QUALITY OF LIFE ASSESSMENTS AND SOCIAL SUSTAINABILITY: SKI TOURISM DEVELOPMENT IN INVERMERE, BRITISH...

QUALITY OF LIFE ASSESSMENTS AND SOCIALSUSTAINABILITY: SKI TOURISM DEVELOPMENT

IN INVERMERE, BRITISH COLUMBIA

ALISON ASPINALL

JUDIE CUKIER* and BRENT DOBERSTEIN†

Department of Geography and Environmental ManagementFaculty of EnvironmentUniversity of Waterloo200 University Ave. W.

Waterloo, ON N2L 3G1, Canada*[email protected]†[email protected]

Received 11 May 2010Revised 25 August 2010Accepted 26 August 2010

The purpose of this study was to determine the feasibility of using quality of lifeassessments (QLA) to evaluate social sustainability and impacts of a hypothetical tourismdevelopment modelled after the currently-proposed Jumbo Glacier Resort. Results of thisstudy indicated that there was a significant difference between the pre- and post-devel-opment scenarios on respondents’ perceived quality of life: respondents perceived thattheir quality of life would be lower after the development of the resort. Also, respondents’general attitudes towards tourism development, and the specific Jumbo Glacier Resortproject, had a statistically significant impact on their expected quality of life, and theirinterpretation of how tourism impacts their quality of life. The study suggests that qualityof life assessment can make valuable contributions to the fields of social impact assessmentand social sustainability analysis, and the results of such assessments can make valuablecontributions to the fields of sustainable community development.

Keywords: Quality of life assessment; tourism; social sustainability; British Columbia;social impact assessment; ski resort.

†Corresponding author.

Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and ManagementVol. 13, No. 2 (June 2011) pp. 179–201© Imperial College PressDOI: 10.1142/S1464333211003845

179

http://dx.doi.org/10.1142/S1464333211003845

Introduction

Social exchange theory has been used to explain resident support of tourismdevelopment (Ap, 1992; Jurowski and Gursoy, 2004), suggesting that people willembrace tourism development if they perceive that the resulting benefits exceedthe costs. In order to measure how tourism developments might change nearbyresidents’ quality of life, it is important to understand how residents perceive theirquality of life, how tourism can impact this, and how various variables influencethese perceptions.

Social capital researchers have developed a model to suggest how communitiesrespond to change (see Kelly and Sreec, 2004). By adapting this model to examinesocial sustainability and quality of life, it is theorised that social sustainability isenhanced when communities are able to retain or gain some level of social capitalirrespective of the change. Thus, if residents perceive that net changes in quality oflife arising from tourism development are positive, there will be associated posi-tive gains in community social sustainability.

This study examines how tourism (shown as an external agent of change in themodel shown in Fig. 1) is likely to affect the social characteristics of the com-munity. The study measures social conditions in the community of Invermere,British Columbia, before a hypothetical tourism development is implemented, andthen compares expected social conditions “post-tourism-development” in an effortto determine if the proposed development is likely to be socially sustainable forthe community. Although a “hypothetical” ski tourism development was usedto gauge Invermere resident’s attitudes and perceptions, it is important to notethat the community is actually facing a similar proposal (i.e., the proposed$450 million Jumbo Glacier all season ski resort). The study assesses residents’

Social Sustainability IndicatorPerceived Quality of Life

TOURISM(Jumbo Resort)

COMMUNITY• Physical, Human,

Financial & SocialCapital

• Quality of Life

COMMUNITY AFTER

• Physical, Human,Financial & SocialCapital

• Quality of Life

Fig. 1. Framework for quality of life indicator in the case of tourism development.

180 A. Aspinall, J. Cukier & B. Doberstein

expected changes in quality of life after the construction of this major ski resort inthe area.

A major purpose of this study was to determine the feasibility of using qualityof life assessments as a decision making tool to evaluate the social impacts andsustainability of tourism developments. Quality of life assessments (QLA) wereevaluated to determine whether these were useful indicators of social sustainabilityand as aids to development decision making. In addition, QLA was evaluated todetermine the extent to which the approach is complementary to social cost-benefitanalysis, which has been criticised for not adequately considering the unequaldistribution of costs and benefits across different types of users.

A secondary purpose of the study was to trace some of the linkages betweensocial capital and social sustainability. Although the study does not purport toprovide firm evidence linking these two concepts, study results suggest that thetwo concepts are related, that tourism developments have the potential to impactupon both, and that both tourism developers and government agencies involved insuch developments should actively attempt to ensure that the net impacts oftourism development do not negatively affect social capital or social sustainability.

For the purposes of this paper, we adopt Putnam’s well known definition ofsocial capital, “features of social organization such as networks, norms, and socialtrust that facilitate coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit” (Putnam,1995, 66). Similarly, Dillard et al.’s (2009) definition of social sustainability wasused throughout the paper, “the processes that generate social health and well-being now and in the future [and] those social institutions that facilitateenvironmental and economic sustainability now and for the future”.

Quality of Life Assessments

Characteristics

Quality of life is an extensively-researched topic which has been traced back to theearly 1930s when sociologist William Ogburn pioneered the social indicator andquality of life movements (Massam, 2002). The concept itself is consideredcomplex, with at least three major characteristics: (1) the concept is multi-dimensional; (2) some aspects are distinguishable and; (3) negative impacts onsome aspects of quality of life may be reimbursable (Diener and Suh, 1997: Kim,2000).

