MOUNTAIN COMMUNITIES AT RISK: A CASE STUDY OF GATEWAY COMMUNITY GROWTH MANAGEMENT AND RESORT DEVELOPMENT By Darwin Glen Homing B.Sc. DeVry University, 1988 THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTHERN BRITISH COLUMBIA December 2004 © Darwin Glen Homing, 2004 1 ^ 1 Library and Archives Canada Bibliothèque et Archives Canada Published Heritage Branch Direction du Patrimoine de l'édition 395 W ellington Street Ottawa ON K 1A 0N 4 Canada 395, rue W ellington Ottawa ON K 1A 0N 4 Canada Your file Votre référence ISBN: 0-494-04638-4 Our file Notre référence ISBN: 0-494-04638-4 NOTICE: The author has granted a non­ exclusive license allowing Library and Archives Canada to reproduce, publish, archive, preserve, conserve, communicate to the public by telecommunication or on the Internet, loan, distribute and sell theses worldwide, for commercial or non­ commercial purposes, in microform, paper, electronic and/or any other formats. AVIS: L'auteur a accordé une licence non exclusive permettant à la Bibliothèque et Archives Canada de reproduire, publier, archiver, sauvegarder, conserver, transmettre au public par télécommunication ou par l'Internet, prêter, distribuer et vendre des thèses partout dans le monde, à des fins commerciales ou autres, sur support microforme, papier, électronique et/ou autres formats. The author retains copyright ownership and moral rights in this thesis. Neither the thesis nor substantial extracts from it may be printed or otherwise reproduced without the author's permission. L'auteur conserve la propriété du droit d'auteur et des droits moraux qui protège cette thèse. Ni la thèse ni des extraits substantiels de celle-ci ne doivent être imprimés ou autrement reproduits sans son autorisation. In compliance with the Canadian Privacy Act some supporting forms may have been removed from this thesis. Conformément à la loi canadienne sur la protection de la vie privée, quelques formulaires secondaires ont été enlevés de cette thèse. While these forms may be included in the document page count, their removal does not represent any loss of content from the thesis. Bien que ces formulaires aient inclus dans la pagination, il n'y aura aucun contenu manquant. Canada ABSTRACT With the decline of the resource extraction industries many rural gateway communities in western Canada are attempting to capitalize on their pristine environment locations. This research analysed the ability of the local governments of Golden, Femie and Canmore to manage growth associated with large-scale resort development. The ability to encourage and manage sustainable development was assessed in terms of policy formulation and implementation within an adaptive management framework. The goal of the growth management strategies is to achieve sustainable communities through ecological, economical, cultural and social sustainability. Through globalization, local governments of gateway communities are experiencing similar growth related pressures and challenges. This research will add to the body of knowledge required by these gateway communities to retain their local history and unique character in the face of rapid growth brought on by large-scale resort development. Mountain Communities at Risk: A case study o f gateway community growth management and resort development. 11 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Abstract............................................................................................................................. Table of Contents........................................................................................ List of Figures..................................................... List of Tables...................................................................................... Acknowledgements......................................................................................................... Chapter 1 - Introduction B ackground Information......................................................................................... Research Framework.............................................................................................. Problem Statement........................................................ Importance of Project.............................................................................................. Chapter Summaries.................................................................................................. Chapter 1 Introduction......................................................................................... Chapter 2 Sustainable Development and the Evolution Towards Adaptive Management............................................ Chapter 3 Resort Development and Gateway Communities; Case Study Design.............................................................................. Chapter 4 Emerging Gateway Community Characteristics.................................. Chapter 5 Gateway Community Capacity Analysis............................................ Chapter 6 Opportunities and Recommendations..................................... Chapter 7 Conclusion................... ii iii vi vi viii 1 5 6 8 11 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Chapter 2 - Sustainable Development: An Adaptive Management Model Introduction....................................... Sustainable Development ........................................ Development .......................................... Sustainability......................................................................................................... Sustainable Development...................................................................................... Sustainable Tourism Development........................................................................ Local Government Policy Development Context................................................. Adaptive Management........................................................................................... Resort and Tourism Development Impacts........................................................... Consequences of Resort Development: A Comparative Study............................. Conclusion............................................................................................................... 18 19 19 20 23 29 31 36 42 51 55 Chapter 3 - Research Design Introduction............................................................................................................. Research Premise..................................................................................................... Conceptual Research Framework.......................................... l.Infmmation Capture......................................................................................... 57 58 61 63 Mountain Communities at Risk: A case study o f gateway community growth management and resort development. m 2. Information Analysis......................................................................................... 3. Information Reported........................................................................................ 4. Explanation-Theory......................................................................................... Qualitative Research................................................................................................ Case Study Research............................................................................................... Case Study Design................................................................................................... Construct Validity................................................................................................. Internal Validity.................................................................................................... External Validity................................................ Reliability...................... Conclusion............................................................................................................... 65 66 66 67 68 69 70 70 71 71 71 C hapter 4 - Case Study Characteristics Introduction.................................................................................................. Golden, British Columbia................................ 1. Location............................................................................................................ 2. History.............................................................................................................. 3. Governance Information ....................................................................... 4. Demographic Information................................................................................. 5. Economic Information and Trends.................................................................... 6. Unique Characteristics........................................... 7. Adj acent Resort Information............................................................................. Fernie, British Columbia........................................................................................ 1. Location............... 2. History.............................................................................................................. 3. Governance Information................................................................................... 4. Demographic Information................................................................................ 5. Economic Information and Trends.................................................................... 6. Unique Characteristics .......................................................... 7. Adjacent Resort Information............................................................................. Canmore, Alberta ................................. 1. Location...................................................................................... 2. History.................... 3. Governance Information................................................................................... 4. Demographic Information................................................................................ 5. Economic Information and Trends.................................................................... 6. Unique Characteristics..................................................................................... 7. Adjacent Resort Information............................................................................. Conclusion............................................................................................................... 73 74 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 81 81 82 83 84 86 88 89 89 90 91 92 93 95 96 97 Chapter 5 - Gateway Community Capacity Anaiysis Introduction............................................................................................................. 98 Golden...................................................................................................................... 99 Town of Golden Ofhcial Community Plan Bylaw No. 910,1993.......................... 100 Town of Golden Development Cost Charge Bylaw No.1066,2001........................ 103 Golden Strategic Planning Process 2001-2006: Think Globally............................. 104 Mountain Communities at Risk: A case study o f gateway community growth management and resort development. IV Community Effect Analysis: Final Report, November 2001................................. Femie........................................................................................................................ City of Femie Official Community Plan: Building From Our Heritage For A Better Tomorrow (2002)................................. Canmore ........................................................................................ Town of Camnore Municipal Development Plan (1998)....................................... Growth Management ............................ Residential............................................................................................................ Natural Environment.................................................. Commercial................................................................ — ......... Resort and Tourism............ Regional Cooperation........................................................................... Implementation and Monitoring.......................................................................... Canmore Community Monitoring Program........................................................... Interviews................................................................................................................ Golden.................................................................................................................. Femie................................................................................................................... Canmore............................................................................................................... Conclusion............................................................................................................... 112 120 121 122 124 126 128 130 133 134 135 138 139 142 146 154 C hapter 6 - O pportunities for Sustainable Gateway Communities Introduction............................................................................................................. Case Study Findings.................................................................................. Golden.................................................................................................................. Femie................................................................................................................... Canmore....................................... Guiding Hypothesis .................................... 156 157 157 161 167 171 Chapter 7 - Conclusion Introduction................................................................................................ Recommendations......................................... 173 178 Appendix A Interview Questionnaire......................................................................... Appendix B Consent Forms......................................................................................... Appendix C Survey Summary...................................................................................... Appendix D Alternative Definitions of Public Policy................................................ Appendix E Femie OCP Housing Policy................................................................... Appendix F Femie Municipal Planning Policy - Action Items................................ Rekrence List.................................................................................................................... 182 185 188 191 192 193 194 Mountain Communities at Risk: A case study o f gateway community growth management and resort development. 106 107 LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 1 Figure 2 Case Study Communities........................................................................... A Conceptual Framework for Studying Tourism Public Policy.................................................................................. Figure 3 Sustainability Model................... Figure 4 The McGregor Approach To Sustainable Forest Management...................... Figure 5 Sustainable Ecosystem Management in Clayoquot Sound - Planning Practice............................ Figure 6 Adaptive Management Framework........................................................... Figure 7 Conceptual Research Framework.............................................................. Figure 8 Golden.......................................................................................................... Figure 9 Columbia Shuswap Regional District........................................................ Figure 10 Femie............................................................................................................ Figure 11 East Kootenay Regional District............................................................... Figure 12 Canmore........................................................ Figure 13 Municipal District of Bighorn No. 8 . ....................................................... Figure 14 Canmore Population -1993-2003.................................................. Figure 15 The Population Of Canmore (Permanent & Non-Permanent) for Five Years Expressed as a Percentage of Growth............................... 4 14 22 38 38 40 62 75 77 82 84 90 92 93 94 LIST OF TABLES Page Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Table 4 Table 5 Table 6 Table 7 Table 8 Table 9 Table 10 Expected and Actual Impacts....................................................................... Resort Development and Tourism Impacts................................................ Potential Case-study Communities.............................................................. Case-study Research - Design and Model.................................................. Growth in Numbers of Rooms in Golden Since 1990............................... Construction Statistics 1996 - 2003 (Golden)............................................ Construction Statistics 1996 - 2003 (Femie).............................................. Ski Resort Aimual Snow Levels................................................................... Potential Resort Effects................................................................................ Issue Identification and Discussion Paper Issues and Obstacles..................................................................................... Table 11 Femie Visioning Project Summary Report - 2001..................................... Table 12 Femie Official Community Plan Guiding Principles................................................................................ Mountain Communities at Risk: A case study o f gateway community growth management and resort development. 46 47 60 70 78 79 85 89 106 109 114 115 VI Table 13 Table 14 Table 15 Table 16 Table 17 Table 18 T able 19 Table 20 Table 21 Table 22 Femie Official Community Plan Smart Growth Principles.............................................................................. Femie Official Community Plan Policy Development Areas........................................................................... Femie OfGcial Community Plan Housing Policy Recommendations............................................................. Femie Social Pohcy Development Areas.................................................. Citizen Priority List for Future Development............................................ Canmore Municipal Development Plan Policy Development Areas.......................................................................... Environmental Conservation............... Resort Development Policy ..................................... Tourism Policy............................ Regional Policy............................................................................................ Mountain Communities at Risk: A case study of gateway community growth management and resort development. 116 116 117 118 122 126 127 132 132 134 vn ACKNOWLEGMENTS I would like to thank my advisory committee, John Curry, Perry Shawana and Gordon Borgstrom, for their precious time spent on this research and the invaluable advice given. Thanks to my wife, Sandy and daughter Carilia for all their sacrifices. I would like to thank each of the community representatives, Kathy Gilbert (Golden), Allen Jenkins (Femie), and Gary Buxton (Canmore), for their knowledge and assistance, which proved to be invaluable to this research. ...For 1 have learned To look on nature, not as in the hour O f thoughtless youth; but hearing oftentimes The still, sad music o f humanity, Not harsh, nor grating, though o f ample power To chasten and subdue. And I have felt A presence that disturbs me with the joy O f elevated thought; a sense sublime O f something fa r more deeply interfused. Whose swelling is the light o f setting suns. And the round ocean and the living air. And the blue sky, and in the mind o f man A motion and a spirit that impels All thinking things, all objects o f all thought. And rolls through all things. Therefore I am still A Zovgf mgof/ow.; fAg woWj, A/kJ mownmzMf,' oW fAaf wg 6g/mW From fAzf grggn gort/i; q/^oZ/ ZAg mig/uy worW Cy gyg, oW gar - 6otA wAoT ZAgy Aa^crgafg, AW wWrpgrogfyg," wgZZ/z/gofgJ fo rgoognzjg /n nafwrg oW tZzg Zongwagg q/'zZzg ^grwg, TTfg oncZior q/"my pwrg.yr rZiowgZit, fZzg nara^g, TTig gwZfZg, zZzg gwar^ZZon q/"my Zigart, oW foaZ CyaZZ moraZ ZzgZng. (Hall, Jenkins and Kearsley 1997, 68) Mountain Communities at Risk: A case study of gateway community growth management and resort development. y |i| CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION Bacl%roimd Information In the face of economic downturns, softwood lumber tariffs, and reduced allowable cuts, British Columbia's resource-based communities are examining alternative means to generate the economic growth necessary to maintain a sustainable future. Many of these communities, being located adjacent to natural scenic areas, have been extremely proactive in their efforts to diversify economically with a focus on tourism enhancement. Being located close to Mount Robson Provincial Park and Jasper National Park, Valemount is one such community ideally positioned to take advantage of its Gateway' status. In April 2000 Ian Waddell, then British Columbia Minister of Small Business, Tourism, and Culture, in recognition of Valemount’s unique geographic location, designated Valemount as a Parks & Backcountry Gateway Community. A $55,150 grant was given to the community by the Government of British Columbia to plan an interpretative centre and to promote Valemount as a gateway community. Recent proposals for the Valemount area, by the Terra Nova Group of Vancouver and Sunrise International of Alberta, include a $30 million resort and hot springs development and an $80 million gondola development, respectively. Both projects have been proposed for a location outside but ac^acent to the municipal boundary. Both proposals demonstrate the enormous potential of Valemount and the surrounding area as ' The term Gateway Community, as defined by the U.S. National Park System, refers to a community adjacent to a National Park System protected area. Furthermore, a gateway community is often located in a spectacular and remote landscape with a natural character and local tradition unique to the region (Steers and Chambers 1998). It is these spectacular and remote landscapes and local character and traditions exhibited by the case-study communities that appear to be threatened by the development of nearby resort facilities. Mountain communities are considered a subset of Gateway communities for this study. Mountain Communities at Risk: A case study o f gateway community growth management and resort development a signiûcant tourist destination and are an indication of the potential British Columbia, as a whole, has for resort development and tourism. Large resort developments, however, have significant associated effects that must be managed in a manner that both enhances the positive and mitigates the negative. As Draper (2000, 408) points out "...tAg mownhzin tow/iwi con Aavg imyorfont Zong-te/?», /rggwentZ)' nggutivg, impact.; on commwutic;, peopfc amf environment;." Of particular concern to the local government of Valemount was the location of the proposed tourist developments. Both projects have been proposed for a location outside but adjacent to the municipal boundary. The impetus for this study originated from the Valemount Local Government’s inquiry into what policy options were available to small gateway communities to manage resort related growth. The Valemount Local Government had hoped that by identifying existing precedent policies created by comparable gateway communities, a strategy could be formulated to mitigate the negative impacts associated with resort development in and around Valemount. This study uses an approach similar to Draper (2000) in her study of tourism development and environmental protection in Banff and Banff National Park. This study addressed the following questions: 1. What growth related policies and initiatives have been created by local governments in the three gateway communities in response to large resort development? and 2. What determinants have assisted or hindered these three local governments in the creation of growth management pohcy? ^ ' This study will focus on communities comparable to Valemount in a Western Canadian context. Mountain Communities at Risk: A case study o f gateway community growth management and resort development The purpose for investigating these questions is to substantiate the hypothesis that local governments currently lack the required legislative tools necessary to maintain a sustainable community in the face of increasing tourism pressure. The challenge for Valemount is to develop a locally based growth management plan that guides, in an adaptive manner, growth of the community in the face of an ever increasing demand for mountain related tourist activities. It is also imperative that human needs are integrated with those of our natural environment and cultural history (Howe, McMahon and Propst 1997). Integration must take place on socio-economic, environmental, and cultural levels and be sustainable over the long term. Following examples set out in other scientific fields, specifically natural resource and ecological management, this research asserts that the goal of integration can only be achieved through the development of an adaptive management regime that allows for a truly collaborative planning process at the local level. Gateway communities face significant challenges in managing growth of which resort development and tourism is the major contributing factor (Howe, McMahon and Propst 1997). One such challenge facing policy makers in these mountain communities is the apparent paradoxical nature of global tourism development in small natural-resourcebased communities: preserving small community atmosphere while encouraging the economic benefits of tourism. This study examines the challenge created by this paradox through case study research of the three western Canadian gateway commimities. Golden, Femie and Canmore (Figure 1). Mountain Communities at Risk: A case study o f gateway community growth management arul resort development Figure 1: Case Study Communities MepKOl A L B E R T Prince^ George ..... AI EdmontoKK y alem ount . C A N A D.. A , C a lg a ry B R I T I S H ^ OOLOmN C O L U M B I A fE R N lE % 4 Vancouver_ ® \ __ --------------------------------------- - . r soKCoip®2003lî^wh,3iiid/orGDT.in«. f vAH^ UNITED ST\ATES M O M tA N , j \ Source: Statistics Canada 2002. Growth management planning will be examined through the analysis of local contextual information and tourism-related policy development in the three comparable transitional communities^. The analysis of the context in which policy is created follows the model currently being used by the legal profession and its interpretation of statutes. This approach is referred to as taking a purposeful approach^ in other words, the examination of pohcy development occurs within the context of the local environment in which the pohcy was created. Transitional Communities for this study are considered small rural communities whose economies are evolving from being a once solely natural resource dependant economy to a mixture of resource extraction and service provision (tourism). ^ Purpose Approach; Since the proper approach to the interpretation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a purposive one, before it is possible to assess the reasonableness or unreasonableness of the impact of a search or of a statute authorizing a search, it is first necessary to specify the purpose underlying (s.8): in other words, to delineate the nature o f the interests it is meant to protect (Hunter et.al. 1984). Mountain Communities at Risk: A case study o f gateway community growth management and resort development Investigation into the capacity of the three local governments, in the context of policy development, was facilitated through the use of adaptive management models originating from more mature scientific fields such as natural resource, ecology and environmental management. The adaptive management models provided a framework by which to assess both the local government policy development capabilities and the determinants (value systems) that assisted or hindered the formulation of tourism growth related policy in the communities being researched As discussed in the Valemount and Area Economic Development Plan: Strategy Workbook (Valemount and Area Economic Development Commission, 2000), the challenge is to draft policies that encourage the development of a world-class tourism destination industry while at the same time retaining the small intimate community atmosphere highly valued by the local residents. Valemount’s initial request for this study demonstrated a proactive approach to the future management of growth and potential impacts. If the challenge of governance can be met and economic, social and environmental impacts of tourism can be directed through appropriate strategies, rather than occur indiscriminately - then resort development and tourism can serve as an engine for sustainable community development (Draper 2000). Research Framework The research approach taken by this study included: the initial identification of three transitional case study communities experiencing resort development and tourism; a review of existing policy created by each of the three comparable communities; and semi structured survey and interview conducted with the local policy experts in each of the Mountain Communities at Risk: A case study o f gateway community growth management and resort development 5 communities. The interviews provided a contextual basis for identifying the determinants. The selection of the case-study communities was based upon criteria set out in Chapter 3. Problem Statement Tourism in the late twentieth century is one of the most important elements in the shaping of popular consciousness of places and in determining the creation of social images of those places (Britton 1991). For traditionally resource-dependant geographically isolated communities, tourism is also seen as an alternative to the boomand-bust cycle of resource extraction, and more recently the general decline or complete closure of resource-based industries (Johnston and Haider 1993). However, the particularities of the northern environment and the nature of the tourism industry itself present communities with a variety of challenges (Johnston and Haider 1993). The reality of these transitional communities is such that, without tourists, spatially marginal communities that are finding it increasingly more difficult to compete in other spheres with the major metropolitan centres may cease to exist (van der Straaten 2000; Johnston and Haider 1993). Kimberly, Valemount and Golden provide examples, with a recent closure of a mine, a sawmill, and the loss of a large Tree Farm License (TFL) respectively. Prideaux (2000) in his study resort development spectrwm - a new approach to modeling resort development proposes a five-stage model of resort development, all predicated on a continual growth basis. The Gfth stage of resort development is decline or rejuvenation. Prideaux's approach to studying the development of the tourism industry from an industry perspective is an of a study that emphasizes the elements which assist the industry in a mono-focus manner while little emphasis placed on the communities or peoples which host the tourism. The Canadian Tourism Council Mountain Communities at Risk: A case study o f gateway community growth management and resort development 6 (Smith 1999) whose main goal is to raise awareness about industry research and needs provides a federally funded research body to promote the tourism industry within Canada. There appears to be a significant amount of both public and private funds being expended on increasing the growth of tourism. For gateway communities striving to achieve a sustainable growth management plan, policy formulation and implementation is a critical challenge. The current system of government in Canada was established by the Constitutional Act of 1867. The Constitutional Act of 1867 defined the relationship between municipalities and other levels of government as follows: “Municipalities are creatures o f the provincial government and there is nothing in either the constitution or the Charter o f Rights and Freedoms that guarantees their existence ” (Commissioner of Official Languages v. Canada 2001, n.p.). Further, not recognize focoZ govemmentf (w on orcfer government, (fej^pite expectations on t/ie part q/^iocai citizens tAat m anierai institutions act as ^ t/iey constitwte^ a ievei q/" government..." (Federation of Canadian Municipalities Annual Conference 1999,1). Municipal powers are derived from their provincial legislature. These municipal powers are detailed, expressing empowering provisions for each type of local bylaw or resolution (Guy 1995). This top-down approach is contrary to the role that local government plays in tourism policy development. As Greenwood, Williams and Shaw (1990, 53-62) note. Mountain Communities at Risk: A case study of gateway community growth management and resort development ZocoZ .