Leisure negotiation within amenity migration

Annals of Tourism Research 50 (2015) 128–142

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Annals of Tourism Research journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/atoures

Leisure negotiation within amenity migration Joe Pavelka a,⇑, Dianne Draper b,1 a b

Mount Royal University, Canada University of Calgary, Canada

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 17 February 2014 Revised 29 September 2014 Accepted 20 November 2014

Coordinating Editor: Greg Richards Keywords: Amenity migration Leisure negotiation Destination change

a b s t r a c t Amenity migration is typically defined as the migration to places of extra-ordinary physical, recreational and cultural amenities. While much has been written about the impacts of amenity migration little is known about the experience of amenity migrants at the destination, and specifically how they negotiate for what is arguably their primary aim, leisure. The purpose of this paper is to provide a description of the how amenity migrants negotiate for their leisure and how the broader leisure negotiation process changes the physical attributes and character of the tourism destination. The paper reports on a grounded theory, inter-disciplinary study of the human-environment relationship within a high amenity destination resulting in the empirically based model, Leisure Negotiation within Amenity Migration. Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Introduction Amenity migration is typically defined as migration to places that provide extraordinary physical, recreational and cultural amenities (Moss, 2006). A form of lifestyle driven mobility that generally involves urban residents relocating to rural or resort communities to access a lifestyle perceived to be better than is experienced in the city, this type of migration is at an unprecedented level (Benson & O’Reilly, 2009). The residential and recreational development arising from amenity migration is considered to be a significant phenomenon that re-shapes much of rural, mountainous

⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 403 440 6512; fax: +1 403 440 6744. 1

E-mail addresses: [email protected] (J. Pavelka), [email protected] (D. Draper). Tel.: +1 403 220 5584; fax: +1 403 282 6561.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2014.11.013 0160-7383/Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

J. Pavelka, D. Draper / Annals of Tourism Research 50 (2015) 128–142

129

and coastal landscapes globally, especially in the North American West (Buckley, 2005). While much has been much written about amenity migration and the way it alters landscapes and communities (Gosnell & Abrams, 2011; Moss, 2006; Williams & McIntyre, 2002), little is known about the experience of amenity migrants at the site and even less is known about how they negotiate for their leisure, which is an important motive for migration (Moss, 2006; Sherlock, 2001). Amenity migrants must be prepared to negotiate for their desired, leisure-oriented lifestyle in relation to structural, physical and social elements in place at the destination (Halfacree & Rivera, 2012). As McIntyre (2009, p. 230) points out, amenity migration is characterized as ‘‘a constant negotiating and re-negotiating of a path amidst the complex, chaotic and constantly changing socio-economic conditions. . ..’’ This paper provides a description of the how amenity migrants negotiate for their leisure and how the leisure negotiation process affects the physical attributes and character of the destination. We report on a grounded theory study that began with the question: what is the lived experience of negotiated leisure for people who chose to live in the resort community of the Bow Valley, Alberta Canada (Fig. 1). Through the grounded theory approach the study evolved into an investigation of the humanenvironment relationship within a high amenity destination and lead to development of a theoretical model, Leisure Negotiation within Amenity Migration. We believe this interdisciplinary, theoretical model of leisure negotiation within the unique setting of touristic and amenity migration destinations provides a planning context for land managers, practitioners and residents of such destinations to enhance social sustainability.

Fig. 1. Map of Bow Valley.

130

J. Pavelka, D. Draper / Annals of Tourism Research 50 (2015) 128–142

The research occurred in the Bow Valley of Alberta, Canada and includes the two communities of Banff and Canmore. Banff is a UNESCO World Heritage site and well known as a mountain tourism destination. Canmore is better known for its ability to attract full-time amenity migrants and second homeowners. The towns of Canmore and Banff are located along the Trans-Canada Highway, approximately 100 and 130 kilometres west of Calgary, a city of 1.2 million residents. Banff’s population includes 7,251 permanent and 993 non-permanent residents (Pivotal Research, 2011), while Canmore’s population consists of 12,317 permanent and 5,982 non-permanent residents (Big Shoes Social Enterprises, 2011). Although they are adjacent communities and share some similar characteristics in relation to tourism, the two communities differ in several important ways. Most notably, because the town of Banff is situated within the borders of Banff National Park, it is governed by policies that limit its growth, expansion, and resident eligibility, while Canmore has no similar policies. Furthermore, amenity migration and recreational property development is the primary economic generator in Canmore (Robertson & Stark, 2006) while tourism is the economic engine of Banff. Banff’s history of tourism development dates back to 1885 when it was first set aside as a park reserve following the discovery of local hot springs. Since then, visitation to Banff has increased substantially; by 1996 it had risen to just over 4.5 million and generated an estimated C$1.24 billion annually (Page, Bayley, Cook, Green, & Ritchie, 1996). Both the town of Banff and Banff National Park have struggled to balance human use and ecological pressures (Draper, 2000; Pavelka & Rollins, 2008). Despite the area’s growth management issues, the town and the park remain beacons of outdoor recreation and adventure tourism. Explore, a popular outdoor-adventure magazine in Canada, reports its readers voted Banff as the top adventure town in Canada (Explore, 2011). While Banff developed into a world-class tourism destination in the 20th century, Canmore remained firmly situated in the coal mining industry. The last mine in the area closed in 1979 and, soon after, the focus turned to recreational development in support of Calgary’s successful bid for the 1988 Winter Olympic Games (Cheng, 1980). Unlike Banff, Canmore did not embrace traditional tourism and grew mostly as a second home community for wealthier Albertans and other Canadians, Americans and Europeans. Canmore’s position as a second home destination was solidified in 1997, when the Minister of Canadian Heritage required Banff’s bylaws to address the issue of who qualified as ‘eligible residents’ (i.e. those whose primary employment is in the park, or who operate a business in the park that requires their daily presence). Since second homeownership was effectively proscribed in Banff, Canmore has become the regional host for long-term amenity migrants who have made it their full time home, as well as part-time residents and some short-stay tourists. Our research employed a grounded theory approach involving four iterations of data collection and analysis. Phase 1 and 2 involved focus group research full time residents and interviews of second homeowners to develop an understanding of motives for migration, life in the Bow Valley and overall constraints to leisure. Phase 3 employed semi-structured interviews of different lifestyle groups within the area, based on findings of the previous research, to specifically explore everyday leisure negotiation. The final phase witnessed a return to the broader population to explore the ways negotiation impacted the environment of the place. Conceptual background Conceptualizing how amenity migrants negotiate for their leisure and how the leisure negotiation process affects the physical attributes and character of a destination requires integration of several fields of research. We present amenity migration literature first, followed by leisure negotiation and place attachment concepts relevant to the explanation of the theoretical model. Amenity migration Amenity migrants sometimes are referred to as tourists (Stewart, 2000) and while this may characterize some individuals, the literature remains vague regarding who is an amenity migrant. Benson and O’Reilly (2009, pp. 224) include amenity migration under the broad definition of lifestyle migration, defining lifestyle migrants as relatively affluent individuals, moving to places for various reasons relating to something defined loosely as quality of life. In this paper, amenity migrants are defined as

