Table 23.1. Participant description.
23 The 2-Year Tourist: Lifestyle Migration in Whistler, British Columbia
Mount Royal University, Calgary, AB, Canada
*E-mail: jpavelka@mtroyal.ca
The purpose of this chapter is to describe the landed negotiation dynamic of a particular group of lifestyle migrants in Whistler, British Columbia, Canada. The Resort Municipality of Whistler, BC is a tourism mecca anchored by the Vail Resorts Ltd’s Whistler Blackcomb Mountain ski operation, which consistently ranks globally as one of the best winter tourism destinations (Tourism Whistler, 2018). Whistler operates year-round and requires a small army of seasonal, part-time and full-time employees. Thousands of transient young people come from around the world each year to work a season in Whistler and leave; they are not the focus of this research. There is a smaller group of relatively young people who migrate to Whistler to make it their permanent home. They are not retirees, remote tech workers, trust fund babies or second homeowners. They are lifestyle migrants seeking to participate in Whistler’s winter mountain recreation, but they also need to work. Their sustained commitment to Whistler means they have gained valuable year-over-year experience in the ski or tourism industry, and often occupy supervisory and leadership positions. This makes them a lifestyle migrant group and an important labour cohort in a winter resort destination that consistently struggles with staffing issues (Dupuis, 2015).
The reality is that many in this cohort who arrive intent on living the ‘Whistler Dream’ encounter consistent and often profound struggles with structural elements such as housing, cost of living, low wages, etc., and end up determining that the cost of living the dream outweighs the benefits, and so they opt to leave. The ‘2-year tourist’ is a local term that was used initially to describe Australians and New Zealanders on a working visa. However, it is now often applied to lifestyle migrants who do not make it past the 2 years. This research explores the landed negotiation of this cohort, including motivation for migration, landed challenges, perceived differences in those who stay to work through the trade-offs and those who leave. The value of this research is to shed light on an under-represented subgroup of lifestyle migrants who also represent an important labour cohort in resort communities where there is often labour instability.
The Resort Municipality of Whistler is located 120 km north of Vancouver, BC. It includes a myriad of outdoor and touristic amenities, with the primary attraction being Whistler Mountain and Blackcomb Mountain. In 1966, Whistler Mountain was known as London Mountain, a ski operation in the midst of a failed Olympic bid. By the mid-1970s, it was recognized as a premium ski area. In 1980, Blackcomb Mountain opened next to Whistler’s ski operation. The two remained separate until they were purchased by Intrawest in 1997. They merged in 2003 and became central to Whistler’s 2010 hosting of the Winter Olympics and Para-Olympics. In 2015, Intrawest sold its share of Whistler Blackcomb to Vail Resorts Incorporated. By August 2016, Vail Resorts Inc. owned all of Whistler Blackcomb Mountain (Vail Resorts Fact Sheet, 2018). In 2017, the Resort Municipality of Whistler generated CA$1.44 billion in revenue and recorded over 3 million visitors (40% of those visitors come for winter recreation). There are just over 12,000 full-time residents in the community. Whistler Mountain alone requires 4692 staff to operate, and there are just over 15,000 people employed in tourism overall. The average daily population of Whistler is 30,000 people, with tourists making up over 60% of that crowd (Resort Municipality of Whistler, 2018). Whistler is mainly a tourism destination, but it certainly attracts those who want to make it their home.
Amenity and lifestyle migration have been central features of Whistler for decades (Gripton, 2009). It is easy to see the attraction of Whistler as a lifestyle migration destination. It exists in an outdoor recreation mecca with amenities for people of all abilities and tastes. It is situated in a stable country, and is close to a major city and the Vancouver International Airport. Forty-four per cent of Whistler’s 10,000 private dwellings are occupied by ‘usual residents’. The 56% of temporarily occupied dwellings imply that it is a second home economy. As well, just over 80% of Whistler’s population is between 15 and 64 years, the average age is 36 and just over 60% have a university degree (Statistics Canada, 2016), which reflects strong in-migration.
There has been much written about amenity migration in the past decades dating back to the back-to-the-land movement of the 1960s (Gosnell and Adrams, 2011). It is projected that amenity migration will increase globally (Cohen et al., 2015). Amenity migration is considered a part of the larger phenomenon of lifestyle migration (Benson and O’Reilly, 2009). Motivations for lifestyle migration can be understood in contrast to those of economic migration, which is an older and more clearly understood phenomenon (Waltert and Schlapfer, 2007). Though most dimensions of lifestyle migration are relevant in Whistler, the aim of this section is to define lifestyle migration and its motivations, and situate the sample of this research in the broader context of lifestyle migrants.