ÿfafg OM q/ire» nggZecfg^f oapecf q/^ And yet, "greaterybcwa M reqwirecf at t/ie ZeveZa^ q/^tAe (wfivWwaZ eaterpri;ÿe.y oW amaZZer ZmpZementZng organZzatZofw (rather than the higher levels), /or tZiZa^ Za^wZzere a Zarge part q/^taarZa?/» poZZqy Z^/MoJe." Touiism development has become more and more a public pohcy issue due to increasing public expenditures for promotion, local pressures for public services, conflicts among user groups, and general concerns over societal costs and benefits. Local policy makers realize the importance of tourism development but have little experience in planning for its development (Marcouiller 1995). The potential level of tourism development within the Valemount region and the resort development occurring within the Columbia Basin* emphasize the importance of sustainable development and in the face of hyper resort development. The management of resort development impacts, and the tourism related effects, must occur in a collaborative, integrative way at the community level. This approach is critical to sustainable regional development that captures the potential for tourism in rural regions while minimizing its liabihties (Marcouhler 1995). Importance of Project The Vihage of Valemount was chosen as the hrst gateway community in British Columbia (Village of Valemount 2001, 8). Along with this designation comes an increased interest in tourism investment. The Canoe Moimtam project will be the largest * Columbia Basin refers to the south eastern region o f British Columbia located at the western foothills of the Rocky Mountains. Mountain Communities at Risk: A case study o f gateway community growth management and resort development non-resource-based investment in the history of northern British Columbia (Village of Valemount 2001, 6). A number of studies have been conducted within the village and the surrounding area, which have identified challenges that Valemount and other gateway communities face. Issues identified in these studies range &om land-use strategies and resort development effects, to issues concerning the current governmental structures in place within the region. In a document prepared for the Ministers and Members of the Legislative Assembly for the Province of British Columbia, the following statement was made (Village of Valemount 2001, 4); “/f became quickly and frustratingly apparent that the regulatory structure o f the various ministries in the valley and their regional offices in Prince George and provincial offices in Victoria were not organized in a manner condwcivg to uMracting " The studies identified several issues including (Village of Valemount 2001, 9); # a potential tripling, or greater, of population growth in the next ten years; # a boundary expansion and critical governance issues; # Bnancial issues over water, sewer, and other infrastructure; # funding and health-related issues associated with a proposed second water reservoir; # proper control of future growth on aU lands — Crown, regional district, and village jurisdictions —through critical land-planning studies; # Crown land access and forest land reserve issues needing resolution; # airport improvements required to maximize the investment potential; and, Mountain Communities at Risk: A case study o f gateway community growth management and resort development closer working relationships between the village and provincial ministries required to present a co-ordinated and considered response to investors and growth pressures. While the list of identified growth-related issues is certainly economically biased, it is by no means exhaustive. Although the Valemount report did not address environmental and socially related challenges, the case study communities all faced these additional challenges. An example of the severity of impacts can be found in Moab, Utah where one counsellor remarked, in reference to the influx on average of 11,000 mountain bikers and tourists into a town with a permanent population of 5,000 (Potok 1995, n.p.); ''Community leaders went fishing fo r a little tourism to revive and di versify our economy, and they hooked a great white shark. This monster has swamped the boat and has eaten the crew.” If Valemount is to maintain the values and attributes of the existing community in the face of construction of the proposed development, the question of how to maintain the ecological, economical, cultural and social fabric of the community through sustainable development must be addressed. Mountain Communities at Risk: A case study o f gateway community growth management and resort development 10 Chapter Summaries Chapter One - Introduction The three commimities chosen for this case study were: • Golden, British Columbia, Canada • Femie, British Columbia, Canada • Canmore, Alberta, Canada The three case study communities were selected on the basis that they would provide the most analogous comparison to the Village of Valemount with respect to the following: • Geographical location • Size • Proximity to a large centre • Geopolitical system • Resort developments in or adjacent to the municipal border • Western Canadian Context Research into the case study communities revealed that three communities are presently dealing with differing stages of resort development. The study identified the tourism impacts associated with each of the community's particular stage of development and the community's growth management responses associated with the impacts. Mountain Communities at Risk: A case study of gateway community growth management and resort development 11 Chapter Two: Sustainable Development and the Evolution Towards Adaptive Management The Literature Review for this study consisted of four primary sections: 1. Theoretical background for sustainable development; 2. Theoretical background for sustainable tourism and sustainable tourism development; 3. Contextual management regimes; and, 4. Existing Resort Development and Tourism Impact case studies. The literature review explains the concept of sustainable development and the multiple meanings that both sustainable and development have. Further, the meanings of both sustainable and development have undergone considerable evolution. The literature review also explains the concept of sustainable tourism and sustainable tourism development and the relationship both terms have to sustainable development. The literature review also examines the current management regimes, specifically adaptive management, to provide a framework in which the analysis of policy development can be carried out. The objective of the policy analysis is to elucidate the underlying value systems guiding policy development within the three case study communities. Chapter Two concludes with a review of tourism related impacts and the growth management responses of the three case study communities. Mountain Communities at Risk: A case study of gateway community growth management and resort development 12 Chapter Three - Resort Development and Gateway Communities: Case Study Design Chapter Three outlines the research design for this study. Yin (1989,23) explains, "... rAg caa^g a cuAg .yfWy, tAg cgntraZ tgy^fgncy among all (ypga^ q/" M lAat It trig.; to lllamlnatg a dgcMion or fgf q/^ . i ? .« e s to c ' a s s e i 't b t e b a a & i r o i,'fo rr.« a * .* . a^ftifmstiofi incompwtc. "hM poky • fJ e .W r.'v .e % & rk .r c leneiiitfi'.esr-'vt*‘Cni:. ’'.cT' f oPleaaivBS not m et riSff ft « I4! ■ns pJans • (wva-cc iJt piece ' -Peck fiâtrt.t\aati.f, «#Nv# ♦ ' rcnpalfYWM, oi''orf8ve'0pfiprt‘ i?<1'ttor > * s ï 3&' SÎ-. f c e b B v C ' 3 ‘ I—Si • cetofi cKeeses •''tttv■csei-rer Source: Clayoquot Sound ScientiGc Panel 1995,157. Mountain Communities at Risk: A case study of gateway community growth management and resort development 38 However, despite over 20 years of theoretical development and practical application in environmental management, successful application of adaptive management principles remain an elusive goal (Reed 1999; Nelson, Butler and Wall 1993). Based upon recent adaptive management experiments, McLain and Lee (1996) suggest that implementation efforts suffer from an over-reliance on rational comprehensive planning models where there is a tendency to discount non-scientific forms of knowledge, and an inattention to policy processes that promote the development of shared understanding among diverse stakeholders (Reed 1999). The over reliance on scientific models and knowledge and the elusive goal of successful implementation of adaptive management may be remedied through the fundamental acceptance of collaborative initiatives and information obtained through community collaboration. The Adaptive Management Framework (Figure 6) was developed to: • Assist in identifying potential methodologies for assessing or self-assessing the local government capacity. • Identify the determinants, which may be required to progress local government's policy development capacity. • Provide insight into the research, practical and operational challenges that face local governments in emergent tourism settings. A comparison of the case study communities, within the Adaptive Management Framework, wiU be conducted to determine the existence of causal links leading to explanation building (Yin 1989). Causal links are identified through the consideration of the following issues: Mountain Communities at Risk: A case study o f gateway community growth management and resort development 39 # Was the policy development process within that particular community closed or open-looped? # At which point in the policy development process was the process succeeding or failing? # What determinants^ appeared to be the seminal factors in the success or failure of policy development? Figure 6: Adaptive Management Framework Assessment - Im pacts CLOSED LOOP (Adaptive) Design - Policy Strategy Implementation Strategy Oetennfnants M onitor - Indicators Evaluate - Forecast Adjust * Determinants are defined as elements of the local governments, which assisted or hindered the progression of the local government towards establishing an adaptive management regime. Examples of determinants include corporate capacity, political commitment, knowledge, education, economic, corporate or political culture and value systems. Mountain Communities at Risk: A case study of gateway community growth management and resort development 40 The model consists of two potential frameworks, a closed loop or adaptive management framework; and an open loop or linear management framework. # Closed loop (Adaptive): the closed loop illustrates a management regime which incorporates all six components of a management regime that not only establishes management goals but allows for the collection of information pertinent to the performance and outcomes of the management program in an attempt to learn and improve the process. The source of the feedback information may consist of data collected from an ongoing monitoring program or may include a more collaborative approach of feedback through a public input assessment. Open loop (Linear management): the open loop management regime describes a management framework which may contain components of the adaptive framework but lacks the necessary structure to allow the feedback of performance-result based knowledge, in effect allowing the system to learn and adapt to the dynamic environment in which sustainable development policy formulation occurs. The result is, at best, a management system that remains reactionary to potential growth. Within such a system many resources are expended with little progress made towards the understanding of tourism related impacts. The goal of local government is to establish a governance framework that will enable the community to achieve sustainable long-term development. To achieve this goal a local government management regime, which incorporates all six components of the adaptive management model, must be established. As outlined in the natural resource and enviromnental research, because of the ever-changing conditions, objectives, and Mountain Communities at Risk: A case study o f gateway community growth management and resort development 41 new understandings, the goal has been to implement adaptive frameworks that provide allowances for a dynamic environment (Hunter and Green 1995; Reed 1999). Resort and Tourism Development Impacts Many gateway and tourist-oriented communities have experienced accelerated economic growth and development due to a rapid influx of tourist related developments. Due to the associated effects of rapid development, most gateway communities have experienced difficulty managing growth. In a survey, conducted by Howe, McMahon, and Propst (1997, 6), of gateway communities experiencing rapid growth, the following issues were identified: 1. Many such communities are overwhelmed by rapid growth that fails to meet local needs and aspirations. 2. The vast majority of residents, both long-time and newcomers feel a strong attachment to the landscape and character of their town. They want a healthy local economy, but not at the expense of their natural surroundings and community character. 3. Many residents lack information about the land-use and economic-development options available to them. While large quantities of data and case studies have been produced for planners and landscape architects, there is an acute shortage of such information for lay people making day-to-day decisions about the future of their communities. 