(with case study and sustainability strategy for Similkameen Valley, BC, Canada) .... Glorioso, R.S. Planning for sustainable living in high amenity communities: ...
Global Amenity Migration© (with case study and sustainability strategy for Similkameen Valley, BC, Canada)
Romella S. Glorioso, PhD & Laurence A.G. Moss, PhD Prepared for Winter 2014-2015 block course & lectures
International Amenity Migration Centre www.amenitymigration.org Glorioso, Moss & Associates www.gloriosomoss.com
Amenity Migration people moving to places perceived as having a higher quality of natural environment and/or more distinctive culture to improve their quality of life • multidimensional & complex phenomenon • both opportunity & threat to sustaining ecologies & their human communities
Source: Sonoran Institute (2006) Gallatin County’s Future: It’s Our Legacy
Amenity Valuing 19th c
late 19th C: “amenities” in forest management = meat, later re-creation
20th c
mid 20th C: natural “amenity resources” attracting people for regional development Ullman (1954), Perloff & Wingo (1964)
21st c
late 20th C: “amenity movers”/ “amenity migrants” Sofranko & Williams (1980), et al “amenity migration” Moss (1987), et al © IAMC (2012)
Amenity Migration Mobility Web A) Step-wise Movement
Tourist Visit(s)
Multiple Residence
Permanent Residence
B) Direct Movement
C) Serial Movement
1st AM Place 2nd AM Place
back to city Source: Moss & Glorioso (eds) (2014) Global Amenity Migration: Transforming Rural Culture, Economy & Landscape. New Ecology Press, Kaslo, BC & Spokane, WA, p. 144.
Mountain Amenity Migration Construct (2010) MOTIVATORS
FACILITATORS
© Glorioso & Moss, 2010
I M P O R T A N C E
access technology (+) cost of living (+M, -m) comfort amenities (+) discretionary wealth (-M; +m) discretionary time (-)
metro (+) peri-urban (+) resort (+) gentrified (+) traditional rural (+)
FACILITATORS
amenity consumption (+) recreation (+) metropolitan life (+) economic gain (+) aesthetic/ metaphysical MOTIVATORS experience (-M, +m) climate change (+)
I M P O R T A N C E
DOMINANT NEOLIBERAL POLITICAL ECONOMY
SPATIAL FORM
IMPACTS
environmental (-) socio-cultural (-) economic (+, -) political (+,-) technological (+)
LEGEND: (+) factor/type strengthening/increasing; (-) factor/type weakening/decreasing; (M) for majority; (m) for minority; (↓) importance of key facilitating and motivating factors decreases from top to bottom of list.
Source: Moss & Glorioso (eds) (2014) Global Amenity Migration: Transforming Rural Culture, Economy & Landscape. New Ecology Press, Kaslo, BC & Port Townsend, WA, p. 13.
Key Impacts of Amenity Migration Biophysical • Extensive & excessive land use = sprawl over land (“green sprawl”) • High land conversion to residential use • Stress & degradation of ecological systems/ services • Fragmentation of natural habitats • Reduction & destruction of landscape & scenic beauty
Economic • Some diversification & development of local economies • Some increase in jobs (mainly service sector) • Inflow of capital (mainly for real estate development) © IAMC, 2015
Key Impacts of Amenity Migration Socio-cultural • New ideas & new lifeways • Significant increase in cost of living w/ increasing income disparity between local born & raised and many amenity migrants • Spatial & social displacement of local born & raised/ modest income amenity migrants • Heightened sense of impermanence due to multi-dwelling & less than “permanent” dwelling • Often loss of locals’ political control
© IAMC, 2015
RESPONSES TO AMENITY MIGRATION REACTIVE PROACTIVE
PRESENT • little understanding or slow realization • unstrategic, piece meal & reactive response • anti-planning ethic with change being ratified not guided
EMERGING • growing local articulation of dissatisfaction & opposition to degrading change • more planners understanding pattern & significance • increasing search for means to address the movement & benefit locally from it © IAMC, 2015
Key Recommendations • increase systemic knowledge about amenity migration and its effects • greater attention to managing amenity migration for both sustainability & pleasure of the greater community • considerably more strategic, innovative & radical thinking and management methods © IAMC, 2015
Sustainable Similkameen Valley STRATEGY (2011-2020)
See two chapters below in Moss, L.A.G. & Glorioso, R.S., eds. (2014) Global Amenity Migration: Transforming Rural Culture, Economy & Landscape, The New Ecology Press, Kaslo, BC & Port Townsend, WA, 435 pp. Glorioso, R.S. The role of amenities in crafting a regional sustainability strategy: The Similkameen Valley in Western Canada, pp 137-159. Glorioso, R.S. Planning for sustainable living in high amenity communities: Charting the course in an era of unprecedented climate change and uncertainty, pp 407-425.