Quality of life is a multidimensional concept. Some authors (Diener and Suh,1997; Kim, 2002; Sirgy et al., 2000) have identified both objective and subjectivecomponents, while other authors (e.g., Massam, 2002) use alternative terms suchas “environmental” and “psychological”, there is general agreement that at least

Quality of Life Assessments and Social Sustainability 181

two distinct dimensions exist: one which is quantifiable and measurable andanother which is less tangible and largely qualitative. The objective or environ-mental dimensions of quality of life are commonly measured using objectiveeconomic indicators such as standards of living, rates of employment, housingmarkets, GDP and other economic indicators (Diener and Suh, 1997). Thesubjective or psychological dimensions are in themselves multidimensional,and researchers have attempted to account for these by probing all of thedimensions of well-being, that when summed create an aggregate measure ofsubjective quality of life (Diener and Suh, 1997; Jurowski and Gursoy, 2004;Kim, 2002).

“Distinguishable” quality of life characteristics are those which can be ident-ified and measured by individual respondents. Because these are often subjectiveand individual, they are, also highly variable across individuals as well as geo-graphical regions. However, research has established that quality of life measureswhich are broadly common across individuals can be found, and associatedmethods of valuation have been developed to quantify some aspects of bothobjective and subjective quality of life (Diener and Suh, 1997).

Reimbursable aspects of quality of life are those for which it is possible tocompensate when quality of life is negatively affected. Such compensation neednot be purely monetary; there is a wide range of policies and planning techniquesavailable for compensating for decreases in quality of life (Massam, 2002). Dis-tinguishable and measurable qualities of life become important in evaluatingwhether individuals or groups have experienced or are likely to experience adecreased quality of life, and in designing effective policies and compensationprograms.

Measurement

Following on from Massam’s (2002, 7) observation that “quality of life can bealtered — controlled, modified, improved”, the opposite holds true as well.Quality of life can be disrupted, modified and reduced. Quality of life is a dynamicconcept, with exogenous variables interacting with endogenous dimensions ofwell-being to shape how quality of life is perceived by individuals. Stated anotherway, exogenous variables influence the multiple dimensions of subjective well-being which create a person’s overall perception of quality of life. Tourism may beone of the exogenous variables affecting resident perceptions of their quality oflife. Previous tourism-related studies have further defined economic, social andenvironmental dimensions of the overall “tourism” exogenous variable (Ap, 1992;Ap and Crompton, 1998; Getz, 1994; Jurowski and Brown, 2001; Kim, 2004), and


these dimensions are commonly used to assess how tourism affects individuals’quality of life (see Jurowski and Brown, 2001; Kim, 2004).

Applications

Recent social research has attempted to define, measure, and analyse how qualityof life is interpreted and interacts with other social concepts such as sustainability,community development and social capital. Community economic developmentand social policy literature have used social capital theory to help understand therelationship between sustainable economic development and social conditions incommunities (Healy and Hampshire, 2003; Lindberg et al., 2001; Rodriguez andLeon, 2004). Healy and Hampshire (2003) examined how social capital is created,and the influence it may have on perceptions of quality of life. They argued that inAustralian communities, low levels or lack of intra- and inter-community ties (i.e.,bonding and bridging capital) will result in lower levels of perceived quality oflife. When a community is subjected to a possible external change (e.g., tourismdevelopment), an inventory of the community’s current stock of capital (human,physical, financial as well as social) would be completed to measure levels anddiversity of capital. The level and diversity of the community’s capital could thenbe used to predict how the community will respond and adapt to change. Thecapital inventory would also allow for the discovery of any potential capitaldeficiencies and/or weaknesses; therefore allowing planners, government anddevelopers to intervene and assist in capital development in order to allow for abetter community transition. Post-development capital inventories and quality oflife measurement would then be used as a monitoring device to determine if levelsof capital and quality of life had been maintained, decreased or increased. QLAcould also be used as a possible indicator of a sustainable community, withmeasurements taken at the pre- and post-developmental stages. An increase inquality of life, as a result of increased stocks of community capital, would be takenas an indication of a resilient, sustainable community.

Lindberg et al. (2001) designed a contingent valuation — choice-modelingstudy to evaluate potential social gains and losses to host community residentsfrom a hypothetical ski resort development in Sweden. The study used surveymethods to compare residents’ perceived quality of life before and after thedevelopment, concluding that the development resulted in net social gain to thetourists and net social losses to the residents. Often, the evaluation of socialconsequences of tourism developments is done using cost-benefit analysis (CBA)where, if net social benefits of the development (with residents and tourists treatedas one undifferentiated social unit) are positive, development will likely proceed.


However, this approach exposes a critical question: do the gains to some membersof society necessarily compensate for the losses experienced by others? Ecologicaleconomics and property rights theory suggest that all benefits and costs shouldaccrue to the owner, otherwise property rights principles are violated and com-pensation should be paid (Folmer and Gabel, 2000). However, in tourism andtourism developments, there is often no one clear “owner” and thus, no one entityto pay compensation.

Rodriguez and Leon (2004) used a different approach to quality of life impactassessment when they attempted to predict the impact of proposed social andenvironmental policies on resident quality of life. Using measurements of changein altruistic value, they argued that an understanding of non-use values was neededto fully understand the influence of proposed policies changes on residents’ per-ceptions of quality of life. Like Lindberg et al.’s (2001) study mentioned above,Rodriguez and Leon (2004) also used contingent valuation techniques to measureresidents’ willingness to pay for proposed social and environmental policies,indirectly inferring the altruistic value residents placed on the environmental goodsthat contributed to their quality of life.