4. Perhaps most important, a number of communities have already started successful initiatives that deal with growth in a manner that protects the community's identity while stimulating a healthy economy and safeguarding natural and historic areas. Throughout the country (US), dozens of communities have Mountain Communities at Risk: A case study o f gateway community growth management and resort development 42 demonstrated that economic prosperity need not rob them of character, degrade their natural surroundings, or transform them into tourist traps. A study prepared by Westcoast (2001), for the community of Golden, focused on effects of resort development and tourism. Some recent research has concerned arguments about the abilities of tourism to stimulate or destroy economies, to enhance or degrade the environment, and to revive or undermine cultures (Simpson and Wall 1999). The purposeful approach taken by this study consisted of a western Canadian gateway community focus using the communities of Golden, Femie, and Canmore as comparative communities. Westcoast (2001) conducted multiple interviews with community representatives from comparative communities including Invermere, Kimberly, Femie, and Canmore. Through these interviews and the Golden analysis, a list of forty-six different effects, both positive and negative, was established (Table 1). An ‘X ’ indicates whether the communities, were, or had, experienced the listed impact. The impacts identified by Westcoast (2001) informed the policy development assessment of the three case study communities. The premise being that if there was a potential for one of the forty-six impacts to occur and in keeping with an adaptive management style of governance, policy should be formulated to address these impacts prior to the actual occurrence. The Town of Canmore conducted a review of the impacts of resort development and tourism on housing conditions. Included in the review were comparable mountain communities, including TeUuride, Colorado, Summit Valley, Montana, Atomic City, Idaho, and Pitkin County, Kansas that had been dealing with similar effects on affordable housing or the lack of for 35 to 40 years. Mountain Communities at Risk: A case study of gateway community growth management and resort development 43 In its 1998 review of strategic approaches for freshwater management, the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development (2000) stressed the need for an integrated approach with priority on the social dimension of freshwater management. The Commission identified mountainous regions and other fragile ecosystems as particularly sensitive areas (United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development 2000) where incentives may be necessary to promote land use practices appropriate to local conditions in order to protect or rehabilitate freshwater resources. A Swiss-supported publication, Mountains o f the world: water towers fo r the 21st century, was prepared for CSD-6‘'’ Session and provided a number of case studies illustrating various issues and challenges faced by mountain communities throughout the world (United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development 2000). Table 1 outlines the list of impacts identified in the report prepared by Westcoast (2001) study of gateway communities in the Canadian South Eastern Rocky Mountains. Table 2 lists tourism related impacts that have occurred in mountain communities and been identified by the authors listed within Table 2. Table 2 supports the Westcoast (2001) Endings set out in Table 1 in that similar impacts were identiEed in both Table 1 and Table 2. The list of impacts in Table 2 expands upon the tourism related impacts on ecologically sensiEve mountain communities outlined in the Commw/iity prepared by Westcoast (2(X)1). The focus for tounsm related research remains predominantly E"om a development industry perspecEve. As Carter, Baxter and Hockings (2001, 265) point out tounsm research has been to contg/nporory Zaawea; domi/iaW 2)y ncodgmica; diamfgrgatgd in Aoat commwnfty and cwZtnraZ ifawga; origntgd townrda awppZy Mountain Communities at Risk: A case study of gateway community growth management and resort development 44 aW rafAgr fAan (fzrecW mefAo(/oZogy owf f/zeo/y (kygZopmg/if. " What has been lacking is good research geared towards assisting local governments and decision-makers to manage the resources at hand in a sustainable manner. "Deapirg coMcgr»ybr swsminahihry (referring to current tourism research), thg ohsencg rgsowrce managgmgnr m townsm discowrsg is MgMig/ited" (Carter, Baxter and Hocking 2001, 265). This research attempts to address this deficiency through a methodological approach, which involves a broader research scope that included the analysis of elements that assist or hinder resource management from a local government perspective. By focusing on tourism effects, both from an industrial perspective as well as from a community perspective, the ability to ultimately predict and project is achieved (Carter, Baxter, and Hocking 2001). Many management practices to date have been ad hoc and reactive when approaching the management of tourist developments. Decisions have been, for the most part, narrowly focused on economic effects and reactive to known impacts. Research on the effects of tourism has relied heavily on isolated case studies, resulting in fewer cumulative insights than might otherwise have been achieved (Carter, Baxter, and Hocking 2(X)1, 265). The analysis of the effects of resort development and tourism is extremely complex due to the range of inputs that influence both the type and the level of effect of any given development. Faced with this situation, a number of authors have advocated the merits of the comparative study methodology used in this study (Simpson and Wall 1999). Mountain Communities at Risk: A case study of gateway community growth management and resort development 45 Table 1: Expected and Actual Impacts Impacts: Issues & Opportunities 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Affluent Residents Increasing Affluent Visitors Increasing Affordable Housing - Rent for Resort Employees Affordable Housing - Purchase for Young Families Affordable Housing - Retain for Seniors Amenities & Attractions Being Added Annexation of Ski Resort - Viewed as a Solution Business Opportunities Increasing Com petition Among Resorts Increasing Cost/Benefit Ratio Favouring Resort over Town Cost of Living Increase Cultural Differences Increase Cultural Facilities Demand Increasing Demographics Changing Dog Control Needs Increasing Downtown Revitalisation Needed Drug & Alcohol Problems Increasing Economy Diversifying Emergency Services Increasing - Ambulance Emergency Services Increasing - Fire Emergency Services Increasing - Police Employment Levels Increasing Employment Opportunities Increasing Environmental Protection Needs Increasing Gap Between Haves &Have-nots Increasing Health Services Demands Increasing Infrastructure Costs Increasing Loss of Community &Lifestyle Occurring Municipal Government Role Transition Possibility Parking Problems Increasing Poverty More Evident Professional Recruitment Problems Arising Property Values Increasing Property Taxes Increasing Resort/Municipal Marketing Requiring Partnerships Resort Conflicts Increasing Road Rage Increasing Recreation Opportunities Increasing Recreation Demands Increasing Social Service Agencies W orkloads Increasing Shadow Population Increasing Thrill Seekers Increasing Volunteer Base Increasing Young Entrepreneurs Needs Assistance Young People See Future Locally Zoning Lack Creating Pressure Golden Interviews X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Comparative xxxx xxxx xxxx XXX XXX xxxx xxxx xxxx XXX xxxx X xxxx xxxx XX XX xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx XXX XX xxxx xxxx X X X X X N/A X X N/A X X X X X N/A X X X X X X X X X X X XXX XX XX X xxxx X X X X X X X X X XXX XX xxxx X X X X X X X X XX XX X X X Whistler Communities XX XXX XXX X X X X X Source: Westcoast (2001) Mountain Communities at Risk: A case study o f gateway community growth management and resort development 46 Table 2: Resort Development and Tourism Impacts Agarwal (1997) * Ap and Crompton (1993); Lankford and Howard (1994); Long, Perdue and Allan (1990); McCool and Martin (1994); Madrigal (1995); Gill (2000); Simmons (1994) » • Augustyn (1998) • Bernard, Pascal and Marshal (1997); Blank (1989) • • • Bianchi (1994) Bowman (2000) • • Butler (1980) • Canan and Hennessy (1989) Culbertson and Kolberg (1994) Debbage (1990) Draper (2000); Messerli (1997); Godde(1999) » increasing importance of local state in development of tourism (Britain's Coast) tourism impacts and residents attitudes public involvement process to determine attitudes and concerns created opportunity (rural Poland) to produce and market quality products that can attract visitors and bring about the potential benefits associated with rural tourism development wildlife mortality associated with transportation and utility corridor that runs through park potential shift in economy of town site that is expected to reflect the values of an elite recreation centre - loss of cultural heritage increasing intrinsic touristic, recreational and residential pressures that threatened the ecological integrity cultural heritage and social and economic character public input into stages of process or lack of Rocky Mountain alpine tundra impacted from: • recreation development (short term - direct) • climate change and air pollution (long term - indirect) early model of resort: establish - development - decline and associated impacts increased power to 'select few' while general quality of life decreases for residents (study of Mulaka'i) * employee housing and affordable housing # * external structure of tourism and the impacts locally mountain tourism industry (long term) - frequently negative impacts on communities, people, environments required infrastructure large enough to support 30,000population but only 5000 population within Banff » Mountain Communities at Risk: A case study of gateway community growth management and resold development 47 Edgell(1999) « Gill (2000) • • Gill (2000); Gill (2000); Schneider (1992); Schneider and Teske(1993) Gill and Williams (1994) Haggerty (1997) • • • • • • • • • • • • Hall (1994) • Hunter and Green (1995); Bosselman, Peterson & McCarthy (1999) Johnson, Maxwell and Aspinall (2002) • • • • Johnson, Maxwell and AspinaU (2002); Johnson and Rasker(1995) • # # # # tounsm leads to the disappearance of traditional human environments and replaces them with towers of artificial concrete, ides ethics and morals and is effect threatens the whole fabric of tradition and natural. discusses conflict ‘exchange value’ (Whistler) territorial concerns - sense of alienation of community as community ‘invaded’ by tourists environmental degradation second home ownership and associated impacts increased cost of housing environmental degradation traffic congestion increased cost of living decline in quality of life growth management issues in whistler and Aspen caps for ‘bed-units’ - associated impacts major impact - poorly planned growth stresses taxpayer and community budgets residential land and property demand $1.02 - 3.25 in facilities and direct services per dollar contributed to revenue (county an d school board - US) agricultural, commercial and industrial property demand $0.07 0.79 per dollar contributed to revenue increased interest in Public-Private-Partnerships (P3’s) but lack of attention required to local governments tourism impacts on natural environment, built environment and cultural environment inflationary pressure on homes and cost of living i.e. average cost of home in over US $1 million (Jackson, Big Sky, and Yellowstone Club, Montana) housing shortage for service workers economic conditions (low wages leading to multiple jobs) contribute to rapid turnover in population loss of agricultural land 67% of countries in Rocky Mountain (US) grew at faster rates than national much of growth associated with tourism and recreation in amenity rich areas changes to landscape as a result of rapid population growth - scenic vistas compromised and ecological process impacted and loss of productive farmland significant impacts to the ecological quality of areas, i.e. threats to habitat (fragmentation, loss of biodiversity), geographic features (i.e. water supply and quality , soil) and ecosystem processes (i.e. weed invasion, natural fire regimes) Mountain Communities at Risk: A case study of gateway community growth management and resort development 48 Maxwell, Johnson and Montagne (1999) Owen ( 1995) Lindberg (1991) Schendler (2003) Schendler (2003) Schindler (2000) current population surge (Rocky Mountain west - US) likely to exceed first great western migration significant land use change - ecosystem and solid economic impacts not clearly understood__________________________________ distinctiveness of communities developed over centuries being eroded through inappropriate development fuelled by vacation home owners protecting natural landscapes can have quite positive impacts on local employment, income and business activity high quality natural landscapes can draw outside revenue flows into communities as new residents and businesses relocate in the pursuit of higher quality living environments_______________________ Aspen Ski Corporation (ASC) uses: • 22.5 million kWh of electricity annually combined with gasoline, diesel, propane, water use and solid waste production, that produces 37,000 tons of CO2 orO.026 tons per skier • 260,000 gallons of diesel annually (diesel exhaust carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, arsenic, benzene and formaldehyde • 8,000 gallons per year motor oil • 61 % of ASC’s total carbon ‘footprint’ of 37,000 tons of CO2 came from electricity use where only 1% came from solid waste disposal US $ 1 million mass transit subsidy for employees of ASC due to workers having to find cheaper accommodation in other communities Aspen is becoming ‘Monoculture’ community dominated by wealthy second homeowners who drive up the cost of real estate and drive out low-income workers: • skilled and unskilled worker reduction • loss of community vibrancy as socioeconomic and cultural homogeneity increase: • economy at greater risk • cultural development may slow " stagnation may set in consequences of wealthy aging population - fewer customers environment - monoculture - without new guests: » hotel and resorts may eliminate environmental staff (i.e. Colorado Resort in 2002) and avid new environmental initiatives • stagnation towns may find a reduction in their tax base leaving less money for public worts, parks, open space preservation, stream enhancement and environmental ______ protection_______________________________________ environmental damage to Bow River - eutrophication resulting from sewage and chemical inputs in Banff, Lake Louise and Canmore population corridor______________________________________ Mountain Communities at Risk: A case study of gateway community growth management and resort development 49 Swarbrooke (1999) * * » * * * * Carroll and Lee (1990); Kemmis (1990) • • • • Wolfe (1983) • • soil erosion, and footpath erosion fire damage, due to both accidental and arson disruption to wildlife and even the destruction of some species damage to vegetation water pollution noise pollution air pollution caused by transport that takes the tourists into the mountains, such as cars and helicopters erosion of small town business due to less attachment of tourists social function of downtown is affected - community losses its sense of place and solidarity general loss of sense of community and place community changes and adapts to new social values resulting in town losing its cultural roots increased population resulting in negative environmental impacts initially positive economic impacts Before looking at policy related to resort development effects, the range of effects must be examined in order to gain a broader understanding of the development environment experienced by gateway communities. Research on the impacts of tourism has relied heavily on isolated case studies; with the result that insights have been less cumulative than might otherwise have been possible (Simpson and Wall 1999). To provide a more linked view of resort development impacts, a unique case study involving two tourist resort developments located in North Sulawesi, Indonesia will be reviewed. The case study describes not only the type of resort development effects that can be experienced but also the different implementation approaches used by the resort developers and the divergent effects that result. The location and types o f resorts are quite different from the gateway communities examined in this study. However, the management strategies and the resulting effects discussed by Simpson and Wall (1999) in DgveZopmgnt." A