J. Pavelka, D. Draper / Annals of Tourism Research 50 (2015) 128–142

131

either part-time or full-time residents attracted to the Bow Valley for recreation and lifestyle reasons. Both part-time and full-time migrants represent a higher level of commitment to mobility than typical tourists and given that, for a migrant, attachment to the destination means a residence of some sort, the impetus for physical and other changes to within a destination are considerably higher for the migrant than the tourist. Price, Moss, and Williams (1997) offer six factors to explain the growth of amenity migration including: increased value of the natural environment; cultural differentiation; value of learning, leisure and spirituality; increases in discretionary time; increases in discretionary wealth; and increased access to communications, technology and transportation. Torkington (2012) posits that reasons to explain such migration include a better family environment, lower cost of living, rising affluence, rise of enabling technologies and the breakdown of social roles that allow for mobility. A common explanation of amenity migration is the counter-urban movement, which Gosnell and Abrams (2011) claim is based on decades of economic restructuring and job loss/instability leading to the rejection and an ‘opting out’ of the American Dream. The post mobility experience (i.e. the experience of the migrant once at their chosen destination) is a prominent theme within recent literature, particularly the focus on the inevitable entanglements that arise (some may be anticipated while others are not). Typical entanglements include health, mobility and social issues (Benson, 2011) that may result in the migrant leaving the destination because the experience does not match expectations (Halfacree & Rivera, 2012). A mismatch between migrant expectations and reality is highly likely given that marketing of such places is skewed to an idealized notion of rural life (Torkington, 2012). The idea that amenity migration can provide a new social environment is also challenged. Oliver and O’Reilly (2010) claim that many migrants who are trying to escape binding class and social structures of urban and corporate life find they do not necessarily shed these structures in post-migration. The entanglements these authors highlight equate to negotiation at the site for a desired lifestyle in light of physical, structural and social elements. Migrants may experience further entanglements as they arrive, having come from relative privilege that they do not keep in post migration, or they engage in a constant comparison of life before and after migration or of their situation relative to that of other migrants (O’Reilly & Benson, 2009). This type of dynamic highlights the complicated negotiations undertaken to attain the idealized leisure lifestyle at the new destination. Existing research regarding post mobility negotiation does not address what is arguably at the centre of the experience, namely the way in which migrants negotiate specifically for leisure. The post mobility research tends to highlight lifestyle migration in Europe and that of retirees. The Bow Valley is not particularly attractive for retirees; although many live there, it attracts younger adventure seekers and families who, for the most part, require employment in a place known for a lack of good jobs, and higher, not lower costs of living than in nearby urban centres. A number of authors (including Price et al., 1997; Stewart, 2000; Glorioso & Moss, 2006) agree that amenity migration changes communities and adjacent natural areas. Some claim communities gain more commercial and public services such as education and health care facilities, improved roads and general infrastructure as new migrants arrive and employment and earning potential generally increase (Reeder & Brown, 2005) but since in-migrants tend to outnumber available jobs, the cost of living often causes many to leave their chosen communities (Nelson, 2006). McMillan (2006) claims that later migrants coincide with the development of ‘comfortable facilities’ and a broader range of recreation amenities designed to meet the lifestyles of urban oriented groups. Moore, Williams, and Gill’s (2006, p. 137) review of amenity migration in Whistler, BC, reports a transformation toward urbanization and an ensuing loss of character: ‘‘. . .the traditional ski culture of Whistler is gradually giving way to a broader and more urban lifestyle.’’ More specific effects of amenity migration include loss of open space, recreational land, and wildlife habitat, as these areas are given over to residential and golf course development (Buckley, 2005; Robertson & Stark, 2006). Amenity migration affects public access to valued natural landscapes (Moore et al., 2006) and can lead to conflict between ‘old’ and ‘new’ residents (Moss, 2006). Robertson and Stark (2006) claim the shift to urban type amenities in Canmore, Alberta is related to the in-migration of urban dwellers that are not satisfied with minimal levels of service and

132

J. Pavelka, D. Draper / Annals of Tourism Research 50 (2015) 128–142

infrastructure, and seek to alter the community accordingly. As the destination is altered it becomes more or less desirable to groups of people with different lifestyles and expectations. Leisure negotiation Leisure negotiation generally is considered alongside leisure constraint theory; two aspects most important to this discussion include the types of constraints negotiated and leisure facilitators. Leisure constraint theory (Jackson, Crawford, & Godbey, 1993) posits that a leisure preference will not be realized if constraints cannot be negotiated successfully through three levels of constraints; intra-personal, inter-personal and structural levels of constraint. Intra-personal leisure constraints are based on one’s values and are considered to be most important in the negotiations. Inter-personal leisure constraints are social in that they reflect the impact of significant others on one’s ability to experience leisure. Structural level constraints represent a lack of time, money, and access. Thus, a leisure preference becomes an experience through successful negotiation of all three levels of constraints. Raymore (2002) reverses the concept of the leisure constraint and employs it in the form of facilitators. For instance, structural ‘facilitators’ appear as specific aspects of the environment that facilitate one’s ability to experience leisure; for example, she states ‘‘a (recreation) facility is either there or it’s not’’ (Raymore, 2002, p. 47). Thus, an environment with abundant structural facilitators, such as the Bow Valley, is likely to promote and enable leisure participation. Leisure constraints framework has not been applied specifically to amenity migration and resort settings, but there is evidence to support its relevance in such environments. For instance, Stebbins’ (2005) investigation of outdoor enthusiasts in the Bow Valley identified numerous constraints to participation (although respondents did not refer to them as constraints). Andereck and Jurowski (2005, p. 140) examined tourism impacts on the quality of life of residents in Arizona resort communities and found that ‘‘tourism development directly affects residents’ habits, daily routines, social lives, and benefits and values which may lead to psychological tension.’’ Leisure negotiation for residents of highly desired amenity/resort environments involves unique challenges that include negotiation of typical crowding and congestion. The recreation coping framework (below) specifically addresses the way people cope or negotiate stressful recreation events common to daily life in a resort community. Recreation coping Coping is defined as ‘‘any behaviour, whether deliberate or not, that reduces stress and enables a person to deal with a situation without excessive stress’’ (Manning & Valliere, 2001, p. 411). Generally, people engage in four basic types of coping strategies in outdoor recreation environments, including displacement, rationalization, product shift and direct action. Displacement and direct action are behavioural, while rationalization and product shift are cognitive in nature (Schuster & Hammitt, 2000). Displacement is defined as changing one’s location (spatial displacement) or time (temporal displacement) of participation to respond to, or avoid stressful situations; or leaving the location altogether with no intention of resuming the activity (absolute displacement) (Miller & McCool, 2003). Especially if one is highly invested, rationalization involves a cognitive rating of the activity as high regardless of feelings of stress (Manning & Valliere, 2001). Product shift suggests people alter their definition of a recreation opportunity in congruence with the conditions experienced (Manning & Valliere, 2001). For example, it is common to hear residents remark on how much better Banff or Canmore was before and not too touristy or reverse and how Canmore was such a provincial coal mining town and more cosmopolitan. In each case the situation is addressed through cognitive re-direction. Direct action involves an individual contacting a peer or authority figure to seek remedial action to a stressful situation (Miller & McCool, 2003). Most recreation coping research has involved tourists or recreationists in relation to a specific site, often a national park, where visitors may choose to enter the site or not (Johnson & Dawson, 2004; Peden, Schuster, & M., 2004; Schneider, 2000). However, Manning and Valliere (2001) examine the level of engagement with recreation coping strategies for residents adjacent to Acadia National Park in Maine. They chose to examine residents because ‘‘local residents may comprise an especially interesting population for a study of coping in outdoor recreation because they are likely to use their local