While such approaches have been used to attach an economic value to hithertoun-priced social and environmental resources (allowing their incorporation intotraditional CBA of tourism developments), these economic methods have failed toaccount for unequal dispersal of costs and benefits across users. CBA, grounded inwelfare economic theory, assumes that costs and benefits of different users arecomparable and that net costs can be compensated for (Folmer and Gabel, 2000).Welfare economics and the Pareto efficiency principle imply that any costs borneby those who do receive the benefits should be compensated for by developmentbeneficiaries, provided the compensation is less than the total value of benefitsreceived (Folmer and Gabel, 2000). Although Clark and Ng (1993 in Lindberget al. 2001, 1012) suggested that “residents can not be made worse off in netwelfare terms by an increase in tourism”, Lindberg et al. (2001) argue against thisclaim, suggesting that those who bear the costs of tourism development are notalways fully compensated by beneficiaries. Secondly, measures of net societalwelfare from tourism development use the implicit assumption that benefitsflowing to tourists and residents are of equal importance, even though tourists aregenerally “outsiders” to the system. Stated another way, as long as net benefits totourists are larger than the net costs to residents, traditional CBA suggests that theproposed development should be approved. It is suggested here that such CBAapproaches should not be used without an accompanying analysis of benefit andcost distributions between tourists and residents.


Given the questions raised about traditional measurements of quality of life,other analytical methods are needed to better account for potentially uneven andunfair dispersal of costs and benefits to residents and tourist users of a tourismdevelopment. Traditionally, social science research has both used objective andsubjective indicators to measure for quality of life (Ap, 1992; Jurowski andGursoy, 2004; Kim, 2002). Objective indicators of quality of life are commonlyeconomically based and normative, assessing the aggregate standard of living of acommunity according to economic value (Jurowski and Gursoy, 2004; Kim,2002). However, this approach fails to account for important distributionaldifferences between groups.

Subjective indicators have been designed to allow for a more detailed analysisacross varying user groups, accounting for individual differences. Residents’perception of quality of life based on economic, social and environmental domainshave been offered as a possible subjective social indicator (Jurowski and Gursoy,2004; Kim, 2002). This paper contends that quality of life assessment is a betterindicator of community social sustainability than traditional CBA, and may beuseful when assessing the impacts of proposed tourism developments.

Case Study: Jumbo Creek Glacier Resort, British Columbia

In 2010, British Columbia (BC) played host to thousands of athletes, families andspectators when the XXI Winter Olympics came to Vancouver and WhistlerBlackcomb. Earlier, the provincial government recognised the opportunity tocapitalise on having the world’s attention for this fourteen day period. Shortly afterthe site for the XXI Olympics was chosen, the BC provincial government launcheda new taskforce to assess the opportunities that existed for the province’s resortindustry. The taskforce suggested there was an abundance of opportunity for resortexpansion and development within the industry (BC Resort Strategy and ActionPlan, 2004). Older resort development plans, which had historically been delayedby a time-consuming environmental assessment process, were rejuvenated underthis resort taskforce.

One such project was the $450 million Jumbo Glacier all season ski resort,proposed for the Jumbo Creek Valley in the East Kootenay region of BritishColumbia (see Fig. 2). The resort plans suggest it will be a model of a sustainabletourism development, with a total number of hotel beds limited to 6,250 beds,which is approximately 1/10th the size of Whistler (Jumbo Glacier Resort, 2009).These plans indicate that it will be a world renowned ski facility using lifts andgondolas to access glacial terrain previously only accessible by helicopter and an


innovative resort using sustainable design principles. The appeal of the location forthe proponents is its ability to be a fully functional, natural snow, year roundresort (emphasis added ), providing access to some of the most dramatic alpineterrain worldwide.

The proponent of Jumbo Glacier resort first submitted a project proposal in1991 to the government of British Columbia. This proposal was for an all seasonresort situated in the Purcell Mountains of the East Kootenay region, locatedapproximately 50 kilometres from Invermere. A key component of the originalproposal was year-round access to Jumbo Glacier, allowing skiing during seasonswhere traditionally a lack of snowfall forces ski resorts to closure. At an elevationof over 3,000 metres, the Jumbo Glacier Resort would be the highest all-glacierresort in North America. The resort village would be developed on an abandonedsawmill site accessible by the road which currently services Panorama MountainVillage only 35 kilometres away. Since the initial proposal was submitted in 1991,the proposed resort has undergone environmental impact assessments and otherstudies to assess the feasibility, impacts and sustainability of the resort. Public

Fig. 2. Location of proposed Jumbo Glacier Resort. Source: Jumbo Glacier Resort 2009.


consultations have been held throughout the province, and the resort developmenthas received support from a number of neighbouring stakeholders, including: theKinbasket Shuswap first nations (Jumbo Glacier Resort, 2009), Intrawest ResortCorporation (the owner and operator of Whistler Blackcomb, Panorama MountainVillage and Canadian Mountain Holidays), and; the District of Radium. Residentsof Invermere (population 2858) the closest municipality to the resort and thecommunity whose accommodations, services and infrastructures would be used byresort users, have remained divided in their view toward the development despiteimportant employment benefits. It is anticipated that the development wouldinitially provide an additional 150–250 construction jobs while creating and sus-taining approximately 700–800 permanent year round jobs at completion.According to BC Statistics, the Kootenay regional unemployment rate for February2005 was 8.9%, an estimated 2% higher than the provincial average (6.8%).

The Jumbo Glacier Resort and the adjacent municipality of Invermere werechosen for this study due to several unique features. The history of the JumboGlacier proposal has been lengthy and surrounded in controversy and politicalconflict. Interestingly however, the project has received support from somemembers of the community as well as the neighbouring Kinbasket Shuswap FirstNations band. The proponents of the project have remained committed for overnineteen years, suggesting a strong belief that the private benefits of the projectoutweigh the private costs.