Comparohvg Study, outline some of the broader issues applicable to gateway communities worldwide. Of particular relevance to this study are issues regarding loss of local control, relationship building, and the continual Mountain Communities at Risk: A case study of gateway community growth management and resort development 50 increase in resort development and related pressure. Resort developments in Western Canada including Sun Peaks, Apex, and Whistler continue to experience similar conflicts to those outlined in this case study. Consequences of Resort Development: A Comparative Study Simpson and Wall (1999) carried out the comparative study on two resort developments in North Sulawesi, Indonesia. The developments were of a similar size, policy environment, and development time to warrant comparison. However, due to an overlying difference in the development management style and the divergent goal sets of the development groups, the effect outcomes differed significantly. The case study involved a comparison of the physical, economic, and social consequences of two resort developments in two similar Indonesian communities. Although similar developments, the consequences of the two developments on their neighbouring communities were very different. The first development, Paradise Resort, was located in a fairly remote area with a small local population 12 kilometres away. The Paradise Resort relied solely on the local world-class scuba diving to attract international guests and had future plans for major expansion. The second development, the Santika Hotel development was located within the village of Tonkiana, with other villages close by. The Santika Hotel, although relying on scuba diving, had no plans for expansion and had a far greater interaction with the surrounding communities. The Santika Hotel had a greater effect on the environment; large areas of mangrove had to be removed to construct the resort with little chance of re-growth. Further environmental effects were created through the constmction of a marina on coral beds. Although an environmental Mountain Communities at Risk: A case study o f gateway community growth management and resort development 51 assessment was carried out for both resorts, there was little, if any, ongoing monitoring to gauge the full environmental effects. Both developments required the relocation of existing agricultural communities. The communities around the Paradise Resort experienced a much greater negative economic impact than the communities near the Santika Hotel. Some of the contributing factors were the low amount of compensation the villagers were paid, and the lack of opportunity for the villagers to sell agricultural products to the resort. Other negative economic impacts experienced by the villagers around the Paradise Resort included a lack of employment opportunities during construction; those that were able to find employment were only able to acquire very low paying positions with little or no associated training. The economic impacts of the Santika Hotel were considered by the local villagers to be very positive, with a strong involvement by the villagers throughout the construction and operation of the resort. Extensive consultation on relocation resulted in altered plans to accommodate the religious beliefs of the villagers and the construction of a new mosque. Although initially expected to be positive, the local villagers perceived the social effects at the Paradise Resort to be mostly negative. Closely linked to the economic effects were the social effects that included housing and land ownership, income levels, education and employment levels, and community wealth levels. Not unexpectedly, the Santika Hotel had a very positive social effect on the Tonkiana residents. The Santika Hotel received strong local support throughout construction and operation. The main reasons for this positive result were the efforts of the developer to foster and promote Mountain Communities at Risk: A case study o f gateway community growth management and resort development 52 relationship building with the local communities, coupled with the strong positive economic effect on the local residents. Many factors affect how resort development impacts manifest themselves and to what extent the local residents experience these effects. It appears that in the case study the major reason for the difference in the effects experienced by the residents were the underlying value systems of the developers and their resultant managerial styles. The following list outlines the elements that contributed to positive local effects and local support for the new tourism developments: • Maintenance of local access to resources; • Local participation in the benefits of the development, through enhanced incomes and employment opportunities; • Provision of timely information to local people; and, • Involvement of local people in decision-making. Simpson and Wall (1999, 296) indicate that omission of the above elements will likely lead to missed opportunities, increased resentment, and an adverse operating environment. The authors conclude with the observation that 'VAg confexf in wMcA (fgvgZnp/ngnt nccwM if criiicnZ, " and "tAg nafwrg n/'fZig in^Zg/ngntofion ^rocgff may Z?g af impnrfanf of iZig cZiaracfgrifiicf q/" fZig initiativg iifgZ/" in i/^wgncing tAg gj^cif on ZocaZ pgqpZg, pa/ficwZarZy fZzg gconomic owZ fociaZ confggwgncgf." Manning (1999) indicates that only through a participatory process involving the resort developers, local government, community residents, and the various elements of the community or region, is it possible to determine what the range of values are relative to the assets of the community and which values are negotiable and which are not. What Simpson and Wall Mountain Communities at Risk: A case study of gateway community growth management and resort development 53 (1999) allude to briefly, but do not place much emphasis on with respect to effects, is the role of the Indonesian government in policy implementation. Both resort developments are located in an area that was quickly developing an international reputation as a scuba diving mecca, and an area that the national Indonesian government considered a high priority with respect to tourism development. It appears that the Indonesian government had a strong national agenda to encourage an environmentally sustainable tourism industry with the implementation of a national policy based on Environmental Impact Assessment (AMDAL) requirements. It also appears that the government was committed to this national agenda through the implementation strategies of AMDAL and, indeed. Environmental Impact Assessments were conducted on both case-study communities. The commitment to the environment appeared at the national level only, with no real local governance in place to deal with the tourist effects. On closer examination, even the national agenda and policies appeared to be ad hoc and inconsistent in application with the rural communities continuing to experience the brunt of the negative effects resulting from resort and tourism development. It appears that Tamba and Maen were too small, too remote, and too insignificant for the government to ensure that national development policy take precedence over immediate local economic opportunities. Even the existence of an AMDAL environmental effect assessment process appears to have had a minimal effect upon the resort development pohcy mandate. The construction of the Santika Hotel and its marina on a protected mangrove shore and a coral reef indicates that in much of Indonesia ad hoc development for economic gain takes precedent over any environmental Mountain Communities at Risk: A case study of gateway community growth management and resort development 54 policy or concerns. Lack of government enforcement will continue to allow the status quo to continue. Conclusion Sustainable development is a term that imports principles and objectives from the terms sustainable and development. The Brundtland Report provided a globally recognized deûnition for sustainable development as well as guiding principles to achieve sustainable development. As the definitions of sustainable and development evolve so to has the definition of sustainable development. Brundtland’s definition of sustainable development included the following four criteria: Ecological Sustainability; Economic Sustainability and Intergenerational Equity; Social Sustainability; and Cultural Sustainability. Selman (1995) expanded the criteria by adding Inter and Intragenerational equity and Sharpley (2000) added the principles of Holistic approach, Euturity, and Equity. Ludwig (1993) indicated that the solution to sustainable development must be a human solution and must contain the objectives of self-reliance and endogenous development. To achieve the goals of self-reliance and endogenous development communities across the world have started to adopt a sustainable development policy collection know as Smart Growth. With ever-changing environments for the natural resource and environmental fields. Hunter, Green and Reed advocate using management strategies from these fields in the similarly dynamic tourism development field. The adaptive management model, widely used in the natural resource and environmental Gelds is a philosophical approach towards development management that acknowledges that not all variables are known but Mountain Communities at Risk: A case study o f gateway community growth management and resort development 55 through continual monitoring, evaluating, feedback and plan-goal adjustment, the resulting informed decision making will ultimately provide a management system much more capable of achieving sustainable community development. The literature review chapter contains a review of a case study of two tourism related developments in Indonesia. The divergent approach taken by each of the developers highlights the differences between the concepts of sustainable development and sustainable tourism development. Where sustainable development implies long-term stability, many facets of tourism change constantly and increased tourism development generally tends to result in a loss of control at the local level (Butler 1999). Sharpley compares the concept of tourism as it relates to sustainable development and generally finds that tourism concepts do not necessarily contribute to sustainable development principles and objectives. Mountain Comnmnities at Risk: A case study o f gateway community growth management and resort development 56 CHAPTERS: RESEARCH DESIGN "TTig a cgMfraZ femfgncy ama/ig a// (ypgf a/" ca^g .^faJy, M fAaf if fnga^ fa i/Zwmmafg a (fgci^yia/i ar ^ygf a/^jgcwiaa,;.' w/i}' f/igy wgrg fa&ga, Aaw fAgy yygrg ;mpZgmgafg(^ a/wf wifA wAaf rgWf" (Yin 1989, 23). Introduction Previous academic tourism research has tended to focus on the social science aspect of tourism, predominantly from an industry perspective (Carter, Baxter and Hockings 2001). Many communities within the Canadian southeastern Rocky Mountain Region were experiencing unprecedented impacts on their natural resources due to the evolving tourism industry and rapidly increasing number of resorts being developed in the area. This research project adopted the perspective that the future sustainability of the local communities was dependent upon the local government’s stewardship of the community’s natural resources. A case study research methodology was used to compare the level of policy development by three different local governments in the face of largescale resort development. The three communities studied were Golden, Femie, and Canmore. HaH and Jenkins (1995) CoMcgpfZAz/ Fromgwort JfWyfng FoZfcy DgygZopmgnf was used to guide the overall research project through the stages of research from 'uncaptured data' through to 'explanation building’ and 'theory development’ (Hall and Jenkins 1995,95). Mountain Communities at Risk: A case study of gateway community growth management and resort development 57 Research Premise Following Draper's (2000) general research methodology described in her study of Banff and Banff National Park, this research will expand upon the growth management information available to emergent service oriented communities. In an attempt to substantiate the hypothesis that local governments currently lack the required legislative tools necessary to maintain a sustainable community in the face of increasing tourism pressure, the following research questions^ were investigated: 1. What policies have the local governments in the case study communities produced to manage the impacts associated with resort development and tourism? 2. What determinants assisted or hindered each of the local government in their creation of growth management related policy? The Village of Valemount commissioned this study due to the pressures associated with Canoe Mountain Resort Development, a proposed large-scale resort development to be located adjacent to the municipality. Typical of many rural communities in British Columbia, Valemount was experieneing an economic crisis due to the possible closure of the community's main sawmill and a general decline in the forestry sector. A diminished resource industry and increased tourism development pressure were attributes shared by all three case study communities. To address the first research question, policy-related documents were reviewed for each of the three case-study communities. The primary focus for the document review was the OHicial Community Plan (OCP), Comprehensive Community Plan and/or ' This study will focus on western Canadian communities comparable to Valemount. Mountain Communities at Risk: A case study o f gateway community growth management and resort development 58 Municipal Development Plan (MDP) for each of the case study communities. According to the locaZ Govgrnmgnt Act q/" BntifA (Government of British Columbia 1996), the Commw/ifty CAartcr Act q/^^ntzfA (Government of British Columbia 2003), and the Mw/iicipaZ DcvcZopmcnt Act q/'AZ6crta (Government of Alberta 2000), the OCP and the MDP constitute statutory plans governing future land use, future development, future infrastructure development, and other issues that municipal council consider necessary to the operation and growth of the community (Canmore 1998). Theoretically, all municipal development policy is guided by these documents. The policy contained within the documents was assessed to determine whether it addressed any of the resort development and tourism related impacts outlined in the Community Effect Analysis report (Westcoast 2001). The second phase of the research involved a qualitative survey and semi­ structured key informant interview process. The key informant from each of the case study communities was the person responsible for growth related policy development and implementation. For Fernie, the City Administrator was chosen as the key informant and for both Golden and Canmore, the community planners, who assumed responsibility for policy development, were interviewed. The two objectives for the survey-interview phase of the research were to confirm the development of policy related tourism growth management and to identify the determinants assisting or hindering the development of policy at the local government level. An Adaptive Management Framework, (Figure 6), was utilized in the assessment of local government policy development capacity and the identiGcation of determinants required to move the local management regimes closer to the theoretical adaptive Mountain Communities at Risk: A case study o f gateway community growth management and resort development 59 management model advocated in natural resource and environmental research for sustainability (Rivey et al. 2003). The Village of Valemount provided a preliminary list of potential case-study communities (Table 3). Table 3: Potential Case-study Communities^ Canmore, Alberta Kimberly, British Columbia Crested-Butte, Colorado Livingston, Montana Femie, British Columbia Sun Valley-Ketehum, Idaho Golden, British Columbia *Telluride, Colorado Invermere, British Columbia *Whitefish, Montana The final list of communities to be studied was selected according to the following criteria: • an existing or potential gateway status resulting from the community being located adjacent to or in close proximity to a wilderness, recreation, or park area; • a population less than 10,000; # being in an economic transition from a historically resource-extraction-hased economy to one more service oriented; and * experiencing, or having experienced, a large amount of resort development close to the municipal boundary resulting in significant tourism pressure. The original list of ten communities was reduced to the Gnal three research communities: ' Additional communities added to the list of potential communities provided by the Village of Valemount. Mountain Communities at Risk: A case study o f gateway community growth management and resort development 60 # Golden, British Columbia # Femie, British Columbia # Canmore, Alberta The case study communities were chosen from within the Canadian southeastern Rocky Mountain region and surrounding area to ensure that a western Canadian context was achieved. Although there exists many good examples of gateway communities within the United States and Canada, the geographic location of the Rocky Mountains within Canada provided the most comparable economic, geographic and geopolitical context to that of Valemount. Conceptual Research Framework Figure 7 illustrates the frame that the research project followed. The research framework was adapted from Hall and Jenkins’ (1995) model Conceptual Framework for Studying Tourism Public Policy, which is set out in Figure 2. The model outlines four methodological elements required to penetrate what they refer to as the ‘black box’ of decision-making (Hall and Jenkins 95,96): 1. Temporal studies (historical underpinnings and understanding). 