J. Pavelka, D. Draper / Annals of Tourism Research 50 (2015) 128–142

133

park often and they are likely to have used the park over a relatively long period of time’’ (p. 414). Nearly half of residents reported displacement, 35% reported rationalization and only 6% reported no use of coping strategies. Their research is similar to our research in that it focuses on residents and reports high engagement of recreation coping strategies. Place attachment Kyle, Bricker, Graffe, and Wickham (2004, p. 1) defined place attachment from a recreation perspective as ‘‘the extent to which an individual values and identifies with a particular natural setting.’’ The concept of place attachment has been linked to the explanation and understanding of amenity migration. Williams and McIntyre (2000) claim that mobility in the modern world facilitates a detachment for a home place in the traditional sense and that people now seek out places to which they can attach their identity, such spaces as rural resort lifestyle oriented communities. Brehm, Eisenhauer, and Krannich (2004, p. 407) state that place attachment ‘‘. . .involves social ties particularly in high amenity settings, it may also involve attachment focussed on physical attributes.’’ Place attachment has been linked conceptually to leisure satisfaction, demand, substitution, displacement, conflict and use behaviour (Kyle et al., 2004). How recreationists develop such attachments is unclear, but it is likely a function of place dependence and place identity. Place dependence refers to the capacity of a particular place to provide the amenities necessary for the pursuit of a particular lifestyle. Place identity refers to the complex emotional connection one makes with a place (Kyle et al., 2004). Stokowski (2002) ads that place creation are a social process whereby likeminded people are attracted to particular amenities (mountain resort, rural, beach etc.). Through social discourse, a collective place identity is created reinforcing individual and collective identity. Within amenity migration a sub-group place identity often manifests in conflicts between old and new residents, or full-time versus second homeowner/part-time residents. Study methods and results The study utilized the grounded theory approach (Corbin & Strauss, 1990) in an effort to answer our initial question ‘what is the lived experience of negotiated leisure for residents of the Bow Valley, Alberta?’ This approach required a merging of leisure negotiation constructs with an understanding of the touristic environment. We made as assumption that people who chose to migrate to the Bow Valley did so because they were seeking the unique leisure opportunities available in a mountain resort community. What was not known, and what is absent from the literature, is how leisure negotiation plays out in a hyper leisure-rich environment that also imbued with crowding and congestion and marginalized economy typical of resort environments. Much has been written about the application and messiness of grounded theory (Jennings & Junek, 2007). Sudday (2006) claims that grounded theory is most suited to efforts to understand the process by which actors construct meaning of inter-subjective experience. He adds that the purpose of grounded theory is not to present truth statements about reality but to provide fresh insights into patterned relationships among individuals and how those relationships construct reality (Sudday, 2006, p. 634). This study sought to comprehend the ways in which residents of the Bow Valley constructed the meaning of the leisure negotiation process and how the negotiation process affected the environment. In this case the human–environment relationship, mediated by leisure negotiation represents an inter-subjective experience. Further, the aims of this investigation were to shed light on the patterned relationships among individuals and how they formed a reality of daily life in a specific type of place and how the assumptions of this reality of negotiated leisure, in turn affected. Using focus groups phase 1 consists of the initial phase of investigation to explored basic questions surrounding the topic such as motives for migration, satisfaction with lifestyle and constraints to lifestyle. Because it was too difficult to mimic the initial focus group investigations with second homeowners phase 2 consisted of face-to-face interviews with these people. Lived Experience interviews conducted in phase 3, specifically targeted leisure negotiation on a daily basis and extended the investigation to lifestyle sub-groups which emerged in the previous research. The final phase consisted of a