Research approach

Household self-administered surveys were used as the primary data collectiontechnique. The survey attempted to capture elements of a longitudinal study, byassessing perceived quality of life before and after the introduction of a hypo-thetical tourism development based on variations on the proposed Jumbo GlacierResort development. Respondents were first asked to answer a series of questionson: (1) residents’ perception of their quality of life based on their responses to24 questions on community, family and social life and personal health and wealth,and (2); opinion statements on how tourism may or may not affect their qualityof life in their community. The respondents were then randomly presented with1 of 3 possible tourism resort development scenarios, each with varying degrees ofpositive and negative impacts. The respondents were then asked to revisit the sameset of questions to assess how they expected the resort development, as describedin the tourism scenario, would impact their quality of life and life in general.

The scenarios were designed to be plausible snapshots five to ten years afterthe development of a Jumbo Glacier-like ski resort in the area. The scenarios


presented a description of the economic, social and environmental situation of theresort and neighbouring community and industries after its development. Scen-arios were developed using information from the Jumbo Glacier Master Plan(2005) and the Report on Public Views and Interest (1996, 2004) generation byBritish Columbia’s Environmental Assessment Office.

The survey was adapted from three research studies conducted in other com-munities. Two of these studies attempted to capture the residents’ attitudes towardstourism growth and the effect of tourism impacts on perceived quality of liferespectively (see Jurowski and Gursoy, 2004; Kim, 2002) while the third study,the “New Rural Economy Project”, aimed to measure social capital in eight ruralCanadian communities (Reimer, 2002b) using household surveys. Three inde-pendent variables, economic, environmental and social/cultural, were adaptedfrom Kim’s (2002) theoretical model examining impacts on five dependent vari-ables as a summation of quality of life. The instrument for this research combinedKim’s social and cultural exogenous variables, since the definition and interpret-ation of sustainable tourism for the study did not make a distinction between socialand cultural sustainability.

In addition to household self-administered surveys, qualitative key informantinterviews were also conducted on three overriding themes: (1) Quality of life; (2)Sustainability, and; (3) Tourism development. Key informants were probed forattitudes and perceptions about the proposed tourism development in the com-munity. While not a main thrust of the research, aspects of social capital and socialsustainability were also explored through key informant interviews. Opinionsabout community cohesion, community relations with “outsiders” and the impactof the proposed development on community sustainability were explored with keyinformants whenever these came up during interviews.

Research population, sample and participants

The defined research population was the town of Invermere, one municipalitywithin the East Kootenay region of British Columbia. The sampling frame for thequantitative portion of the research was defined as any citizen of Invermere,18 years of age or older. Key informants were selected using a combination of twotypes of non-probability sampling: purposive and snowball techniques. Potentialinformants were identified as those in influential positions within the regionaltourism industry and associations, local and regional government, developmentconsultants and other land use organizations such as conservation societies, or thosewith a comprehensive knowledge of the region and its development challenges.

Systematic random sampling was used to generate the questionnaire researchsample. Every fourth housing lot from a map identifying Invermere’s 1,100


housing lots (Census, 2001) was selected, resulting in a housing lot sample of 300.Every effort was made to include initially selected households in the survey;however, after three attempts to involve a household, non-responding households(n= 12) were bypassed and households on the immediate left were substituted.Additional systematic sampling was attempted in an effort to increase the ran-domness of the sample. However, surveys were self-administered and as a con-sequence, there was incomplete control over who in the household completed thesurvey: in an effort to avoid the statistical weaknesses associated with non-prob-ability sampling techniques, an individual within the household, ranked fromoldest to youngest, was randomly selected to complete the survey. Of the threehundred households initially sampled, two multi-dwelling units were included, 12household substitutions were made, 185 households accepted surveys and 115households declined participation for a total of n= 69 surveys returned, resultingin an effective response rate of 37.3%.

A total of n= 7 key informant interviews were conducted, and all potential keyinformants contacted agreed to participate in the study.

Statistical analysis: household surveys and key informant interviews

A combination of statistical analysis tools were used, including confirmatoryfactor analysis, multivariate analysis, paired sample tests of significance anddescriptive statistics. Scale reliability analysis was also conducted to determine thereliability and validity of the adapted multidimensional quality of life scale.Finally, paired sample t-tests were also carried out to test for significant changes inthe perceived quality of life of the residents (compared before and after thehypothetical tourism development and its accompanying impacts).

Content analysis was performed on key informant interview transcripts, anddata from the interviews were coded according to question themes. Variable-oriented analysis was conducted on three exogenous variables (economic, socialand environmental impacts) and additional thematic analysis of the interviewsrevealed an additional three emergent themes (i.e., development policy issues,community infrastructure and both inter- and intra-community conflicts). Thesewere grouped accordingly under a variable analysis framework.

Findings: Tourism Development and Quality of Life in Invermere

Invermere residents’ opinions on how tourism currently influenced their quality oflife was measured by asking their level of agreement or disagreement for a varietyof opinion statements grouped according to environmental, economic, social andhealth dimensions on a 5-point Likert scale (1= strongly disagree to 5= strongly


agree). Reliability of each individual tourism impact scale, as well as the combinedquality of life index, was tested in SPSS to ensure that the items used in the scaledevelopment were appropriate measures of the scale’s construct. It was found thateach of the three impact scales and the combined quality of life index each hadChronbach Alpha’s greater than 0.70, indicating that they were reliable measuresof the desired construct. An overall quality of life measurement was obtained bysumming respondents’ answers to a set of 24 opinion statements in two categories:(1) feelings about life and (2) feelings about health and safety. The maximumpossible quality of life score was 120 (24 statements * 5) while the minimum was24 (24 statements * 1). Using t-tests and analysis of variance at the 95% confi-dence level, and controlling for gender, age, education, occupation and income, itwas found there were no statistically significant differences in the quality of lifeindex of the sample. This suggests that the demographics of the sample had littleor no significant influence on how the survey sample responded to the quality oflife portion of the survey.