2. The case study approach (the case or series of cases). 3. Interdisciplinary research. 4. Different levels of analysis (macro, middle and micro). Hall and Jenkins (1995, 96) note that, in r/ie cowrse q/'a q/'rhe jwrrowwJ all t/zat is done and “i/ze mizfcs, izieoiogy, c/zoices onJ perceptions q/^t/ze Mountain Communities at Risk: A case study o f gateway community growth management and resort development 61 Figure 7: Conceptual Research Framework Uncaptured Information Temporal / Contextual Data Policy Literature Review Interviews - Surveys Information - Discourse Interdisciplinary Research Adaptive Management Framework $ information Captured ( A S i S T( J i ) Y Information Analysed Professional Practice in f o i 'in a l io n R e p o r t e d Î Different Levels of Analysis ma)' I \ | d a n a i i o n / i lieoiy m 'imcaptaref/' (fata." Values are ends, goal interests, beliefs, ethics, biases, attitudes, traditions, morals, and objectives that change with human perception and with time and that have a significant influence on power conflicts relating to policy (Henning 1974). Hall and Jenkins (1995, 34) state that; . ./loZicy «jgpe/apmgMf if a pa/ag-Zarig/z ^racgff ZzatA mfgraaZZy amZ ArtgraaZZy. TTzg mfgrnaZ ia/Zagacgf that vaZag syftemf pZace an ZZigpoZZcy /?racgff rZ^gmZ fwhfta/ihaZZy apan ZZig pawer diftrihahan wZzZim fZig paZihcaZ gnviraamg/U. ErfgruaZ Za/Zagacgf pa/y accarding fa mfgrgft graapf, thgir paZag fyfZgmf, and tZzgZr fway apgr tZzgpracgff." Mountain Communities at Risk: A case study o f gateway community growth management and resort development 62 Further, "TTig cfgcMzo/u gnJ ocho/w o/" varioft; actors ami agg/iciga^, ami ayj'tg/zw q / paiiricai maaaggm^at arg caa^ig^ aa! Eavirosccntd S c- ü m Ur.:vâ.ti:>‘ ofN crji^rr. BrijUh C olurbia Kcnt'mg Masisrs S'.-Jef.: r\FORJ\jED COXSEXT FORM ( P a r t 2 - T o b e co m p leted b y th e re se a rc h p a rtic ip a n t) elloivins is a consec: fcrrn. Please answer die quesdons by circling eiiher YES or NO or The fo! pres iding any com m ents where applicable. 1. H ave y o u r received a copy o f the Inform ation sheet? 2. Do you ag re e £.0 participate as a respondent la this research? * If no can you suggest an alternate (see #9 Ittforination Sheet) 3. Do you u n d erstan d the in ten t of the research? 4. Do you u n d e rsta n d the in ten t o f the inteniesv? 5. Do you u n d erstan d the procedure of the interview? 6. Do you u n d e rsta n d th at th e interview will be taped and then tran scrib ed a n d th a t a copy will be supplied back to the resp o n d en t fo r approval before being used in research? Yes 9 No Do you u n d e rsta n d th a t y o u r participation in this study is solely v o lu n ta ry and th a t yon can refuse to participate o r w ith d raw fro m the interview a t any time? No 8. Do you u n d e rsta n d the issue o f anonym i^' and confidentiality? No 9. Do you u n d e rsta n d th at the interview information will be available C Yes to the public? No I agree to take p a n In th is study. S ignature of R ese arch P artic ip a n t D ate P rinted Name I believe th a t the p erso n signing this form understands w hat is involved in the study and voluntarily agrees to particip ate. S ignature of In v estig ato r Date :3C:z:CK Mountain Communities a t Risk: A case study o f gateway community growth management and resort developm ent - j- 186 APPENDIX B: Consent Form - Canmore 03/02/2003 FRI 16:39 FAI 403 673 1321 m OF Cm O RE Vcrwxn Hcn'isg Mastcix Szjdcat Narmal :sâ E^vlrcira^ctal Studies Uui'vçcsi^' ôfNonïcu Bntiib Coluabà INTFORMED C O N S E N T F O R M {Part 2 - To b e co m p leted b y th e re s e a rc h particip an t) The following Is a cocses! fonn. Please answ er the questions by circling either YES or NO or providing any comncnts where applicable. 1. Have your received a copy of the In fo rm atio n sheet? 2. Do you agree to participate as a resp o n d en t in this research? 3. Do you understand the intent o f th e research? 4. Do you understand the intent of the interview? 5. Do you understand the procedure o f th e interview? 6. Do yon understand that the interview will be taped and then *If no can you suggest an alternate (see #9 Inform ation Sheet) transcribed and that a copy will b e supplied back to the respondent for approval before b eing used in research? 7. No Do you understand that your p articip atio n in this study is solely voluntary and that you can refuse to participate o r withdraw from the interview a t an y tim e? No 8. Do you understand the issue of anonym ity and confidentiality? No 9. Do you understand that the interview Inform ation will be available to the public? ^«) No I agree to take part in this study. <1 / K ^ _Q2. Signatigrc orResearch|Particm ant Date Printed Name I believe th at the person signing this form u n d erstan d s w hat Is Involved in the study and voluntarily agrees to participate. Signature o f Investigator \ D ate 29-04,2X3 Mountain Communities at Risk: A case study o f gateway community growth management and resort development 187 APPENDIX C: Survey Summary Community Case Study Survey Results P a r t A: R eso rt D evelopm ent Effects 1. One of the fundamental effects is that of large externally owned companies operating within service areas o f small communities. a. Has there been any policy development to ensure that local employment is emphasized? Golden: NO Femie: NO Canmore: NO b. Has there been any policy development to encourage retention o f tourism dollars within the community? Golden: NO Fernie: NO Canmore: NO c. W hat types of housing policies have been developed (i.e. town / employee,) and what ‘triggers’ have been incorporated? For example. Panorama has an employee housing policy but no trigger to ensure building. Golden: NO Fernie: bylaw YES — subdivision Canmore: No — removed in 1998 due to economics d. W hat policy has been developed to address the increase in population? Golden: NO Femie: N/A (pop. decrease) Canmore: YES — growth management strategy e. Has any policy been developed to address developer contribution to; i. Infrastructure (i.e. road, water, sewer)? ii. Social (i.e. policing, emergency services, medical, transit)? Femie: Golden: NO Development Cost Charges Bylaw - not fo r social Canmore: Off-site levies, Rec.Facility Contribution, Firehall contribution (exaction) 1. How has the community addressed the possibility of ‘non-skiing’ visitors (i.e. arts, walking trails, language, signage, etc.)? Golden: YES - trail system Fernie: YES - local groups Canmore: YES — sport tourism 3. Has there been any specific policy development on marketing of the city (i.e. locally and/or globally)? Golden: NO - only marketing fe n d f." E E f - CAamAer Commerce Canmore: YES —branding/ trademarking 4. Has there been any specific policy or other forms o f interaction developed to enable or encourage relations with other levels and bodies o f government (i.e. regional districts, provincial, federal parks, Alberta, etc. Possibly dealing with fringe issues etc.)? Golden: Regional — YES (regional rep. on council) Provincial - NO Federal NO Femie: Regional - YES Provincial - NO Federal NO Canmore: Regional - YES Provincial - NO Federal NO Mountain Communities at Risk: A case study of gateway community growth management and resort development 188 5. Due to the high percentage of second homeowners within the region, has there been any policy developed to address this phenomenon? Golden: Femie: NA NO Canmore: YFS 6. Has there been any policy developed to deal with the changing land use ( i.e. changing land patterns due to changing traffic patters to Kicking Horse)? Golden: YES - OCP gateway visual effect Femie: YFS - OCP and community development plan Canmore: NO - proactive approach 7. Has there been any policy developed to deal with potential environmental effects (i.e. increase in traffic and air quality)? Golden: Fernie: NO YFS - OCP (trails) Canmore: YFS 8. Has there been any policy developed to deal with fiscal changes with communities (i.e. Haida Gwaii Trust)? Golden: NO Femie: N/A Canmore: NO Canmore: NO - -proactive Canmore: YFS - annexation early 9. Has the speed o f development had any effects on policy development? Golden: YES - slow pace driving housing cost up Femie: YFS - rapid pace, can’t keep up. 10. Has any policy been developed with respect to annexation? Golden: Femie: NO YFS - no piecemeal 11. Has there been any policy developed or initiatives taken on a Colum bia Basin wide basis (i.e. referrals, joint committees etc.)? Golden: YFS - Rocky Mt. Tourism District Femie: YFS - Rocky Mt. Tourism District Canmore: YFS - several 12. Has there been any policy developed or initiatives taken on a community or resort basis (i.e. referrals, joint committees etc.)? Golden: Femie: NO P a rt 6 ; NO Canmore: YFS Policy D evelopm ent M odel (D eterm in an ts) 13. Community Capacity a. W hat types of community capacity exist to deal with development effects (i.e. language schools, hospitality training, paramedic training) ? Golden: NO Fernie: Limited - college and continuing education Canmore: NO b. W hat types of corporate capacity exist (i.e. skills, training programs etc.)? Fernie: Golden: NO YFS - fire department and aquatic centre training (int/ext.) Canmore: YFS - professional c. W hat types o f internal policy exists to develop and enhance the capacity o f staff (i.e. tourism training, Community Charter training etc.)? Mountain Communities at Risk: A case study o f gateway community growth management and resort development 189 GoWem. f E S - A irk g poücy Femie: fo r more qualified people YES - training with Council support Canmore: YES - disputeresolution training 14. Has any policy been developed to initiate monitoring of potential and occurring effects? Golden: YES - jointly with region, district, and town F ernie: YES - M ichael Von Hausen fo r OCP implementation Canmore: YES - community monitoring. 15. Has there been any policy or regulation developed to address ‘Developer C ulture’ or establish a developers' criteria list? Golden: YES - higher quality through development permits (corporate culture) Fernie: NO Canmore: N O - development of relationships and in municipal jurisdiction Policy D evelopm ent M odel (Political E n v iro n m en t) P a rt C: 16. Has there been any political influence, positive or negative, with respect to policy development? Fernie: NEGATIVE 17. Has there been any political influence, positive or negative, with respect to corporate capacity? Golden: N/A - changing corporate views away from pure economics Fernie: NA Canmore: POSITIVE E x tran e o u s Policy D evelopm ent P a rt D: 18. Have there been any non-tourism-related effects and what has been their effect on tourism development (i.e. lessened or compounded)? Golden: Femie: NO NO Canmore: YES - global exchange rate and foreign investment S um m ary P a rt E : 19. What has been the most effective policy developed in mitigating or managing tourism development effects over the short term? F em ie : Golden: NA OCP and implementation strategy Canmore: growth management strategy due to community visioning and education 20. What has been the most effective policy developed in mitigating or managing tourism developm ent effects over the long term? F e m ie : : Golden: OCP and Canmore: affordable housing NA strategy 21. What has been the most ineffective policy developed to mitigate or manage tourism developm ent effects? Golden: L ack o f recognition from old council - new council more aware and willing to make necessary changes Fem ie: The previous OC contained a lot o f guidelines but very little policy which was enforceable Mountain Communities at Risk: A case study of gateway community growth management and resort development 190 Canm ore: A ffordable housing p o lic y tied to o r relian t on m arket fo rc es 22. Describe the effects that are being felt the most in your area and to which policy has been lacking in development? Golden: Largest effect is the influx o f people coming to Golden and all associated effects like housing Femie: Signage has been very controversial. Provincial initiatives —e.g. court service, hospital closure — have been very disruptive to local council and community Canmore: Housing costs and affordability APPENDIX D: Alternate DeGnitions of Public Policy Public policy ‘is the relationship of a govemment unit to its environment’ (Eyestone 1971,18 Anderson 1984, 2) Public policies are those policies developed by govemment bodies and officials (Anderson 1 9 8 4 , 3 ) ______________________________________________________ Public policy is whatever govemment’s choose to do or not to do (Dye 1982) For a policy to be regarded as public policy , it must to some degree have been generated or at least processed within the framework of govemmental procedures, influences and organizations (Hogwood and Gunn 1984, 24) Public Policy is ‘a course of action or inaction chosen by public authorities to address a given problem or interrelated set of problems’ (Pal 1992, 2)________________________________ Source; Hall and Jenkins 1995 Mountain Communities at Risk: A case study o f gateway community growth management and resort development 191 E: Femie OCP Housing Policy Reconunendations 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19 . 20 . 21. 