134

J. Pavelka, D. Draper / Annals of Tourism Research 50 (2015) 128–142

quantitative survey of Bow Valley residents to specifically explore how the negotiation process impacts the broader environment. Each iteration of the research informed the development of the next phase: an overview of the analysis is provided here. Each phase of research was analyzed in a similar manner following principles of constant comparison and theoretical sampling (Corbin & Strauss, 1990). Qualitative data was recorded and transcribed then reduced over the course of the study. Data reduction initially involved open coding followed by axial coding and selective coding, which resulted in core categories that we presented here. Notes were taken throughout the research process; they helped to frame basic and subcategories of data in light of what is ‘known’ or well understood and what was ‘surprising’ or outside of the literature. Qualitative data is presented at the core category level (with no quotes to avoid confusion with the phenomenological approach) and to emphasize the how subjective experience is abstracted into theoretical experience about causal relationships between actors (Sudday, 2006). Theoretical sampling is discussed in context with each phase. The purpose of the initial focus group research was to develop a sound understanding of motivations to migrate, the role of leisure in daily life, constraints to leisure satisfaction and a basic understanding of daily life in a resort community. Phase 1 consisted of five focus group sessions four with men and women, residing in Banff and Canmore, and with transient hospitality workers in Banff. Recruitment for the initial phase of research was based on purposeful sampling including a variety of full time residents from various walks of life and tenure of residency. The sessions ranged from 88 to 111 minutes averaged 10.5 participants. A pilot session for this phase was carried out with a group of nine Bow Valley individuals several of whom later became a reference group for data interpretation. Core category data for phase 1 focus groups included the following: 1. The dominant culture in the Bow Valley is based on pursuit of a leisure lifestyle, so an individual’s identity rests where that person fits within the range of leisure lifestyles in the community. Leisure interests and pursuits form individual identity more than either career or education levels. Leisure lifestyles of migrants and even tourists often conflicted but most have learned to live around each other with minimal conflict. 2. Although residents are reluctant to accept it, tourism and related development defines the Bow Valley. 3. Recreation negotiation was centered on the ability of residents to negotiate the structure of the destination more than on access to recreation opportunities. The initial phase of this research established the role of leisure in motivation to migrate and daily life and basic elements of negotiation. A contested space aspect emerged early: in this regard, fulltime residents recognized that the second homeowners were different from them and were a source of conflict. Generally focus group participants reported easy access to recreation but the most surprising emergent theme from Phase 1 data was the amount of energy expended to remain and live in the Bow Valley. This often meant a migrant would have to take on multiple jobs, accept subpar housing, or live at the poverty line just to ‘live in the mountains’. This struggle typically reflected the situation of younger or not-yet-established individuals but even established remarked on the trials and tribulations of those early years when they too struggled for structural stability. This finding represents a departure of leisure negotiation thought from typical urban settings whereby eking out an existence is less difficult than accessing high quality leisure opportunities. Theoretical sampling or sampling directed to in this case specific groups based on the findings of the previous iteration, directed sampling to the second homeowner group, often referred to in the literature as part-time residents. Thus, phase 2 consisted of five personal face-to-face interviews with part-time residents of Canmore where second home ownership dominates. Two part-time resident pilot interviews were completed in preparation for the five interviews undertaken with this group. The semi-structured interviews for part-time residents followed a similar format to the focus group research. Core category data for the phase 2 second homeowner group included the following. 1. Second homeowners were motivated to escape the harried pace of urban life: they gravitated toward solitary recreation, which means they generally had little connection with the community.

J. Pavelka, D. Draper / Annals of Tourism Research 50 (2015) 128–142

135

2. Second homeowners reported little stress in recreational and daily life activities (while in Canmore): they encountered some resentment from full-time residents that tainted their experience but for the most part they have come to accept the resentment. 3. Satisfaction is based on how often they use their mountain home but report second homeowners reported some dissatisfaction in that they expected to be more active in mountain activity than they were. Second homeowners represent almost a quarter of all residences in Canmore. Patterns of use varied greatly although the weekends consistently tended to draw large crowds of second homeowners. Many full-time residents struggling to ‘make a living’ viewed the second homeowners as a privileged ‘other’ class usurping limited resources for part-time use. Still other residents saw second homeowners as less authentic than themselves who have made a fulltime commitment to the place. From a structural perspective second homeowners represent the economic engine of the region because second home construction and sales drives the development economy and thus much of the physical change in the community. Theoretical sampling for the phase 3, ‘lived experience’ interviews, was informed primarily by the first two phases and so targeted key fulltime resident lifestyle types. Key groups included the hard outdoor sport group who hold prestigious jobs in the adventure field and tend to dominate culture creation in the area; outdoor sport enthusiasts who migrated for an outdoor lifestyle but work in odd jobs to maintain that lifestyle; family people who tend to be older and more established and favour civic amenities such as schools, pools and libraries; career hospitality workers who rely on social satisfaction and for whom the outdoor environment is not important and; and the newly arrived (1 to 2 years in the Bow Valley) who spoke directly to the transition and the process of ‘fitting in’ to the community. The culture of the Bow Valley is dominated by an active living outdoor sport focus not linked to any particular demographic. Twenty-four semi-structured interviews were completed with a range of Bow Valley residents, spanning adults aged 21 to 67, who resided in the area for 2 years to 49 years. Core category data from the lived experience Interviews included the following. 1. Most participants migrated to the Bow Valley with an expectation that they would take up a mountain oriented leisure lifestyle that was different from they were and with a community of like-minded people. 2. Most residents were motivated to craft a lifestyle and identity based on leisure satisfaction; distinct from normal urban life, at some level this represented a reinvention of their identity. 3. Within the Bow Valley, leisure constraints reflected the individual’s fit or position within the community. Intra-personal (value based) constraints guided an individual in-migration for lifestyle reasons helped assess whether the individual would return to a more conventional urban lifestyle: Inter-personal (significant others) constraints guided an individual’s community fit by the type of reference groups that were pursued and whether appropriate partners for desired activities can be found: and Structural (time, money, etc.) constraints reflected the material experience of daily life including structural satisfaction. 4. Within the Bow Valley, recreation coping strategies reflected everyday decision making about recreational pursuits and other daily activities within the community. Displacement appears to be imbedded in daily life while rationalization, product shift and direct action were all present. 5. For most residents, living in the Bow Valley involved consideration of everyday trade-offs. Trade-offs favoured recreation and community based satisfaction, while limiting achievement of typical societal goals such as wealth creation, career advancement, and home ownership. The trade-offs often made up social discourse and even served as a point of shared identity that distinguished fulltime from part-time residents. 6. Attachment to place constantly was negotiated as a function of a person’s original motivation to migrate, comparison of expected and actual lifestyle, consideration of trade-offs, and perception of whether the community was is becoming too developed and urban relative to individual ideals. All this makes out migration a constant concern. The lived experience interview phase first established the prominence of the leisure identity, and second the complexity and importance of the structural challenges, or entanglements, related to achieving the desired lifestyle and manner in which leisure negotiation plays out in a daily manner.