Attitudes towards tourism development

When asked, “how do you rate the tourism development in your community”, themajority of respondents (56%) indicated that it was at the “growth stage”. Whenasked, “would you like to see more or less of tourism in the area?”, nearly half(47.1%) preferred to see neither more nor less tourism in the area. Approximatelyone quarter of the sample indicated their preference for less tourism (20.6% less,5.9% much less).

When asked specifically “do you generally oppose or support the JumboGlacier Resort?” the majority of respondents were opposed to the project (67.7%,n= 47). Of the remaining respondents, equal numbers were either in support orneutral to the ski resort development (16.1%).

Residents’ perceived quality of life

Using the quality of life index calculated from the respondents’ feelings towardstheir life and health and safety, it was found that out of a possible range of scoresfrom 24 (poor quality of life in all measures) to 120 (excellent quality of life in allmeasures), the average quality of life for the respondents (n= 57) was 79.31(sd= 11:38), with a range of 48–104. Figure 3 shows that the distribution of therespondent’s perceived quality of life follows a somewhat normal distribution. Thelarge standard deviation (11.38) suggests there is large variation between mini-mum and maximum quality of life values, although 60% of respondents’ perceivedquality of life was found within a range of 67.93 to 91.19.


The perceived quality of life index was further broken down into quartiles (fourequal intervals of 24) to interpret and compare reported quality of life. As Table 1shows, the modal quality of life score of respondents fell into the good category,suggesting that more respondents felt that the quality of their life was “good” thanany other single category (i.e., “poor”, “average” or “excellent”).

When asked how their quality of life compared to others in the community, themajority of the respondents’ (42.4%) felt that their life was somewhat better thanmost other people. A quarter of the sample felt that their life was much better, withapproximately 3.1% indicating that they felt their quality of life was worse than

110.00100.0090.0080.0070.0060.0050.0040.00

Quality of Life Index

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

Fre

qu

ency

Mean =79.3158Std. Dev. =11.68051N =57

Fig. 3. Histogram of perceived quality of life index.

Table 1. Quality of life index classification.

Classification Q of L Index N %

Poor 24–47 1 1.8

Average 48–72 13 22.8

Good 73–96 37 64.9

Excellent 97–120 6 10.5


most others. Significant differences were found when respondents’ preferred rateof tourism growth was compared to their level of perceived quality of life(n= 56,F = 5:69, p= 0:006 at a 95% confidence level). The results, shown inTable 2, indicate that those who preferred less tourism growth in Invermere alsoreported an average quality of life (mean= 70:67, sd= 9:96). Those who preferredthe same level of tourism indicated they had a good quality of life (mean=80:77, sd= 10:54). Those who preferred more tourism growth reported the highestquality of life index scores (mean= 87:13,SD= 14:97).

Analysis of quality of life results revealed that there was no statistically sig-nificant variation within the sample when analysed by demographic variables(gender, age, etc). There was, however, a significant difference between the qualityof life reported by groups distinguished by differing opinions concerning tourismgrowth. One possible explanation is that those who prefer less tourism growth alsoperceive existing levels of tourism to have a negative effect on their quality of life,expect further growth to further diminish their quality of life, and do not wish tosee additional tourism development to occur.

Changes in perceived quality of life

The quality of life index was used to measure the perceived quality of life ofrespondents (n= 39) five years after a hypothetical ski resort had been developednear Invermere. Before answering, respondents were asked to read a scenariodescribing the community economic, social and environmental situation “post-development”. For the sample as a whole, the mean perceived quality of life post-development was 74.61 as compared to the pre-development mean of 78.23,suggesting the respondents felt that their quality of life would decline slightly as aresult of the tourism development. A paired sample t-test revealed this differenceto be significant at a 95% confidence level (n= 39, t = 3:12, p= 0:003) (Table 3).

Further analysis to compare and contrast differences between responses todifferent scenarios could not be conducted because the response rate was less than

Table 2. Analysis of variance: Quality of life index and tourism growth.

Would you like to see more or lesstourism development in your community? Mean n sd F P (sig)

More 87.13b 8 14.97080

The Same 80.77c 26 10.54631 5.69 0.006a

Less 70.67b, c 12 9.95749

aSignificant difference at 0.01 level.bSignificant difference between groups at the 0.01 level using Scheffe post-hoc test.


anticipated. Looking at the net change in mean quality of life scores pre- versuspost-scenario (Fig. 4), the majority of respondents reported a small but significantdecrease in their quality of life after the development of a ski resort.

Discussion

Quality of life

The quality of life concept is multidimensional, dynamic and partly an intangibleconcept. There have been difficulties in developing efficient and effectivemeasurements to quantify this qualitative concept. While CBA is effective and

Table 3. Paired samples t-test of perceived quality of life before and after scenario.

Mean n sd t p (sig)

PairQuality of Life before 78.23 39 12.41 3.12 0.003a

Quality of Life after 74.61 39 14.98

aThe mean difference is significant at least the 0.01 level.