Similkameen Valley, BC, Canada Photograph courtesy of Wines of Canada, Autumn 2010
SOUTH OKANAGAN
Population Growth Rate (2000-2005)
5.9%
5.3% 3.4%
Similkameen Valley
Column2
Column3
South Okanagan Valley (adjacent)
Column1 British Columbia
Note: Maps are from The State of Fish & Fish Habitat in the Okanagan & Similkameen Basins , Fisheries & Ocenas Canada, et al. (2005).
Key Findings • Amenity-led migration in the Valley has been significant Valley Population Resident Type 70%
64%
60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10%
16% 9%
5%
6%
0% Amenity Economic Local Returned migrant migrant person born resident
Other
RESPONDENTS’ TOP THREE REASONS FOR MOVING/RESIDING IN SIMILKAMEEN VALLEY AMENITY MIGRANTS
ECONOMIC MIGRANTS
LOCAL BORN & RAISED
RETURNED RESIDENTS
OTHERS
“To enjoy clean air” (68%)
“To enjoy clean rivers and lakes” (54%)
“To enjoy clean air” (67%)
“Because of the climate” and “To live in rural community” (tied at 64%)
“To enjoy clean air” , and “To enjoy clean rivers and lakes” (tied at 60%)
“To enjoy clean rivers and lakes”, “Because of the climate”, “For peace and quiet” (tied at 62%)
“For a job” (51%)
“To enjoy clean rivers” and lakes” and “Because of mountains and mountain views” (tied at 52%)
“To enjoy clean rivers and lakes” and “For peace and quiet” (tied at 54%);
“To live in an area of diverse plants/wildlife”, “For peace and quiet” , “To live in a safer place”, & “To live in a rural community” (tied at 53%)
“Because of mountains and mountain views”(50%).
“To enjoy clean air” & “Because of the climate” (tied at 49%)
“Because of the climate” and “For peace and quiet” (tied at 48%)
“To enjoy clean air”, “Because of mountains and mountain views”, and “To live in a safer place” (tied at 46%).
“Because of the climate”, and “Because of mountains and mountain views” (tied at 47%)
Permanent amenity migrants are not affluent. Their median income in 2007 was CDN$ 45,000.
40% lower than local born & raised
35% lower than economic migrants
Does not refer to total wealth of resident type.
120%
100%
% Participation
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Avoid use of pesticides
Use low impact or nonmotorized forms
Use native plants
Use lowflush toilet
Use solar panels or wind energy
88%
66%
45%
44%
43%
23%
19%
97%
89%
60%
51%
35%
38%
24%
90%
100%
80%
50%
50%
60%
10%
67%
76%
62%
33%
38%
48%
24%
Separate recyclable garbage
Conserve household energy use
Amenity migrant
93%
Economic migrant Returned resident Local person
Economic migrants are more resource-conserving and participate more in the community than amenity migrants.
Bicycle to work
Use grey water for watering the lawn
Use public transport
Drive a hybrid car
20%
7%
7%
4%
0.7%
27%
22%
11%
3%
5%
0%
10%
10%
0%
0%
0%
0%
19%
14%
5%
5%
5%
0%
Share a ride Use to work xeriscaping
80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Attend public hearings
Participate in community meetings
Amenity migrant
44%
42%
34%
39%
5%
Economic migrant
60%
46%
54%
54%
11%
Local person
48%
57%
43%
29%
0%
Returned resident
73%
36%
46%
46%
9%
Other
47%
60%
40%
33%
7%
Volunteer time Donate money & skills
Other
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%
Separate recyclable garbage
Use solar panels
Use native plants
Avoid use of pesticides
Conserve energy use
Use low-flow flush toilet
Non-motorized outdoor recreation
Xeriscaping
Use grey water
Use public transportation
Share ride
Bicycle to work Drive hybrid car
Others
permanent
86%
9%
31%
63%
80%
34%
42%
10%
3%
2%
8%
4%
3%
3%
seasonal
88%
19%
44%
56%
81%
63%
44%
6%
6%
6%
6%
6%
0%
6%
intermittent
92%
19%
50%
69%
81%
46%
42%
12%
19%
8%
8%
12%
0%
0%
permanent
seasonal
intermittent
50% 45%
Part-time amenity migrants have more resource-conserving values and behaviour and participate more in the community compared to permanent amenity migrants.
40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Attend public hearings
Participate in Volunteer community time & skills meetings
Donate money
Others
“Age” is the most important factor influencing migrants’ conservation values and behaviour and community participation – generally, the younger the more conserving.
MSSP Characteristics 1) Analysis is anchored on achieving clearly stated, and agreed upon mission, objective or strategic concern. 2) Focus on understanding of the strategic environment (external analysis) resulting to gaining insights of the uncertainties of the future. 3) Use of intuitive logic scenarios approach to bound uncertainties, complexities & issues 4) Iterative and participatory. 5) Continuous scanning and monitoring (surveillance) = deals more effectively with CHANGE.
MISSION STATEMENT To establish a socio-cultural, economic and environmental sustainability strategy for the Similkameen Valley that will maintain and enhance the quality of our rural and small town lifestyle.