136

J. Pavelka, D. Draper / Annals of Tourism Research 50 (2015) 128–142

This phase also revealed the tenuous psychological attachment to the area and the likelihood of outmigration either as a return to urban life or to a smaller destination with less development. Most participants assess their attachment to the Bow Valley by how they perceived changes in the physical and structural environment. Is development increasing? Are jobs increasing? Is the cost of living increasing? Are we losing trails to golf course development? These and many more similar questions dominated social discourse and ultimately affected whether an individual would remain or leave. At the conclusion of the qualitative research iterations it was clear that leisure negotiation within a resort/amenity migration setting involves place attachment, place identity, lifestyle formation and migration as coping strategies. For the individual, these elements are assessed along with the dynamic character of the place to assess fit with identity and, the area’s ability to provide for structural essentials such as jobs and housing. The qualitative phases also revealed different lifestyle groups with varied views of life and entitlements adding to the contested space notion. Theoretical sampling for the final phase necessitated a return to the larger group (population of Bow Valley residents) to explore the relationships people had with their recreation amenities and how tourism and resident recreation was perceived to alter the physical attributes and character of the Bow Valley. A quantitative method was selected to capture a wider range of views on change in the Bow Valley. Phase 4 consisted of a quantitative survey referred to as the Bow Valley Recreation Survey (BVRS) designed to explore residents’ perceptions of physical and structural change in their community. Grounded theory is an approach, not a method, regardless quantitative method within grounded theory is not common. At the root of the issue is whether a quantitative analysis is suitable to the principle of theoretical emergence (Sudday, 2006). The survey addressed this concern in two ways. Firstly, the survey was theoretically derived from data emanating from the previous qualitative phases; secondly the survey avoided connection to hypothesis testing by employing segmentation analysis (factor and cluster analysis), which represents an exploratory quantitative technique. We also acknowledged that a pure inductive approach was not realistic. However, deduction occurs in all types of inquiry; the combination of the two is referred to as abduction and it is common grounded theory (Charmaz, 2008). The BVRS was administered to a stratified systematic sample of residents of both Banff and Canmore. The four primary measures were: motivation to reside; importance of recreation amenities; perception of community change; and quality of life. Two of the measures, most relevant to the model importance of recreation amenities and perception of community change, most relevant to the model are explained here. The Importance of Recreation Amenities measure included 17 items of in-town or urban amenities and outside of town or backcountry recreation amenities found in the area, supported by a five-point Lickert scale. Respondents were asked to indicate the importance of each item for their own recreation. The perception of community change measure consisted of 28 items, 17 items relating to recreation amenities and 9 items pertaining to structural aspects (jobs, housing, etc.), as well as quality of recreation including crowding supported by a six-point Lickert scale. Respondents were asked to indicate the extent to which they perceived each item to have increased or decreased since their arrival to the Bow Valley. The BVRS was administered using a mail back procedure and a twostage process of door-to-door, in-person explanation of the study with a mail back return component. The proportional distribution of questionnaires is 65% (N = 784) for Canmore and 35% (N = 416) for Banff. Two hundred sixty four usable questionnaires were returned from Canmore resulting in a 33.6% response rate and 99 usable questionnaires were returned from Banff resulting in a 23.7% response rate. The combined response rate for the study is 30.25%. Segmentation analysis was used to reveal themes and associate those themes with the possibility of distinct groups in the community. Segmentation analysis involved a process of factor analysis, cluster analysis, ANOVA, post hoc Scheffe, and cross-tabulations. The process resembles procedures set forth by Thurau, Carver, Mangan, Basman, and Bauer (2007) with similar aims in carrying out an analysis of cruise ship passengers. First steps involved data preparation, modification of some scales to include interval scales followed by descriptive analysis. Exploratory factor analysis, including, principle component analysis was carried out. The Cronbach alpha scores for sub-scales yielded adequate results, although the 0.663 mean for the Importance of Recreation amenities measure and 0.725 mean for the Perception of Community Change, are slightly below the value of 0.7 considered a strong indicator of internal consistency. The K-means cluster analysis (non-hierarchical) occurred in two stages

137

J. Pavelka, D. Draper / Annals of Tourism Research 50 (2015) 128–142 Table 1 Summary of Cluster Analysis, Importance of Recreation Amenities. Cluster 1 Factor Groups and Mean

Cluster 2 Factor Groups and Mean

Cluster 3 Factor Groupings and Mean

Cluster 4 Factor Groupings and Mean

Cluster 5 Factor Groupings and Mean

Rank of Factor Groupings by Mean

Scheffe Test Results (p = .05)

Culture 2.21

Culture 2.44

Culture 3.34

Culture 3.48

Culture 2.70

Culture 2.81

Recreation 1.67

Recreation 1.93

Recreation 1.69

Recreation 3.44

Recreation 3.48

Recreation 2.50

Backcountry 1.70

Backcountry 2.77

Backcountry 2.03

Backcountry 3.11

Backcountry 2.30

Backcountry 2.42

Entertain 1.73

Entertain 2.39

Entertain 2.21

Entertain 2.97

Entertain 2.12

Entertain 2.30

(1<3,1<4,1<5) (2<3,2<4,2<5) (3>1,3>2,3>5) (4>1,4>2,4>5) (5>1,5>2,5<3,5<4) (1<4,1<5) (2<4,2<5) (3<4,3<5) (4>1,4>2,4>3) (5>1,5>2,5>3) (1<2,1<3,1<4,1<5) (2>1,2>3,2<4,2>5) (3>1,3<2,3<4,3<5) (4>1,4>2,4>3,4>5) (5>1,5<2,5>3,5<4) (1<2,1<3,1<4,1<5) (2>1,2<4,2>5) (3>1,3<4) (4>1,4>2,4>3,4>5) (5>1,5<2,5<4)

Overall DisInterested

Backcountry and Bars

A Little of Everything

Everything Lifestyle

Older with Kids Lifestyle

to determine an appropriate number of cluster solutions for input. The cluster analysis, ANOVA and post hoc Scheffe tests measured for differences among groups while the cross tabulation analysis and chi-square test assessed differences among clusters. Table 1 presents the summary of the importance of recreation Amenities measure. Columns, from left to right include each of the five clusters and factor grouping results, including mean, for each cluster. The far right column presents the results of the post hoc Scheffe test by indicating which columns are significantly different from others. The column labelled Rank of Factor Groupings (second from the right) indicates that cultural amenities are reported to be most important, followed by recreation (mostly municipal related amenities) then backcountry, or those amenities out of the town site and entertainment (bars and restaurants) as least important. This finding suggests that the sample, despite having access to exceptional backcountry amenities, values in-town types of amenities generally associated with maturing high recreation amenity destinations (Glorioso & Moss, 2006). The post hoc Scheffe results indicate the five clusters are generally distinct from one another and suggest the presence of a heterogeneous population favouring different amenities and likely different lifestyles. The result suggests a compliment to a destination evolution model such as Plog (2002). For instance, the clusters of Backcountry Lifestyle, Culture Lifestyle and Recreation Lifestyle complement the Plog (2002) model that posits destinations mature by the type of visitor or in this case, amenity migrant. Over time visitor types evolve from the venturer who is the first to arrive to a ‘new’ destination and is less reliant on comfort amenities, to the dependable, who seeks more established destinations and comforts. The importance of cultural and municipal recreation amenities suggested that parts of the population sought regular types of amenities such as pools and libraries found in any urban setting, pointing to a shift to urbanization. Table 2 presents the results of the perception of community change measure. Columns from left to right include each of the five clusters and factor grouping results, including mean, for each cluster. The far right column presents the results of the post hoc Scheffe test by indicating which columns are significantly different from others. The column labelled Rank of Factor Groupings (second from the right) indicates that residents perceive changes in the community. Crowding and Urban or comfort types of