10.000.00-10.00-20.00-30.00

Net Change in Perceived Quality of Life

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

Fre

qu

ency

Mean =-3.6154Std. Dev. =7.24611N =39

Fig. 4. Histogram of net change in perceived quality of life.


efficient in measuring and accounting for economic impacts (Edward-Jones et al.,2000; Folmer and Gabel, 2000; Rodriguez and Leon, 2004) and methods havebeen developed to account for environmental costs and benefits (Edward-Joneset al., 2000; Folmer and Gabel, 2000), there remain some challenges in adaptingthese approaches to the measurement of communities’ social welfare. Forexample, such approaches fail to distinguish between different costs and benefitsaccruing to different segments of a “community”. In the community of Invermere,a tourism development would have the potential to differentially affect at leastthree key segments of the tourism industry: visitors, workers and locals (KeyInformant #7, 2005). This suggests that, when assessing potential costs and ben-efits of a proposed tourism development, changes to the social welfare of the threegroups should be accounted for separately. The CBA system fails if it treats thesethree groups as equal and assumes equal costs and benefits accrue.

This study found that a respondents’ perception of tourism in the communityinfluenced their overall perception of quality of life. Furthermore, demographicdifferences across the community were not found to be linked to different percep-tions of quality of life. Residents who desired “less” tourism in the community alsoreported a lower quality of life than those who preferred either “the same” or “more”tourism. When a hypothetical ski resort development was described to respondents,the majority of respondents expected a small decrease to their perceived quality oflife, while a minority expected an increased quality of life. These results indicatethat, in the District of Invermere, tourism does, in fact, affect the quality of life of theresidents, suggesting that residents who are less supportive of tourism would likelybe further adversely affected by any future increases in tourism.

Social exchange theory can be used to assist in the explanation of howInvermere residents perceive tourism development to affect their quality of life(Harrill, 2004). As implied under social exchange theory, each interaction betweenresidents and tourism provides an opportunity for personal gain or loss, or acontribution to or reduction in perceived quality of life, dependent upon theindividuals’ perception of the impact (Ap, 1992; Harrill, 2004; Jurowski andGursoy, 2004). Ap (1992) states, “to sustain tourism in a community, certainexchanges must occur” (p. 668), implying that participation by the community inthe planning and development should also occur. If, however, under socialexchange theory the exchange between residents and tourism development resultsin a loss, or detracts from quality of life, then the implications are significant.Decreases in quality of life post tourism development could result in decreasedparticipation in, or in extreme cases, opposition to and complete withdrawal fromthe tourism industry by the community members, violating a purported conditionnecessary for tourism to be sustained.


Ap (1992) further concludes that, normally, tourism development is “driven bythe desire by some members of the community to improve the economic and socialcondition of the area.” (p. 668). However, in the case of Invermere, if thisimprovement is not felt by a critical mass of residents and key community players,then the motivation or the “driver” for more tourism development is decreased.Because small rural communities such as Invermere and its residents are keyplayers in the success of future tourism developments, there is an increased like-lihood that interactions between residents and tourists will occur. If the socialexchange between residents and tourism development is thought to be negative,the likelihood that the social exchange between incoming tourists and residentswill be negative is high.

Quality of life and social capital

This study has pointed out that standard CBA is flawed when it fails to account fordifferential distributions of costs and benefits across different social groups.Identifying different groups, and analysing the costs and benefits that accrue tothese groups, as this study has done, help to overcome one of the flaws with CBA.This study has suggested societal welfare can be one measure of that community’soverall quality of life, and that quality of life changes can be used to assess thepotential social sustainability (overall impact on society) of a proposed tourismdevelopment project. Researchers and academics across social, economic andenvironmental disciplines have long argued over the best methods to evaluatesustainability. This study suggests that the quality of life concept could makevaluable contributions to predictions about social sustainability in general, andmore specifically, to better incorporation of social sustainability concerns in CBAof tourism developments.

Social capital in individuals, groups and communities has been classified intotwo main categories by social researchers: bridging (where social connectionstranscend community boundaries) and bonding (where social connections within acommunity draw residents together) capital (Healy and Hampshire, 2003). In theirdiscussion of the contribution of social capital to sustainable development, Rydinand Holman (2004) acknowledge that bonding capital may have a “dark side”contributing to “undesired outcomes” (p. 119) and is often the dominant form ofsocial capital present in single sector communities. Strong bonding capital may infact oppress communities, prohibiting the creation of bridging linkages. Con-versely, bridging capital has less regard for boundaries and addresses the com-munity’s ability to form linkages between organisations within the community aswell as with other communities, bridging informal and formal social networks


across multiple sectors (Rydin and Holman, 2004; Wallis and Killerby, 2004).According to this oppression theory, strong bonding capital could result in externalcommunities/institutions being unable to penetrate the community inhibiting thecreation of linkages and the community’s ability to respond to change. If presentedwith efforts to increase regional/community tourism development, strong levels ofbonding social capital might result in a bonding of community resources together inan “effective coalition” (Rydin and Holman, 2004, 119) opposing the development.

These arguments are important in the discussion of social capital becausediversity in capital is a good indicator or predictor of how well a community mayor may not respond to change (Kelly and Sreec, 2004). By understanding socialcapital, how it is created, maintained and used valuable contributions to over-coming barriers to sustainable development can be made (Rydin and Holman,2004). Applying these arguments, it is suggested that social capital could be avaluable predictor in estimating a community’s ability to adapt successfully tochange (Fig. 5).