22 . W ork with the Fernie Alpine Resort, the development community, residents, and the Chamber of Commerce to develop a strategy that articulates ways and means of ensuring affordable and safe accommodation for seasonal employees. Consider zoning that will encourage the development of hostels as a means to provide accommodation for seasonal employees in the community. Apply to the Real Estate Foundation of British Columbia for funding necessary to complete a seniors housing strategy. Consider waiving or reducing development cost charges for not-for-profit rental housing, in accordance with the Local Government Act. Develop a density-bonusing policy that is designed to encourage the development community to incorporate affordable and special-needs housing into new developments in exchange for additional residential density. Establish residential development cost charges, on the basis of density of residential land use as a means to encourage the development of smaller more affordable housing in the community. Examine municipal tax incentives that may be provided to encourage heritage restoration of buildings in the downtown commercial area which provide residential uses above groundfioor commercial use. W ork with community organizations and the provincial and federal governments to encourage the development of affordable housing for persons with disabilities, health conditions, mobility challenges, or low incomes. Develop zoning that will support congregate care and other facilities necessary to ensure that seniors are able to remain in Fernie. Establish zoning regulations that will address the short-term rental of residential dwellings in the community. Increase the overall density of housing in the existing urban areas as a means to optimise the city’s investments in infrastructure and as a means to reduce service delivery. Encourage the development of cluster housing, especially in environmentally sensitive areas or areas adjacent to steep slopes in order to maximise the availability o f open space and to reduce the effect o f urban development on the environment. Encourage the development of ground-oriented townhouses and garden apartments as a preferred form to higher density residential development. Discourage the development of multi-storey w alk-up apartment blocks. Discourage walled or gated communities as they contravene the Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) design principles. Intersperse multiple-family residential developments in neighbourhoods throughout the community. Consider in the development approvals process that new multiple-family development should provide safe, convenient, and direct access to commercial, institutional, and public and open-space uses in accordance with the CPTED principles. Consider in the development approvals process that new multiple-family developments should have reasonably direct and convenient access to the city’s major road network. Support infill and redevelopment in areas designated residential infill and intensification. Complete a secondary suites implementation strategy to determine an appropriate approach to addressing the legalisation, phase-in process, and utility-connection policy with respect to existing secondary suites within existing R-1 dwellings. Amend the City of Fem ie Zoning Bylaw to permit secondary suites within dwellings in all areas zoned R-1. Require those seeking to build secondary suites in a detached building (e.g. above a garage) to rezone their parcel to R l-B . Source: City of Femie Official Community Plan 2002. Mountain Communities at Risk: A case study o f gateway community growth management and resort development 192 APPENDIX F: Municipal Planning Policy - Action Items Support the smart-growth approach to growth management. Recognizing that a compact urban form enables the city to accommodate future residential needs within the existing municipal boundaries over the 20-year planning horizon.___________________________________________________________________ W ork with the East Kootenay Regional District to develop a co-ordinated approach that defines the City of Fernie’s terms and frame work for future boundary expansion.____________________________________ Establish a working committee with the East Kootenay Regional District to explore the potential for a regional growth strategy designed to provide direction for planning policies of regional significance. Establish an urban fringe joint-planning referral agreement with the East Kootenay Regional District. It is suggested that all developments within 800 miles of the city’s boundary be refereed to the city for comment and vice versa. W ork with the M inistry o f Transportation and Highways and the East Kootenay Regional District to develop a corridor and access management plan for Highway 3._____________________________________ Ensure a continued working relationship with Fernie Alpine Resort to collaborate in the achievement of areas of mutual interest identified in this OCP and in the Fernie Alpine Resort OCP.__________________ Support the smart-growth approach to growth management, Recognizing that a compact urban form enables the city to accommodate future residential needs within the existing municipal boundaries over the 20-year planning horizon.____________________________________________________________________ W ork with the East Kootenay Regional District to develop a co-ordinated approach that defines the City o f Fernie's terms and frame work for future boundary expansion.____________________________________ Establish a working committee with the East Kootenay Regional District to explore the potential for a regional growth strategy designed to provide direction for planning policies of regional significance. Establish an urban fringe joint-planning referral agreement with the East Kootenay Regional District. It is suggested that all developments within 800 miles of the city’s boundary be refereed to the city for comment and vice versa. W ork with the M inistry of Transportation and Highways and the East Kootenay Regional District to develop a corridor and access management plan for Highway 3._____________________________________ Ensure a continued working relationship with Fernie Alpine Resort to collaborate in the achievement of areas of mutnal interest identified in this OCP and in the Fernie Alpine Resort OCP.__________________ Support the smart-growth approach to growth management, Recognizing that a compact urban form enables the city to accommodate future residential needs within the existing municipal boundaries over the 20-year planning horizon. W ork with the East Kootenay Regional District to develop a co-ordinated approach that defines the City of Fernie’s terms and framework for future boundary expansion._____________________________________ Establish a working committee with the East Kootenay Regional District to explore the potential for a Regional growth strategy designed to provide direction for planning policies of Regional significance. Establish an urban fringe joint-planning referral agreement with the East Kootenay Regional District. It is suggested that all developments within 800 miles o f the city’s boundary be refereed to the city for comment and vice versa. W ork with the M inistry of Transportation and Highways and the East Kootenay Regional District to develop a corridor and access management plan for Highway 3._____________________________________ Ensure a continued working relationship with Fernie Alpine Resort to collaborate in the achievement of areas of mutual interest identified in this OCP and in the Fem ie Alpine Resort OCP. Support the smart-growth approach to growth management. Recognizing that a compact urban form enables the city to accommodate future residential needs within the existing municipal boundaries over the 20-year planning horizon. W ork with the East Kootenay Regional District to develop a co-ordinated approach that defines the City o f Fernie’s terms and frame work for future boundary expansion.____________________________________ Establish a working committee with the East Kootenay Regional District to explore the potential for a regional growth strategy designed to provide direction for planning policies of regional significance._____ Establish an urban fringe joint-planning referral agreement with the East Kootenay Regional District. ZTig Cify Femfg Co/MfMw/itfy f k n 2002. Mountain Communities at Risk: A case study of gateway community growth management and resort development 193 REFERENCE LIST Agarwal, S. 1997. The public sector: planning for renewal? In rwe owlybZl BririfA coayfol Edited by G. Shaw and A. Williams. London: Mansall. Quoted in Alison Gill, From growth machine to growth management: the dynamics of resort development in Whistler, British Columbia, Envirownent owl flowimg A 32 (2000). Anderson, J.E. 1984. foBllc policy /wzAlog. 3"^ ed. New York: CBS College Publishing. Ap, J. and J.L. Crompton. 1993. Residents' strategies for responding to tourism impacts. Journal o f Travel Research 32, no.l. Quoted in Alison Gill, From growth machine to growth management; the dynamics of resort development in Whistler, British Columbia, Environment and Planning A 32 (2000). Augustyn, M. 1998. National strategies for rural tourism development and sustainability: The polish experience. Journal o f Sustainable Tourism 6, no. 3. Ayers, S. 2001. Femie visioning project summary report. Fernie: Community Futures Development Corporation. Duplicated. Barrett, B. 1994. Integrated environmental management. Journal o f Environmental Management 40. Bernard, D., C. Pascal, and N. Marshall. 1995. State of the Banff-Bow Valley report. Banff: n.p.. Quoted in Diane Draper, Toward sustainable mountain communities: balancing tourism development and environmental protection in Banff and Banff National Park, Canada, Ambio 29, no. 7 (2000). Bianchi, R. 1994. Tourism development and resort dynamics: An alternative approach. In Progress in recreation and hospitality management. Vol. 5. Edited by C.P. Cooper, A. Lockwood. Chichester, Sussex: John Wiley. Quoted in Alison Gill, From growth machine to growth management: the dynamics of resort development in Whistler, British Coltimbia, E/ivirownenf owf Flowimg A 32 (2000). Blank, U. 1989. TTzc cow/wmify towrwm (wfiwr/y TTic »ccg.9.yi(y, tAc opporAmihc.;, iff potentia/. State College, PA: Venture Publishing. Blowers, A. 1997. Environment planning for sustainable development: The international Context. In Town Planning fnto fhg 27^' Cenm/y. Edited by A. Blowers and B. Evans. London: Routledge. Quoted in M. Hall, Rethinking collaboration and partnership: A public policy perspective, Tbwmal p/^,^aAraiwzblg Tbwrifm 7, no. 3&4, (1999). Bonham, C. and J. Mak. 1996. Private versus public Enancing of state destination promotion. Ponmal p/"Travel Pea^earcl; 35, no. 2:2-10. Quoted in M. Hall, Rethinking collaboration and partnership: A public policy perspective, Tbnmal p/'Sw.ïlainable Tbwri.wn 7, no. 3&4, (1999). Mountain Communities at Risk: A case study o f gateway community growth management and resort development 194 Bosselman, F., C. Peterson, and C. McCarthy. 1999. Managing fowrüm gmtvfA üW Washington: Island Press. Bonlding, K. 1992. The economics of the coming spaceship earth. 77i€ Eart/wcon m Environmgnral Eco/iomic.y. Edited by A. Markandya and J. Richardson. London: Earthscan. Bowman, W.D. 2000. Biotic controls over ecosystem response to environmental change in alpine tundra of the Rocky Mountains, n.p. Brent Harley and Associates Inc. 1997. Golden and district west bench development feasibility study. Golden and District Economic Development Commission: Golden. Duplicated. Britton, S. 1991. Tourism, capital and place: Towards a critical geography of tourism. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 9, no. 4. Butler, R.W. 1999. Tourism - an evolutionary perspective. In Tourism and sustainable development, edited by J.G. Nelson, R. Butler, and G. Wall. 2"^ ed. University of Waterloo: Department of Geography, University of Waterloo. Butler, R.W. 1980. The concept of a tourist area cycle of evolution and implications for management. The Canadian Geographer 24, no.l. Buxton, G. 2003. Telephone interview by author, May 2003. Can an. P., and M. Hennessy. 1989. The growth machine, tourism, and the selling of culture. Sociological Perspectives 32. Quoted in Alison Gill, From growth machine to growth management: the dynamics of resort development in Whistler, British Columbia, Environment and Planning A 32 (2000). Canmore Community Housing Corporation. 2002. Canmore affordable housing, lessons learned. Paper presented at the Alberta Urban Municipalities Association Convention. Camnore Community Monitoring Program Committee. 2001. Canmore community monitoring program, 2001 Report. Canmore: Canmore Community Monitoring Program Committee. Duplicated. Canmore Economic Development Authority In Co-operation With Action 2000. n.d. Sport tourism investment proposal. Canmore. Duplication. Mountain Communities at Risk: A case study o f gateway community growth management and resort development 195 Carroll, M.S. and R.G. Lee. 1990. Occupational community and identity among pacific northwestern loggers: Implications for adapting to economic changes. In CoTwmmity in rAg .yociofogy rewarcgf. Edited by Lee, Field, and Burch. Boulder: Westview Press. Quoted in Bruce Maxwell, Jerry Johnson and Clifford Montagne, Predicting land use change in and around a rural community, n.d., n.p. Carter, R.W., G.S. Baxter, and M. Hocking. 2001. Resource management in tourism research: A new direction? /aarna/ Tbarij/n 9, no.4 :265-279. Cascadia Consulting & Recreologie. 1996. Destination: Golden and District, A strategic tourism marketing and development plan for the next Eve years 1996-2001. Golden: Golden and District Economic Development Commission. Duplication Cho, S.H., D. Newman, and D. Wear. 2003. Impacts of second home development on housing prices in the Southern Appalachian Highlands. RURDS 15, no.3. City of Fernie. 2002. City o f Femie Official Community Plan Bylaw 1923. City of Femie, 2001. Issue identification and discussion paper. Femie: The City of Femie. Duplication. City of Femie. 1996. City o f Femie Official Community Plan 1996. City of Femie. n.d. Municipal wehsite. http://www.city.femie.bc.ca. [intemet] Columbia Shuswap Regional District, n.d. British Columbia local govemment information, http://www.civicinfo.bc.ca [intemet] Commission on Sustainable Development. 2000. Tourism and Sustainable Development Sustainable Tourism: A Local Authority Perspective. 7*'^ sess. Doc. 19-30. New York. q/^O^^cW Z/mgwagg.; v. [2001] F.C.J. No. 4431 (T.D.) 131 Federation of Canadian Municipalities. 1999. A comparison of new and proposed municipal acts of provinces, A. 1999. Discussion paper presented at Federation of Canadian Municipahties Annual Conference, at Vancouver, British Columbia. Craik, J. 1990. A classic case of clientehsm: The industries assistance commission inquiry into travel and tourism. CwZrwrg amJFohqy 2, no.l. Culbertson, K., and J. Kolberg. 1991. Worker housing in resorts: Aspen's experience. I/rhwi Lamf 50, no. 4. Quoted in Alison GiU, From growth machine to growth management: the dynamics of resort development in Whistler, British Columbia, EnvirowMgnf owf fZwinmg A 32 (2000). Mountain Communities at Risk: A case study o f gateway community growth management and resort development 196 Debbage, K G. 1990. Oligopoly and the resort cycle in the Bahamas. Ammk 17. Quoted in Alison GiU, From growth machine to growth management: the dynamics of resort development in Whistler, British Columbia, Envirowngnt onJ F/annmg A 32 (2000). Decrop, A. 1999. Triangulation in quahtative tourism research.. Tbwnfm Managemgnt Diamond, L., and P. Noonan. 1996. Land use in America. Washington: Island Press. Quoted in American Planning Association, Growing smart legislative guidebook. Model planning owl thg managgmgni q/'cAongg (American Planning Association 1998). Draper, D. November 2000. Toward sustainable mountain communities; Balancing tourism development and environmental protection in Banff and Banff National Park, Canada. Ambio 29, no.7: 408-415 Dye, T. 1982. Understanding Public Policy. 7* ed. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: PrenticeHall. East Kootenay Regional District. 2000. Femie Alpine Resort Ojficial Community Plan Bylaw No. 1500. East Kootenay Regional District, n.d. British Columbia local govemment information. http://www.civicinfo.bc.ca [intemet] Edgell, D. 1999. Tourism Policy: The Next Millennium. Champaign: Sagamore Publishing. Environment Canada. 1992. A primer on environmental citizenship. Ottawa: Environment Canada. Quoted in Paul Selman, Local sustainability: Can the planning system help get us from here to there? Town Planning Rgvlgw 66, no. 3, (1995): 289. Femie Alpine Resort Vacation Planner, n.d., n.p. Duplicated. Femie Chamber of Commerce. 