138

J. Pavelka, D. Draper / Annals of Tourism Research 50 (2015) 128–142

Table 2 Summary of Cluster Analysis, Perception of Change. Cluster 1 Factor Groupings and Mean

Cluster 2 Factor Groupings and Mean

Cluster 3 Factor Groupings and Mean

Cluster 4 Factor Groupings and Mean

Cluster 5 Factor Groupings and Mean

Rank of Factor Groupings by Mean

Scheffe Test Results (p = .05)

Crowding 2.00

Crowding 1.23

Crowding 1.60

Crowding 1.38

Crowding 1.41

Crowding 1.55

Urbane 2.28

Urbane 1.36

Urbane 2.07

Urbane 1.76

Urbane 1.81

Urbane 1.85

Town 3.06

Town 1.75

Town 3.83

Town 2.23

Town 2.47

Town 2.50

Outdoor 2.91

Outdoor 2.09

Outdoor 2.86

Outdoor 2.80

Outdoor 2.86

Outdoor 2.68

Backcountry 2.97

Backcountry 2.31

Backcountry 3.23

Backcountry 3.10

Backcountry 3.25

Backcountry 2.90

Urban 2.68

Urban 1.80

Urban 4.44

Urban 2.43

Urban 4.21

Urban 2.72

(1.2,1.3,1>4,1>5) (2<1) (3<1) (4<1) (5<1) (1>2,1>4,1>5) (2<1,2<3,2<4,2<5) (3>1) (4<1,4>2) (5<1,2>2) (1>2,1<3,1>4,1>5) (2<1,2<3,2<4,2<5) (3>1,3>2,3>4,3>5) (4<1,4>2,4<3) (5<1,5>2,5<3) (1.2) (2<1,2<3,2<4,2<5) (3>3) (4>2) (5>2) (1>2) (2>1,2<3,2<4,2<5) (3>2) (4>2) (5>2) (1>2,1<3,1<5) (2<1,2<3,2<4,2<5) (3>1,3>2,3>4) (4>2,4<3,4<5)

Nothing is Different

Crowded Out

Everything is Different

Mountain Lights

Mountain Types

recreation amenities are reported to have increased while Outdoor (mostly mechanized) and Backcountry amenities (mostly self-propelled) are perceived to have decreased. This finding supports a resident perception of movement toward urbanization. A similar finding was reported for Whistler, British Columbia (Moore et al., 2006). When these results are considered along with the Importance of Recreation Amenities measure, which suggests a favouring of in-town/urban amenities it further supports the change toward urbanization. From an abductive perspective the quantitative phase revealed that: Bow Valley residents want to live in the mountains in a mountain community. They generally favour built recreation amenities over natural amenities and residential/institutional infrastructure mostly adds to quality of life. Residents generally perceive that the community has changed to become more crowded and urban with less outdoors and backcountry amenities but they are also generally satisfied in post migration. The model of leisure negotiation within amenity migration Fig. 2 presents the inductively derived, interdisciplinary model of Leisure Negotiation within Amenity Migration. The model presents the leisure negotiation process for amenity migrants in the post-migration phase. The model includes two parts: the first reflects the migrant’s negotiation process from their motivation to reside to the decision making process of whether to remain or leave. The second part presents the effects of leisure negotiation on the Bow Valley, which resulted in change toward urbanization that is more or less attractive to different groups. The model is presented with empirical evidence derived from the research but model components reflect leisure negotiation, place attachment and destination literature presented earlier. The model is explained beginning from the left (Motivation). Motivation. There are numerous explanations of motivations to live in the Bow Valley but the desire to live a mountain recreation lifestyle is most prominent. This lifestyle broadly defined, is inclusive of arts, entertainment, and family as much as the pursuit of hard mountain sports. Qualitative

J. Pavelka, D. Draper / Annals of Tourism Research 50 (2015) 128–142

139

findings from phase 1 and 2 core categories suggest people arrive with a mental perception of the area, and lifestyle expectation. The majority of migrants wish to become fulltime residents seeking a mountain lifestyle and employment, the latter often being problematic. This results in a lifestyle that is selfdescribed as out-of-the-ordinary because everyday recreation aims, or lifestyle, are given higher priority than wealth creation or career advancement similar to what has been described as the counterurban movement (Gosnell & Abrams, 2011). Unlike fulltime residents, second homeowners seek solitude, escape and very little connection to the community thus distinguishing themselves from the majority of residents. Data revealed the motive for identity reinvention is prominent and linked to the formation of a new lifestyle that is thought to be feasible in the new location of the Bow Valley. Reinvention suggests a push-pull of the previous and the Bow Valley, scenario similar to claims of amenity migration as a form of identity consumption, (Williams & McIntyre, 2002). Lived Experience of Negotiated Leisure. The leisure negotiation process represents the point of convergence for everyday negotiation. It is dynamic due to constant evaluations of and individual’s ability to negotiate aspects of a changing environment with personal resources. The lived experience component of the model includes the element of leisure and recreation behaviour. Behaviour is important because it is suggested here that leisure/recreation behaviour imprints the destination through the expression of demand. For example, 1940s emergence of downhill skiers’ side stepping up snowy hills in Banff resulted in the eventual adoption of the mechanized lift, leading to ski areas and mass participation. Likewise, families in Canmore keen to give their children a ‘normal’ upbringing and to participate in swimming and fitness, has resulted in the development of a new multi-million dollar recreation centre. Recreation behaviour is an expression of demand, which impacts supply, thereby altering the environment. Environment. The environment of the Bow Valley is a high recreation amenity and tourism environment that includes physical, social and structural elements. The physical element includes natural and built features that mostly act as attractors. The environment also includes a strong social component of community and like-minded reference groups. The social element further includes stressors such as crowding, congestion, and conflict as evidenced between relations of part time and full time residents. The structural environment includes a tourism-based economy, housing, roads and health and educational infrastructure, which contribute to the negotiation process (Robertson & Stark, 2006). Ultimately the Bow Valley includes a variety of leisure facilitators (Raymore, 2002) perceived to be conducive to a mountain recreation lifestyle which, together form the initial draw to the area. Negotiation and Coping Strategies. Negotiation and coping strategies form a critical part of the model. Leisure Constraints Theory and the Recreation Coping model are relevant as negotiation strategies, however each has its own role within the short and long term negotiation process. We suggest that the Leisure Constraints theory is more prominent during an individual’s arrival and informs the individual as to their ‘fit’ in the community and this represents a different understanding of Leisure Constraints Theory. We suggest that recreation coping guides many aspects of daily life but plays a more prominent role later in an individual’s time at the destination, as knowledge of the area increases. Lived Experience interview core category data suggest the leisure constraints framework is helpful to understand fit within the community by negotiation of constraints. For example, the selection of the Bow Valley as a place to live represents an intra-personal level fit of one’s values with the decision to migrate to the Bow Valley. On an intra-personal level, the selection of activities from hard mountain sports, to family and urban activity suggest a chosen lifestyle with a corresponding reference group. The structural aspect is marked by the dictate of financial resources which affect where one can afford to live, whether if multiple jobs are required to live decently or if the purchase of a ski pass is possible. If leisure constraints frame an individual’s one’s fit within the community, then recreation coping guides important parts of daily life. Both phase 1 and 2 core categories point to the prominent role of recreation coping in daily life. Data suggest residents utilize the temporal and spatial displacement strategy on a daily basis and even suggest that a key aspect of being ‘a local’ is a measure of how well one knows the area such that alternate recreation sites, away from crowds, can be found. Phase 2 data also suggest that rationalization, and product shift are regularly used to cope with crowding. It was suggested that product shift, as defined earlier, is often the topic of local coffee chatter, that is, ‘‘this town used to be so quiet and now. . .’’ and acts as a collective coping mechanism. Research data sug-