Invermere is virtually self sufficient in essential services, providing for both itsresidents and an additional population base of approximately 20,000 nearby ruralresidents. Non-essential services, such as big box retail, shopping malls, clothingoutlets and larger entertainment and recreational facilities are found approximately11/2 hour’s drive away in Cranbrook or 2 hours in Golden. Several informantsfrom the community described Invermere as a highly economically diversifiedcommunity which has a visible and important service sector component yet prefersnot to be labelled by outsiders as a “tourism-based economy” (Key Informants # 1& 5, 2006). These informants acknowledged, however, the large contribution that

SUSTAINABILITY PREDICTORLevel of diversification of CAPITAL

COMMUNITY

• Physical, Human,Financial & SocialCapital

• Quality of life

EXTERNALCHANGE(Tourism)

ADAPTABILITY

SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITY

• MAINTAIN/INCREASEPhysical, Human, Financial& Social Capital

• MAINTAIN/INCREASEQUALITY OF LIFE

Fig. 5. Revised framework for sustainability, community and quality of life.


tourism makes to the community and region, but suggested that tourism be viewedas an intricate part of Invermere’s economy and not the town’s sole dependency.

Many community groups and individuals came together to actively support oroppose the proposed Jumbo Glacier Resort project. Residents’ strong positions onthe project formally brought together a variety of community residents and out-siders to combine their skill sets, knowledge and expertise in an example ofadvocacy. Discussion with newer residents revealed that Invermere was a closeknit community, and while not completely resistant to outsiders, newer residentsacknowledged that acceptance in the community was not immediate. In addition,resident expressions of dislike toward tourists and second homeowners suggestedthat the bonding capital and social closeness of the community is high.

While research (Reimer, 2002a) has suggested that extremely elevated levelsof bonding capital can be prohibitive to a healthy community (i.e., due to thelimited community diversity that results when bridging capital with outsidesources is discouraged), this was not observed in Invermere. Although previouslythe community was heavily dependent on extractive resource industries, thecommunity used internal and external social capital to successfully transition to adiversified service based economy, suggesting the successful development ofbridging capital.

Interaction between the second homeowners, who are temporary residents ofthe community, and the community members is an indicator of the bridging capitalof the community. While locals feel some level of resentment towards temporaryresidents, the second homeowners feel some level of community attachment totheir summer residence. Many of these second homeowners are former long timereturning residents with family ties to the region, and many become engaged in thedaily community activities and groups for the months they live in Invermere. Thisengagement in informal and formal community life by the temporary residentscreates a perception of community, and if this community is challenged, it isexpected that these temporary residents would feel compelled to resist or addressthe challenges. In doing this, they would be expected to bring with them their outof province resources and social networks, and thus, introduce bridging capital.This bridging capital, however, is limited. Surveyed residents disagreed with thestatement that the provincial and federal governments contribute to the commu-nity, which suggest high levels of diversified bridging capital are not present in thecommunity. These disagreements could be indicative of the community’s apparentdissatisfaction with the provincial governments’ dealings of the EA process for theJumbo project, and the barriers to high level bridging capital this has introduced.

The research results suggest that both tourism developers and governmentagencies with an oversight mandate for tourism developments such as Jumbo


Glacier should consider how best to mitigate potential impacts on social capitaland social sustainability. For example, resort developers could tap into existingsocial capital and social networks in Invermere by inviting representatives of thesenetworks to participate in the resort’s planning. Government agencies could alsorequire developers to provide funding to support or enhance existing social net-works. Another example of how to support social capital and social sustainabilitymight be the creation of entirely new groups or networks (e.g., communityadvisory board or planning forum) with a specific focus on mitigating potentialresort impacts on nearby communities.

In summary, Invermere residents perceived that the development of thehypothetical ski resort would result in a small but significant decrease in theirquality of life. If this were the case for other communities in the region that do nothave the diversified economy or social capital that Invermere has, these commu-nities could potentially become overwhelmed by change and be less successful atadapting to changing conditions. It is suggested that communities with both lowlevels of economic and social diversification may find it harder to adapt to outsidechange, which would an indicative of low levels of social sustainability.

Conclusion

The study revealed a small but significant negative difference between Invermererespondents’ quality of life pre- versus post-ski resort development, suggestingthat increased tourism development would decrease Invermere residents perceivedquality of life. Respondents’ general attitudes towards tourism development andthe Jumbo Resort project had a statistically significant correlation to perceivedquality of life and interpretations of how tourism might impact quality of life.Generally, residents viewed economic impacts of tourism more positively thansocial and environmental impacts, which tended to be viewed more negatively.These results are consistent with other research findings. This research alsosuggests that support for or diversification of social capital may play an importantrole in assisting a community to adapt to the changing conditions brought onby tourism development. This finding is significant for community planners,governments and developers. If these actors truly wish to plan developments undera “sustainable community development” framework, the development, diversifi-cation and maintenance of social capital should be emphasised during the wholedevelopment process.

While this research contributes to the social science discipline as an example ofusing quantitative methods to help validate the importance of qualitative topicssuch as social impacts, it is acknowledged that minor changes to the research


design and delivery may have yielded different results. Invermere’s communitystructure was revealed as consisting of a mixture of permanent residents, long-termseasonal residents and new, less community-established temporary residents. Toexplore further the issue of social change within a community structured likeInvermere, it is recommended that future research explicitly identify these threecommunity groups as independent samples, which would allow for inter-groupcomparison and would aid in understanding how social changes may or may notaccrue differently across these sub-populations. Changing the season of sampling,or adding multiple data collection periods throughout the year may also bevaluable design consideration for future studies of this nature. It is also suggestedthat the linkages between social capital and social sustainability in tourism-affectedcommunities be a much more central focus of future research.