2003. Femie, British Columbia: Duplicated. Femie Chamber of Commerce. 2001. Femie, British Columbia: third quarter, 2001. Femie: The Femie Chamber of Commerce. Duplicated. Froehlick, M. May 1998. Smart growth: Why local governments are taking a new approach to managing growth in their communities. Pohllc Management 80, no. 5&9. Mountain Communities at Risk: A case study of gateway community growth management and resort development 197 Garrod, B., and A. Fyall. 1998. Beyond the rhetoric of sustainable tourism? MwrnggrngMt 19, no. 3. Quoted in Richard Sharpley, Tourism and sustainable development: Exploring the theoretical divide, Jow/TmZ 7bwn.$m 8, no.l (2000): 1. Gilbert, K. 2003. Telephone interview by author, 13 January 2003. GUI, A. 2000. From growth machine to growth management: the dynamics of resort development in Whistler, British Columbia. Environment and Planning A 32 .T0831103. Gill, A., P.W. Williams. 1994. Managing growth in mountain tourism communities. Towrir/MMwrnggmgnt 15. Godde, P . , ed. 1999. Community- based mountain tourism: Practices for linking conservation with enterprise. Synthesis of an electronic conference of the Mountain Forum, 13-18 May, at The Mountain Institute, Franklin, WV. Quoted in Diane Draper, Toward sustainable mountain communities: balancing tourism development and environmental protection in Banff and Banff National Park, Canada, Ambio 29, no. 7 (2000). Golden Economic Development Office. 2001. Golden strategic planning process, 20012006: Thinking globally. Golden: The Golden Economic Development Office. Duplication. Golden Economic Development Office. 2000. Town of opportunity. Golden British Columbia, community profile, 2000 Edition. Golden: The Golden Economic Development Office. Duplicated. Govemment of Alberta. 2000. Municipal Govemment Act. c. M-26. Govemment of British Columbia. 2003. CommwMzry Charter, c. 26. Govemment of British Columbia. 2002. Govemment legislation, http://www.gov.bc.ca. [intemet] Govemment of British Columbia. 1996. CacaZ Coverament Act. c. 323 Govemment of Canada. 1996. Banff-Bow Valley at the crossroads: Summary report, n.p. Greenwood, J., A.M. Williams, and G. Shaw. 1990. Policy implementation and tourism in the U.K.: Implications from recent tourism research in Comwall. Towrz.^ Management 55, no. 1. Guy J. J. 1995. f/ow we are governed TTze hajzc.^ q/'Canaz/zan po/ztzca^ anzf govemment. Toronto: Harcourt Brace & Company Canada, Ltd. Mountain Communities at Risk: A case study o f gateway community growth management and resort development 198 Haggarty, M. 1997. Fiscal impacts of alternative development patters: Broadwater and Gallatin counties, http://www.montana.edu/wwwlgc/haggerty.htm. [Intemet site], n.p. Hall, M. 1999. Rethinking collaboration and partnership: A public policy perspective. Towma/ ZbwnjTM 7, no. 3&4. Hall, M. 1999. Rethinking collaboration and partnership: A public policy perspective. Journal o f Sustainable Tourism 7, no. 3&4. Quoting G. Haughton and C. Hunter, Tbwnsm onJpo/ihcs, po/icy, power ow/p/ace (West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons Ltd., 1999). Hall, M.1999. Rethinking collaboration and partnership: A public policy perspective. Journal o f Sustainable Tourism 7, no. 3&4. Quoting R. Rhodes. 1997. From marketisation to diplomacy: It’s the mix that matters. Australian Journal o f Public Administration 56, no.2 (1997). Hall, M. 1982. Urban and regional planning. 2'^ ed. Middlesex: Penguin. Hall, M. 1994. Tourism and politics: Policy, power and place. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Hall, M., and J. Jenkins. 1995. Tourism and public policy. London: Routledge. Hall, M., J. Jenkins, and G. Kearsley, eds. 1997. Tourism planning and policy in Australia and New Zealand, cases, issues and practise. Roseville: McGraw-Hill Australia. Havelock, J. 2000/2001. Contributing to the economy. Doing business in Canmore. 6* ed. n.p. Duplication. Henning, D.H. 1974. Environmgnta/ poZicy nruZ nd/nmiftrahon. New York: American Elsevier Publishing Company. Highlights From The Speech From The Throne - Third Session of the 37th Parliament of British Columbia. 2002 EggZfZatZvg j'gjjZo/z.' .7rcZ5'g.ffZo/z, ParZZa/Mf/it, (http://www.gov.bc.ca/bcgov/popt/throne_speech.htm) February 12,2002. Hogwood, B., L. Gunn. 1984. PoZZcy mwZyfZ.;_^r t/ig reaZ worZ(Z. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Quoted in M. HaU and J. Jenkins, Tbwnsm awZpwhZZc poZZcy (London: Routledge, 1995), 7. Howe, J., E. McMahon, and L. Propst. 1997. BaZoncZng natwrg nW commerce in gateway commanitZes. Washington: Island Press. Mountain Communities at Risk: A case study of gateway community growth management and resort development 199 Hunter, C., and H. Green. 1995. rgZatiOM.yAip? London: Routledge. uW tAe gny(ronme»r, a Hwnfgr gf aZ .v. 5awtAam /ac. 1984. 14 Canadian Criminal Cases (3d) 97. Jackson, G. and N. Morpeth. 1999. Local agenda 21 and community participation in tourism policy planning: Future or fallacy. Carrgaf 7rawg.y Taanjai 2, no. 1-38. Jamal, T., and D. Getz. 1999. Community roundtables for tourism-related conflicts: The dialectics of consensus and process structures. JaamaZ CyS'ztyfaiaaAZg Tawna^m 7, no. 3&4. Jenkins, A. 2003. Telephone interview by author, February 13, 2003. Johnson, J., and R. Rasker. 1995. Journal o f Rural Studies 11. Quoted in Bruce Maxwell, Jerry Johnson and Clifford Montagne, Predicting land use change in and around a rural community, n.d., n.p. Johnson, J., B. Maxwell, and R. Aspinall. 2002. Moving nearer to heaven: growth and change in the greater Yellowstone region, U.S.A. n.p. Johnston, M. E., and W. Haider, ed. 1993. Communities, resources, and tourism in the north, vol. 2. Thunder Bay: Lakehead University. Joppe, M. 1996. Sustainable community tourism development revisited. Tourism Management 17, no.7. Keller, C.P. 1987. Stages of peripheral tourism development - Canada’s North West Territories. Tourism Management 8, no. 1: 20-32. Quoted in Richard W. Butler, Tourism - an Evolutionary perspective. Tourism and Sustainable Development, 2"^ ed, Ed. J.G. Nelson, R. Butler, G. Wall (University of Waterloo: Department of Geography, University of Waterloo, 1999). Kemmis, D. 1990. Com/wmify uwZ fAg o/^/?/acg. Norman: university of Oklahoma Press. Quoted in Bruce Maxwell, Jerry Johnson and Clifford Montagne, Predicting land use change in and around a rural community, n.d., n.p. Ketterer, S. 2003. Tow» c^Cuwnorg ggna^w.;, 200.). Canmore: Town of Canmore. Duplicated. Kootenay Real Estate Board. 2(XM. Comparative activity by property type. Nelson: Kootenay Real Estate Board. Duplicated. Lankford, S., and D. Howard. 1994. Developing a tourism impact attitude scale. AnnaZa Rg.ygurcA 21. Quoted in Alison Gill, From growth machine to growth management: the dynamics of resort development in Whistler, British Columbia, EnvZrowngni uwZ PZwmZng A 32 (2000). Mountain Communities at Risk: A case study of gateway community growth management and resort development 200 Lindberg, K. 1991. majcimizmg Mafwrg fown.y7M gco/ogicoZ and ecoMO/mc United States of America: World Resource Institute. Lincoln Y.S., and Guba E. 1985. iVamrnZfstic ingmry. Beverly Hills: Sage. Long, P., R. Perdue, and L. Alien. 1990. Rural resident tourism perceptions and attitudes by community level of tourism. Journal o f Travel Research 29, no. 3. Quoted in Alison Gill, From growth machine to growth management: the dynamics of resort development in Whistler, British Columbia, fZawri/ig A 32 (2000). Lowi, T. 1970. Decision making versus policymaking: Toward an antidote to technocracy. Public Administration Review 30, no. 3: 314-315. Quoted in M. Hall and J. Jenkins, Tourism and public policy (London: Routledge, 1995), 65. Ludwig D., R. Hilbom, and C. Walters. 1993. Uncertainty, resource exploitation, and conservation: Lessons from history. Science: 269. McCool, S., and S. Martin. 1994. Community attachment and attitudes toward tourism development. Journal o f travel Research 32, no. 3. Quoted in Alison Gill, From growth machine to growth management: the dynamics of resort development in Whistler, British Columbia, Environment and Planning A 32 (2000). McLain, R.J., R.G. Lee. 1996. Adaptive management: Promises and pitfalls. Environmental Management 20. Madrigal, R. 1995. Residents’ perceptions and the role of government. Annals o f Tourism research 22, no. 1. Quoted in Alison Gill, From growth machine to growth management: the dynamics of resort development in Whistler, British Columbia, Environment and Planning A 32 (2000). M^one, G. 1980. Evidence, argument and per.yaa.yion in the policy proce.y.y. New Haven and London: Yale University Press. Malleau, L. 1999. Golden at a glance, 1998-1999. Golden: Town of Golden Economic Development Ofrice. Duplication. Manning, T. 1999. Indicators of tourism sustainability. Tbarigm Management 20. Marcouiller, D. W. 1995. Tbarij^m Planning. Edited by Deborah Thompson-Wise. Chicago: Council of Planning Librarians. Maxwell, B., J. Johnson, and C. Montagne. N.d. Predicting land use change in and around a rural commimity. n.p. Mountain Communities at Risk: A case study o f gateway community growth management and resort development 201 Maxwell, C., and G.B. Rossman. 1995. Oaks: Sage. Maxwell, C. 1996. QwaZifadve Oaks: Sage. g'waZifofivg rg.ygurc/i. Thousands An inferacfive approach. Thousands Messerh, B. and J.D. Ives, eds. 1997. Mon/ifai/w WorW." A gZohaZpnonfy. New York: Parthenon Publishing Group. Quoted in Diane Draper, Toward sustainable mountain communities: balancing tourism development and environmental protection in Banff and Banff National Park, Canada, AfM2?/o 29, no. 7 (2000). Milward, H.B. 1996. Symposium on the hollow state: Capacity, control and performance in interorganizational settings. Journal o f Public Administration Research and Theory 6, no.2. Quoted in M. Hall, Rethinking collaboration and partnership: A public policy perspective. Journal o f Sustainable Tourism 7, no. 3&4, (1999). Mowforth, M., and I. Munt. 1998. Tourism and sustainability, new tourism in the third world. London: Routledge. Municipal District of Bighorn No. 8 nd. Municipal district website. http://www.gov.mdbighorn.ab.ca. [internet] Municipal District of Rocky View. n.d. Municipal district website. http://www.gov.mdrockyview.ab.ca. [intemet] Nelson J.G., R. Butler, and G. Wall. 1993. Tourism and sustainable development: monitoring,_planning, managing. Waterloo: Department of Geography Publications Series. Northwest Environment Watch. 2002. Sprawl and Smart Growth in Greater Vancouver: A Comparz.yoM wifZi Seaff/g, WojArngfoM. n.p. O'RiordanT. 1981. Environmentalism and education. Jow/TzaZ 3. Geography in Owen, S. 1995. Local distinctiveness in villages: Overcoming some impediments to clear thinking about village planning. Town nwf PZnnning Review 66, no. 2. Owens, S. 1997. Giants in the path: Planning, sustainability and environmental values. Town Planning Review 68, no.3 . Pain, K., P. O'Connell, D. HaU, and S. Currie. 2002. A social environment assessment of Canmore and the M.D. of Bighorn. Town of Canmore. Photocopy. Pal, L.A. 1992. Rw6Zic poZicy annZy.yi.y.' An inrroeZwction. Scarborough: Nelson Canada, Quoted in M. HaU and J. Jenkins, Towrifn: owZpwZ?Zicpolicy (London: Routledge, 1995), Mountain Communities at Risk: A case study o f gateway community growth management and resort development 202 Pearce, D.G. 1992. Harlow: Longman ScientiAc and Technical. Pearce, D.G., and R.W. Butler, eds. 1999. CoMfg/nporary London: Routledge. zn town.;/» (fgvg/opmgni. Pollard, O.A. m . 2000. Smart growth: The promise, politics, and pitfalls of emerging growth management strategies. Virginia Environmgntai Low Jowmai 19, no.247. Potok, M. 1995. Managing tourism growth: Fishing for tourists, Moab hooks a shark. ZTzg Dgnvgr 18 June. Prescott-Allan, R. 2001. TTigwgiifzgingq/^natiom. AcoMnfTy-ty-cowntryiwigxq/^ quality o f life and the environment. London: Island Press. Price Waterhouse Coopers. 2000. The economic impact of downhill skiing at Alberta’s Rocky Mountain Ski Resorts. Paper presented to Alberta Economic Development. Alberta. Prideaux, B. 2000. The resort development spectrum - A new approach to modeling resort development. Tourism Management 21. Reed, M. 1999. Collaborative tourism planning as adaptive experiments in emergent tourism settings. Journal o f Sustainable Tourism 7, no. 3&4: 331-355. Reed, M. 1999. Collaborative tourism planning as adaptive experiments in emergent tourism settings. Journal o f Sustainable Tourism 7, no. 3&4. Quoting R.J. McLain and R.G. Lee, Adaptive management: Promises and pitfalls. Environmental Management 20, (1996). Reimer, B. 2002. Understanding social capital: Its nature and manifestations in rural Canada. Paper presented at the Canadian Sociology and Anthropology Association Annual Conference, 26 May at Toronto, Ontario. Richmond, Claude. 2002. Speaker for the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia. Mg^agg q/^77ig 77o»owraf)Zg CZaWg Ric/wnoW to t/ig 3"^ 5gMion, 3/^ ParZmmgnt. Victoria, British Columbia. Rivey, S.J., W.F. Siemer, D.J. Decker, L.H. Carpenter, J.F. Organ, L.T. Bercheihe. 2003. Adaptive impact management: An integrative approach to wildlife management. Hwmon D;mgnjfon.y q/"WlW/z/g 8. Rowan-Robinson, J., A. Ross, and W. Walton. 1995. Sustainable development and the development control process. ZbwM PZawif/zg Rgwgw 66, no.3. Mountain Communities at Risk: A case study o f gateway community growth management and resort development 203 Schendler, A. 2003. Applying the principles of industrial ecology to the guest-service sector. JonmnZ Ecology 7 (winter) no.l. Schindler, D. 2000. Aquatic problems caused by human activities in Banff National Park, Alberta, Canada. AW?io 29, no.7. Schneider, M. 1992. Undermining the growth regime: The missing link between local economic development and Ascal payoffs. JowmoZ q/^PoZiticj^ 54. Quoted in Alison Gill, From growth machine to growth management: the dynamics of resort development in Whistler, British Columbia, Environment owl Planning A 32 (2000). Schneider, M., and P. Teske. 1993. The antigrowth entrepreneur: Challenging the equilibrium of the growth machine. Journal o f Politics 55. Quoted in Alison Gill, From growth machine to growth management: the dynamics of resort development in Whistler, British Columbia, Environment and Planning A 32 (2000). Sears, D. 1977. The new meaning of development. International Development Review 19, no. 3. Selman, P. 1995. Local sustainability: Can the planning system help get us from here to there? Town Planning Review 66, no. 3. Sharpley, R. 2000. Tourism and sustainable development: Exploring the theoretical divide. Journal o f Sustainable Tourism 8, no.l. Simard, B. 2001. Response to growth management planning in a rural region of British Columbia: A case study of the Cariboo Regional District. Master’s thesis. University of Northern British Columbia. Simmons, D. 1994. Community participation in tourism planning. Tourism Management 15. Quoted in Alison Gill, From growth machine to growth management: the dynamics of resort development in Whistler, British Columbia, Environment and ■ EZo/ming A 32 (2000). Simmons R., B. Davis, R. Chapman, and D. Sager. 1974. Policy flow analysis: A conceptual model for comparative public policy research. Weftgrn EoZiricaZ jgwartgrZy 27, no. 3. Simpson, P., and G. Wall. 1999. Consequences of resort development. A comparative study. ZowrMfMMa/iagemenr 20. Smith, S. 1999. Toward a national tourism research agenda for Canada. Managffnent 20. Sofield, T.H.B., and F.M.S. Li. 1998. Historical methodology and sustainability: An 800-year-old festival from China. Joamal 6, no. 4. Mountain Communities at Risk: A case study o f gateway community growth management and resort development 204 Statistics Canada. 2002. Demographic information, http://geodepot.statcan.ca. [internet]. Steer, K., andN. Chambers. September 1998. Gateway opportMnitie.y.' A gwide to ^