140

J. Pavelka, D. Draper / Annals of Tourism Research 50 (2015) 128–142

gest leisure negotiation in post-migration can be understood with the recreation coping model and to a lesser degree leisure constraints theory. Place Attachment, Dependence, and Identity. Place attachment characterizes the continuous manifestation of the human-environment negotiation as a relationship with the place. Qualitative findings from phase 3 suggest that the negotiated internal and external discussion of whether a person remains or leaves the Bow Valley is a function of place attachment. Here attachment refers to both as place identity whereby an individual assesses changes in the Bow Valley relative to their ideal of the place and values fit; and place dependence as a place that can offer adequate housing, jobs, and other critical components to make feasible life in the Bow Valley. Residents’ attachment to place acts as a leisure negotiation strategy linking rationalization with absolute displacement. Effect on Destination and Recreation Supply. The final component of the model returns to the leisure-based human-environment relationship and posits that resident recreation at the early stages of resort community development affects the supply of the built environment over time. As the population increases, urban-type or in-town, recreation supply increases, while backcountry recreation supply (outside of the town site) generally remains stagnant or decreases. This pattern has been observed previously in similar destinations. As the destination evolves, the quantity and quality of urban and recreation supply results in an evolving, socially constructed image of the destination, which attracts different types of individuals. This is a simple displacement process similar to Plog’s (2002) model whereby a destination evolves and as it does, attracts ‘venturers’ first, then ‘dependables’ later on. Phase 3 interviews report a loss of recreation land due to golf course and residential development. The contested space aspect of the Bow Valley, whereby different groups reside in the same space with different lifestyle expectations precipitate change in the environment by their expressed leisure behaviour or demand from these different groups. Quantitative findings report that residents perceive an increase in Crowding components (number of tourists, crowding in town, number of day use Calgarians, vehicle traffic, number of second home

Fig. 2. Model of Leisure Negotiation Within Amenity Migration.

J. Pavelka, D. Draper / Annals of Tourism Research 50 (2015) 128–142

141

owners, and cost of living) and Urbane components (bars, lounges, cafes, restaurants, Nordic centre, and shopping). Conversely, Outdoor components (number of backcountry trails, informal trails, ski/ snowboard areas, festivals and events) and Backcountry components (Number of canoe/kayak areas, rock climbing, and areas for backcountry skiing and quality of backcountry areas) have decreased. The dotted line loops (Fig. 2) from Effect on Destination and Recreation Supply, which loop back to Motivation to Migrate box and suggest that as the Bow Valley changes to other residents seeking more urban amenities, existing residents may re-think their attachment to the place. The dotted lines indicate the evolutionary nature of the model. Conclusion This research explored leisure negotiation within the unique environment of amenity migration utilizing a grounded theory framework. Emergent data from four phases of research, revealed a post migration dynamic of leisure negotiation which lead to the creation of the theoretical Model of Leisure Negotiation within Amenity Migration. Lifestyle or amenity migration is occurring at ever increasing levels worldwide despite the financial crisis of 2008/09 (Benson & O’Reilly, 2009). Torkington (2011) and others have pointed out, lifestyle creation appears to be a central concern of contemporary life. This paper not only presented clear insights into the leisure and lifestyle negotiation dynamic within amenity migration but also revealed a negotiation within a negotiation because lifestyle migration itself represents a negotiation if not a coping mechanism, of contemporary life. O’Reilly and Benson (2009), state that lifestyle migration is precipitated by those who want to avoid futures they foresee and dread, and thus reinvent a work-life balance. This sentiment is especially true of the findings in this research; residents of the Bow Valley perceive migration to the area is a way to avoid the harried enclaves of urban life and opt for a leisure lifestyle that actively connects with the natural world and a like-minded social network. However, as the research has demonstrated the reality the reality is that attainment of the desired lifestyle is problematic and only those amenity migrants deeply committed are able said to make the transition in their chosen haven. References Andereck, L. K., & Jurowski, C. (2005). Tourism and quality of life. In G. Jennings & N. Nickerson (Eds.), Quality tourism experiences (pp. 137–154). London: Taylor & Francis. Benson, M. (2011). The movement beyond (lifestyle) migration: Mobile practices and the constitution of a better way of life. Mobilities, 6(2), 221–235. Benson, M., & O’Reilly, K. (2009). Migration and the search for a better way of life: a critical exploration of lifestyle migration. The Sociological Review, 57(4), 609–625. Big Shoes Social Enterprises (2011) Canmore Municipal Census June 11, 2011. Brehm, J. M., Eisenhauer, B. W., & Krannich, R. S. (2004). Dimensions of community attachment and their relationship to wellbeing in the amenity rich rural west. Rural Sociology, 69(3), 405–429. Buckley, R. (2005). Social trends and ecotourism: Adventure recreation and amenity migration. Journal of Ecotourism, 4(1), 56–61. Charmaz, K. (2008). Grounded theory as an emergent method. In S. Nagy Hesse-Biber & P. Leavy (Eds.), Handbook of emergent methods (pp. 155–170). New York, NY: The Guilford Press Inc. Cheng, J. R. (1980). Tourism: How much is too much? Lessons from Canmore and Banff. Canadian Geographer, 24(1), 72–80. Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons and evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology, 13(1), 3–21. Draper, D. (2000). Toward sustainable mountain communities: Balancing tourism development and environmental protection in Banff and Banff National Park, Canada. Ambio, 29(7), 408–415. Explore Magazine (2011) the Best of our 42 National Parks. June 2011. Glorioso, R. M., & Moss, L. A. G. (2006). Sante Fe a fading dream: 1986 profile and 2005 post-script. In L. A. G. Moss (Ed.), The amenity migrants: Seeking and sustaining mountains and their cultures (pp. 73–94). Oxfordshire, UK: CABI International. Gosnell, H., & Abrams, J. (2011). Amenity migration: Diverse conceptualizations of drivers, socioeconomic dimensions, and emerging challenges. GeoJournal, 76(4), 303–322. Halfacree, K. H., & Rivera, M. J. (2012). Moving to the countryside . . . and staying: Lives beyond representations. Sociologia Ruralis, 52(1), 92–114. Jackson, E. L., Crawford, D. W., & Godbey, G. (1993). Negotiation of leisure constraints. Leisure Sciences, 15, 1–11. Jennings, G., & Junek, O. (2007). Grounded theory: Innovative methodology or a critical turning from hegemonic methodological praxis in tourism studies. In I. Ateljevic, A. Pritchard, & N. Morgan (Eds.), The critical turn in tourism studies: Innovative research methodologies (pp. 197–210). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.