It was found that quality of life assessment can make valuable contributions tothe fields of social impact assessment, social capital and socially sustainabletourism development. It is recognized that often such social assessments may notbe employed or are discredited given their lack of a solid foundation in the “hard”sciences, and given the subjectivity and qualitative methods often used in derivingquality of life and social impact measurements. Although social scientists may findit difficult in validating and integrating their findings and results into economicimpact assessments, which are traditionally, quantitatively approached, it is stillrecognized that the results of such assessments can make valuable contributions tothe fields of sustainable tourism and sustainable community development.

References

Ap, J (1992). Residents’ perceptions of tourism impacts. Annals of Tourism Research,19, 665–690.

Ap, J and J Crompton (1998). Developing and testing a tourism impact scale. Journal ofTravel Research, 37, 120–130.

Chambers, N, C Simmons and M Wackernagel (2000). Sharing Nature’s Interest: Eco-logical Footprints as An Indicator of Sustainability. Virginia, United States: EarthscanPublications.

Culbertson, K, S Jackson and J Kolberg (1991). Loving the mountains to death: Toward adefinition of sustainable development in the roaring Fork Valley of Colorado. InMountain Resort Development: Proceedings of the Vail Conference April 18th–21st,Gill, A and R Hartmann (eds.). Vail, Colorado: Canadian Cataloguing in PublicationData.

Diekhoff, G (1992). Statistics for the Social and Behavorial Sciences: Univariate,Bivariate, Multivariate. Dubuque, IA: Wm. C Brown Publishers.


Diener, E and E Suh (1997). Measuring quality of life: Economic, Social and Subjectiveindicators. Social Indicator Research, 40, 189–216.

Dillard, J, V Dujon and MC King (2009). Introduction. In Understanding the SocialDimensions of Sustainability. Dillard, J, V Dujon and MC King (eds.) Taylor andFrancis: New York.

Edward-Jones, G, B Davies and S Hussain (2000). Ecological Economics: An Introduc-tion. Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell Science Ltd.

Folmer, H and H Gabel (2000). Principles of Environmental and Resource Economics:A Guide for Students and Decision-Makers, 2nd edn., Northampton, Massachusetts:Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd.

Getz, D (1994). Residents’ attitudes towards tourism: A longitudinal study of Spey Valley,Scotland. Tourism Management, 15(4), 247–58.

Hair, J, R Bush and D Oranitu (2000). Marketing Research: Within a Changing Infor-mation Environment, 2nd edn., New York: McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.

Harill, R (2004). Resident attitudes towards tourism development: A literature review withimplications for tourism planning. Journal of Planning Literature, 18(3), 252–267.

Healy, K, L Ayres and A Hampshire (2003). Social capital and quality of life in geo-graphically diverse communities affected by rapid social and economic change. Ben-evolent Society. [on-line]. Accessed on February 5th, 2005 from http://www.bensoc.asn.au/research/aifs2003.html.

Jumbo Glacier Resort (2009). Jumbo Glacier Resort website. Accessed on June 24, 2009from http://www.jumboglacierresort.com/.

Jurowski, C and DO Brown (2001). A comparison of the views of involved versusnoninvolved citizens on quality of life and tourism development issues. Journal ofHospitality and Tourism Research, 25(4), 355–370.

Jurowski, C and D Gursoy (2004). Distance effects on resident attitudes towards tourism.Annals of Tourism Research, 31(2), 396–312.

Kelly, G and L Sreec (2004). Communities coping with change: A conceptual model.Journal of Community Psychology, 32(2), 201–216.

Kim, K (2002). The Effects of Tourism Impacts on Quality of Life of the Residents in theCommunity. PhD Thesis. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University: Depart-ment of Hospitality and Tourism Management.

Lindberg, K, T Andersson and B Dellaert (2001). Tourism development: Assessing socialgains and losses. Annals of Tourism Research, 28(4), 1010–1030.

Massam, BH (2002). Quality of life: Public planning and private living. Progress inPlanning, 58, 141–228.

Putnam, RD (1995). Bowling alone: America’s declining social capital. Journal ofDemocracy, 6(1), 65–78.

Reimer, B (2002a). Understanding Social Capital: Its Nature and Manifestations in RuralCanada. Paper Prepared for Presentation at the CSAA Annual Conference, Toronto.


Reimer, B (2002b). Understanding and measuring social capital and social cohesion.Accessed on Aug 23, 2010 at ftp://132.205.182.30/spss_2001/3csmeasures1.pdf.

Rodriguez, M and C Leon (2004). Altruism and the economic value of environmental andsocial policies. Environmental and Resource Economics, 28, 233–249.

Rydin, Y and N Holman (2004). Re-evaluating the contribution of social capital inachieving sustainable development. Local Environment, 9(2), 117–133.

Sirgy, M, D Rahtz, M Cicic and R Underwood (2000). A method of assessing residents’satisfaction with community based services: A quality-of-life perspective. SocialIndicator Research, 49, 279–316.

Wackernagel, M and W Rees (1996). Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing Human Impacton the Earth. Gabriola Island, British Columbia: New Society Publishers.

Wallis, J and P Killerby (2004). Social economics and social capital. International Journalof Social Economics, 32(3), 239–258.


QUALITY OF LIFE ASSESSMENTS AND SOCIAL SUSTAINABILITY: SKI TOURISM DEVELOPMENT IN INVERMERE, BRITISH...

Documents

Transcript of QUALITY OF LIFE ASSESSMENTS AND SOCIAL SUSTAINABILITY: SKI TOURISM DEVELOPMENT IN INVERMERE, BRITISH...