MISSION OBJECTIVES 1. Celebrate the socio-cultural and bio-
physical diversity of our Valley. 2. Protect our Valley’s water, land, air quality and biodiversity.
3. Promote a diverse Valley economy with multiple opportunities. 4. Maintain a physically, culturally and spiritually healthy Similkameen Valley. 5. Propose a means to implement, monitor and evaluate our Valley’s sustainability strategy. 6. Increase the participation of Similkameen Valley residents in achieving this mission.
Scenario Logics Quadrants increasing demand for amenity places
decreasing local role in public policy decision-making for sustainability
Scenario B: Gradual Shift (-,+)
Scenario A: Rural Engagement (+,+)
Scenario C: Tough Times (-,-)
Scenario D: 5 Grand Cities (+,-)
decreasing demand for amenity places Source: Glorioso, Moss & Assocs. and Similkameen Valley Planning Society (2010) Sustainable Similkameen Strategy.
increasing local role in public policy decision-making for sustainability
How will the World impact Similkameen Valley? SCENARIOS KEY CHARACTERISTICS
A: Rural Engagement
B: Gradual Shift
C: Tough Times
D: 5 Grand Cities
HIGH
MODERATE
VERY LOW
LOW high migration to urban centres
Local role in governance federal & BC (for supporting sustainability)
HIGH decentralized governance
LOW centralized governance
LOW centralized governance
HIGH (Urban) LOW (Rural) decentralized urban governance
Shift in societal values (for supporting sustainability)
HIGH resource conservers predominate
LOW & SLOW mixed
VERY LOW resource consumers predominate
MODERATE mixed
In-migration (mainly for natural environment & rural lifestyle)
Economic development (with rural/urban distribution of benefits) First Nations self-determination Climate change action (collaborative action & shift to alternative energy) • Global warming • Interior BC temperature increase (1900-2040)
MODERATE high rural/urban equality HIGH HIGH MODERATE + 2.0⁰C
LOW & SLOW moderate rural/urban equality
VERY LOW favours cities
HIGH & LOW high urban, low rural
LOW to MODERATE
LOW
MODERATE
LOW HIGH +3.5⁰C
MODERATE to HIGH MEDIUM +2.5⁰C
LOW to MODERATE MEDIUM + 2.4⁰C
8 KEY VALLEY ISSUES STRATEGY MUST ADDRESS Adapting & mitigating climate change effects
3 STRATEGIC THRUSTS Attracting migrants that assist mission achievement (amenity, economic, climate change migrants)
Sustain & strengthen the Valley’s socio-cultural integrity
Conserving use of natural resources & environment (water, air, land, forest, range, wildlife)
Increasing residents’ participation in governance
Sustain & rehabilitate the Valley’s environmental & natural resources health
Providing appropriate housing
Community Development of Indian Bands
Building a Valley-wide Community Developing sustainable economic activities
Increase the Valley’s sustainable economic activity
Thrust 1 Sustain & strengthen the Valley’s socio-cultural integrity Increase involvement of Valley residents in especially strengthening local social & cultural institutions & activities ( & secondarily, in influencing senior governments decisions, through participation in elections, & volunteer community development & conservation organizations & government committees & boards).
Attract (compete for) in-migrants having values that complement the mission objectives of sustaining the quality of its environmental amenities and small-town lifestyle. *
Provide housing that helps the Valley develop a balanced population (children, workers and retirees).
Strengthen a Valley-wide sense of community belonging through heightening awareness and value of Valley‘s rich cultural & biological diversity and natural & cultural history.
Undertake a demographic forecast for Scenario B.
Thrust 2 Sustain & rehabilitate the Valley’s environmental & natural resources health Mitigate and adapt to climate change by increasing local environmental conservation, efficiency of resource use & shifting to alternative energy.
Improve water management significantly and integrate management into Valley-specific climate change (especially in Scenario B context).
Develop environmental management.
Attract (compete for) in-migrants having values that complement the Valley’s mission objectives of sustaining the quality of its environmental amenities and small-town lifestyle. Regulate housing & residential development for conservation of especially land, water and energy & air quality.
Increase and improve public planning.
Thrust 3 Increase the Valley’s sustainable economic activity Increase economic diversity and value.
Attract (compete for) knowledgeintensive, innovative and resourceconserving in-migrants (from among potential amenity migrants, economic migrants, climate change migrants).
Increase access to housing, especially for market entry-level families of young in-migrants and local born.
Formulate a Valley-wide Sustainable Economic Development Plan & a mechanism to implement it.
3 Thrusts 11 Tactics
Key Strategy Use to Date (2014) • formally adopted by local & regional governments, but limited commitment to implementation • limited guide for comprehensive watershed & water management assessment and action plan • framework for 2 rural electoral district’s 1st Official Community Plan (OCP) • calibration of 2 principal municipalities’ OCPs • limited guide for Valley sustainable tourism plan • integrated with the Valley’s new Biodiversity Strategy • residents’ further engagement in strategy implementation
The International Amenity Migration Centre www.amenitymigration.org