Lifestyle migration is defined as ‘The movement of people based on the draw of natural and/or cultural amenities’ (Gosnell and Abrams, 2011, p. 3). It is further characterized as ‘a constant negotiating and re-negotiating of a path amidst the complex, chaotic and constantly changing socio-economic conditions…’ (McIntyre, 2009, p. 230). Individuals are attracted to a particular destination based on a variety of factors, such as one’s personal traits, the motivation to travel and for leisure, all of which can be grounded within a broad conceptual push–pull scenario (Suvantola, 2002). For example, the push to ‘escape from where I was’ and the pull of a mountain recreation lifestyle can fit well within the push and pull framework. Cohen (1979) suggests that the push and pull is due to alienation in one’s home place and the search for authenticity in the other. The push–pull aspect of lifestyle migration cannot be overstated given that the chosen destination must offer potential for a lifestyle that is not present in the previous.
A common explanation of amenity migration is the counter-urban movement, which Gosnell and Abrams (2011) claim is based on decades of economic restructuring and job loss/instability, which leads to the rejection and an ‘opting out’ of the American Dream. It is also argued to be inextricably linked to identity and identity seeking (Williams and McIntyre, 2002; Torkington, 2012). Leisure motivation and negotiation is central to amenity migration (Sherlock, 2001; Pavelka and Draper, 2015), although less attention has been paid to the leisure negotiation process for amenity migrants. Other factors understood to contribute to amenity migration include increased flexibility of work schedules, a desire for healthy lifestyles, improved quality and access to recreation and leisure resources, growth in the leisure and tourism sector, increased marketing and advertising, and growth in leisure and travel technology that make mobility more accessible (Gartner and Lime, 2000). Torkington (2010) argues that the motives underlying such migration includes a better family environment, a lower cost of living, rising affluence, the rise of enabling technologies and the breakdown of social roles that allow for mobility. In essence, lifestyle migration occurs when people seek to reside in a place where they believe they can achieve a lifestyle that is preferable to what they thought possible in their previous residence.
Lifestyle migrants are not a homogeneous group and the lines separating the tourist, the lifestyle traveller and the lifestyle migrant are blurred. The sample for this research consists of relatively younger people. Most have travelled extensively, but have now determined to make Whistler their long-term home. Not to be confused with what Kannisto (2018) refers to as a group of young people who seek ‘to travel like locals’. This group engages in market resistance to avoid tourism and want to connect with locals only. For this study’s participants, the desire to be locals while avoiding tourism would be impossible in Whistler. This sample may also be confused with what Cohen (2011) refers to as lifestyle travellers, that is, people who travel for years on end. Both lifestyle travellers and lifestyle migrants are seeking to consume lifestyle. The difference between Cohen’s sample and this sample is that the former seeks lifestyle through constant travel, while the latter believes their lifestyle is found by living in Whistler. The many styles of mobility serve to underscore that for young people today, mobility is viewed more as right or a given, rather than a privilege (Skrbis et al., 2014).
There are numerous typologies of lifestyle and amenity migrants. For example, in an analysis of ski industry towns in Colorado, Perdue (2004) claims that there are six types of migrants or locals. These include traditional ski bums, new ski bums, migrants (seasonal workers), trust fund babies, techies and entrepreneurs, all of whom he claims have significant impact on forming the nature and character of the ski industry town in Colorado. In their review of amenity migration in Canmore, Alberta, Robertson and Stark (2006) report the results of a focus group-style meeting with real estate agents. They conclude that there are five different types of people who purchase homes in the Canmore area: wealthy baby boomers over 40, valley workers buying their first home, investors seeking to speculate, ‘lifestylers’ who are usually from Alberta and second home owners.
Pavelka (2008) presents a typology of amenity migrants to the winter resort destination of Banff and Canmore, Alberta, also with five predominant types. The first consists of those fully transplanted individuals seeking a mountain recreation lifestyle. They need to work and knowingly sacrifice traditional success measures such as a career, home ownership and, at times, family, but are determined to make it work. The second is the same individual seeking a mountain recreation lifestyle and who must work, but at some point determines the costs are too great and leaves. The third is the fully transplanted individual who has worked through the initial years of struggle, found a suitable job or career and is raising a family much like their counterparts in urban settings. The fourth type is the long-term member of the community who cares less about mountain recreation and more about a strong social network. This type feels little to no conflict about living in a resort community and is generally found in the hospitality sector. The final person does not rely on the community for income and may be a second home owner, retiree, commuter or simply in a position where they are not required to work. This typology is based on the level of resistance that the different groups experience in relation to their aim of full-time residency, and the structural elements of place.