142

J. Pavelka, D. Draper / Annals of Tourism Research 50 (2015) 128–142

Johnson, A. K., & Dawson, C. P. (2004). An exploratory study of the complexities of coping behaviour in Adirondack wilderness. Leisure Sciences, 26(3), 281–293. Kyle, G., Bricker, K., Graffe, A., & Wickham, T. (2004). An examination of recreationists’ relationships with activities and settings. Leisure Sciences, 26(2), 123–142. Manning, R. E., & Valliere, W. A. (2001). Crowding in outdoor recreation: Causes and consequences of crowding and conflict among community residents. Journal of Leisure Research, 33(4), 410–426. McIntyre, N. (2009). Rethinking amenity migration: Integrating mobility, lifestyle and social ecological systems. Die Erde Special Focus on Amenity Migration, 140(3), 229–250. McMillan, L. (2006). Guiding back from the precipice: Leveraging the power of recreational users to protect mountain environments. In L. A. G. Moss (Ed.), The amenity migrants: Seeking and sustaining mountains and their cultures (pp. 31–53). Oxfordshire, UK: CABI International. Miller, A. T., & McCool, S. (2003). Coping with stress in outdoor recreation settings: An application of transactional stress theory. Leisure Services, 25(2–3), 257–275. Moore, S., Williams, P., & Gill, A. (2006). Finding a pad in paradise: Amenity migration effects on Whistler, British Columbia. In L. A. G. Moss (Ed.), The amenity migrants: Seeking and sustaining mountains and their cultures (pp. 135–147). Oxfordshire, UK: CABI International. Moss, L. A. G. (2006). The amenity migrants’ ecological challenge to contemporary Shangri-La. In L. A. G. Moss (Ed.), The amenity migrants: Seeking and sustaining mountains and their cultures (pp. 3–25). Oxfordshire, UK: CABI International. Nelsen, P. B. (2006). Geographic perspective on amenity migration across the USA: National, regional and local scale analysis. In L. A. G. Moss (Ed.), The amenity migrants: Seeking and sustaining mountains and their cultures (pp. 94–107). Oxfordshire, UK: CABI International. Oliver, C., & O’Reilly, K. (2010). A Bourdieusian analysis of class and migration: Habitus and the individualizing process. Sociology, 44, 49–66. O’Reilly, K., & Benson, M. (2009). Lifestyle migration: Escaping to the good life? In M. Benson & L. O’Reilly (Eds.), Lifestyle migrations: Expectations, aspirations and experiences (pp. 1–13). Ashgate. Page, R., Bayley, S., Cook, J. D., Green, J. E., & Ritchie, J. R. B. (1996). Banff-Bow Valley: At the crossroads. Technical Report of the Banff-Bow Valley Task Force. Prepared for the Honourable Sheila Copps, Minister of Canadian Heritage, Ottawa, ON. Pavelka, J., & Rollins, R. (2008). Banff Bow Valley. In P. Deardren & R. Rollins (Eds.), Parks and protected areas in Canada planning and management (3rd ed.). Canada: Oxford University Press. Peden, J. G., & Schuster, R. M. (2004). Stress and coping in the high peaks wilderness: An exploratory assessment of visitor experiences. Proceedings of the 2004 Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium. Pivotal Research (2011) Banff Municipal Census. September 16, 2011. Plog, S. C. (2002). The power of psychographics and the concept of venturesomeness. Journal of Travel Research, 40(3), 244–251. Price, F. M., Moss, L. A. G., & Williams, W. P. (1997). Tourism & amenity migration. In B. Messer (Ed.), Mountains of the world: A global priority. London: The Parthenon Publishing Group. Raymore, L. A. (2002). Facilitators to leisure. Journal of Leisure Research, 34(1), 37–51. Reeder, R., & Brown, D. (2005). Rural areas benefit from recreation and tourism development. Amber Views, 3.4 Economic Research Services USDA. Robertson, B., & Stark, C. (2006). Alberta’s amenity rush. In L. A. G. Moss (Ed.), The amenity migrants: Seeking and sustaining mountains and their cultures (pp. 120–134). Oxfordshire, UK: CABI International. Schneider, I. (2000). Response to conflict among wilderness visitors. USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-15-VOL-4. Schuster, R., & Hammitt, W. (2000). Effective coping strategies in stressful outdoor recreation situations: Conflict on the Ocoee River. USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-15-VOL-4. Sherlock, K. (2001). Revisiting the concept of hosts and guests. Tourist Studies, 3, 271–295. Stebbins, R. A. (2005). Challenging mountain nature. Edmonton: Detselig Publishing. Stewart, S. I. (2000). Amenity migration. In Proceedings, the 5th recreation and tourism trends symposium East Lansing MI, Department of Parks and Recreation and Tourism Resources, Michigan State University. Stokowski, P. (2002). Languages of place and discourses of power: Constructing new senses of place. Journal of Leisure Research, 34(4), 368–382. Sudday, R. (2006). From the editors: What grounded theory is not. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 633–642. Thurau, B. B., Carver, A. D., Mangan, J. C., Basman, C. M., & Bauer, G. (2007). A market segmentation analysis of cruise ship tourists visiting the Panama Canal watershed: Opportunities for ecotourism development. Journal of Ecotourism, 6(1), 1–18. Torkington, K. (2011) Defining Lifestyle Migration, ESG2 – Artigos (em revistas ou actas indexadas). Torkington, K. (2012). Place and lifestyle migration: The discursive construction of ‘glocal’ place identity. Mobilities, 7(1), 71–92. Williams, D. R., & McIntyre, N. (2002). Where heart and home reside: Changing constructions of place and identity. In proceedings, The 5th recreation and tourism trends symposium East Lansing MI, Department of Parks and Recreation and Tourism Resources, Michigan State University.