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology. 2011;44(3):335-54. 6. Carrington K, Pereira M. Assessing the social impacts of the resources boom on rural communities.
Rural Society. 2011;21(1):2-20.
7. Scott J, MacPhail C, Minichiello V. Bang and bust: almost everything you wanted to know about sex and the mining boom (but were afraid to ask). Preview. 2012;2012(160):26-31.
8. Torkington AM, Larkins S, Gupta TS. The psychosocial impacts of fly-in fly-out and drive-in drive-out mining on mining employees: A qualitative study. Australian Journal of Rural Health.
2011;19(3):135-41.
9. Hoath A, Haslam McKenzie F. The socio-economic impacts of long distance commuting (LDC) on source communities Perth: Co-operative Research Centre for Remote Economic Participation and Curtin Graduate School of Business, 2013.
10. Windle J, Rolfe J. Using discrete choice experiments to assess the preferences of new mining workforce to commute or relocate to the Surat Basin in Australia. Resources Policy. 2012.
11. Clifford SA. The effects of fly-in/fly-out commute arrangements and extended working hours on the stress, lifestyle, relationships and health characteristics of Western Australian mining employees and their partners: University of Western Australia; 2010.
12. Iverson RD, Maguire C. The relationship between job and life satisfaction: Evidence from a remote mining community. Human relations. 2000;53(6):807-39.
13. Joyce SJ, Tomlin SM, Somerford PJ, Weeramanthri TS. Health behaviours and outcomes associated with fly-in fly-out and shift workers in Western Australia. Internal Medicine Journal.
2013;43(4):440-4.
14. Pini B, Mayes R. Gender, emotions and fly-in fly-out work. Australian Journal of Social Issues, The. 2013;47(1):71.
15. Guite H, Clark C, Ackrill G. The impact of the physical and urban environment on mental well-being. Public health. 2006;120(12):1117-26.
16. Plas JM, Lewis SE. Environmental factors and sense of community in a planned town. American Journal of Community Psychology. 1996;24(1):109-43.
17. Sallis JF. Angels in the details: Comment on “The relationship between destination proximity, destination mix and physical activity behaviors”. Preventive Medicine. 2008;46(1):6-7.
18. International City/County Managers Association (ICMA). Getting To Smart Growth: 100 Policies for Implementation [Internet]. 2009 [cited 2014 May 02]. Prepared for ICMA by the Smart Growth Network, from: http://www.smartgrowth.org/pdf/gettosg.pdf
19. Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Promoting Healthy Eating and Physical Activity for a Healthier Nation [Internet]. 2010 [cited 2014 May 02]. Available from:
http://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/publications/pdf/pp-ch7.pdf
20. World Health Organization (WHO). Workplace health promotion [Internet]. [cited 2014 May 02; updated 2014]. Available from:
http://www.who.int/occupational_health/topics/workplace/en/index1.html