The sample of lifestyle migrants for this research can be found in the Pavelka (2008) typology to a certain degree. For example, the Whistler sample shares traits with the first and second group of fully transplanted migrants. They are seeking a mountain recreation lifestyle, rely on the community for employment and are working through the structural constraints. This group is mostly aware of the trade-offs that are required to move into the third group of settled migrants with a family, steady jobs and a career. The landed negotiation dynamic of lifestyle migrants refers to what they encounter upon arriving at their destination, and the ensuing negotiation to match expectation. Leisure Constraint Theory (Jackson et al., 1993) postulates that people negotiate for their leisure through a series of three hierarchically ordered constraints in the form of intra-personal (personal values), inter-personal (significant others) and structural constraints (time, money, opportunity). Pavelka and Draper (2015) used the theory to explore the landed negotiation dynamic of lifestyle migrants to the Bow Valley. They concluded that the negotiation of structural constraints is the most important factor in determining whether migrants remain or leave. Structural components such as the economy, housing, roads, and health and educational infrastructure all contribute to the negotiation process (Robertson and Stark, 2006).
Sixteen participants were recruited using a snowball method, the criteria was based on individuals who had the intention of living in Whistler indefinitely, have lived in Whistler for at least 2 years and had maintained winter employment in the resort community. Data collection involved a qualitative in-depth interview process based on four key questions: motivation for living in Whistler, challenges of life in Whistler, what is the difference between those who stay and leave, and their thoughts on the future. All interviews were recorded, transcribed and analysed for emergent themes. Transcription analysis was carried out using NVivo software whereby key themes and words were abstracted and over multiple analytical iterations, smaller clusters of themes settled. Only high-level themes are presented for the purpose of this chapter. The methodology closely follows that of Pavelka and Draper (2015) in their investigation of amenity migrants in Banff and Canmore, Alberta.
Table 23.1 presents a summary of the participants by age, length of time in Whistler, educational attainment, place of origin and gender. Of the 16 participants, the age range is from 20 to 34 years with a mean age of 29 years; the 2016 Whistler census reports the mean age to be 35.9 years. There are slightly more men than women – nine males to seven females, as shown in Whistler’s reported population of 54% male and 46% female (Statistics Canada, 2016). The number of years each has resided in Whistler ranges from 2–12 years with a mean of 5.71 years. However, there are five participants (participants 4, 10, 13, 14, 15) who indicate that they have left Whistler during the summers for high-paying jobs elsewhere in order to earn enough money to return to work for the winter season at the ski school. This is not completely uncommon among lifestyle migrants (O’Reilly and Benson, 2016). All but three participants either work, or have worked, for Whistler Blackcomb Mountain at some point. Canada, the UK and Australia make up the places of origin, which appears homogeneous.
Participants were asked about their motivation for choosing Whistler as their long-term residence. All participants pursued a mountain recreation lifestyle variably defined, but consistently positioned in difference to one’s previous place of residence. The most common theme is that participants sought an active mountain lifestyle involving a combination of mountain sports and touristic employment. The majority of participants arrived at Whistler via employment with the Whistler Blackcomb Mountain Snow School. Many (three-quarters) arrived with ski/snowboard experience from another resort in Europe, New Zealand or Canada, the others had no previous experience in ski/snowboard instruction.
Participants were asked why they chose Whistler specifically. Their response highlighted the reputation and stature of Whistler: ‘Its Whistler, it’s the biggest and best – of course I want to live in Whistler … everyone knows Whistler…’ and ‘if you’re serious about a career in the ski industry you have to get to Whistler at some point’. The stature of Whistler within the world of snow sports makes it the place to be for those contemplating a career in the field. The relatively structured environment of snow school employment offers a reliable work schedule. For some, a residence-style accommodation was reported to provide a season of stability to get settled into the area, acquire a social network and learn of other opportunities.
The pursuit of an active mountain lifestyle invariably involves the pursuit of a like-minded social network that participants believed to be more likely in Whistler than in their previous place of residence. ‘Your family’s thousands of miles away and you meet a group of friends here that become your family’ is a common sentiment regarding the strength of social pull. Just under half of the participants specifically noted the attraction of finding a cohort that they get to choose versus the one they grew up with in their hometown. ‘I had great mates at home but they didn’t share my values of the outdoors and skiing and just living well … here I can find people who share my values’.
During the course of the interviews, the importance of reinventing one’s identity emerged among all participants in one way or another. The prospect of reinvention is common to all sorts of leisure migration including lifestyle migration (Nudrali and O’Reilly, 2016). Some participants spoke of reinvention in obvious ways such as, ‘At home I was just another kid, but here I get to be and do the things I’m actually good at’. For others reinvention is subtler, whether it is to find a new group of friends or live an adventure-based lifestyle different from home that is considered to be exotic, relative to those of their old friends who were pursuing traditional paths. Two participants reported coming from strict religious households where life in Whistler represented an emancipation of sorts, where they could be whomever they choose.
Another theme is the attraction to living and identifying with a counter-culture lifestyle, but here the term counter-culture, which is prominent in lifestyle migration literature (Gosnell and Abrams, 2011), requires clarification. On one level it can be argued that there is little that is ‘counter-culture’ about Whistler, given that it exists as a commercial behemoth of tourism. On the other hand, choosing to live in Whistler compared with the hordes of tourists on holiday represents a commitment to a life of adventure and uncertainty that most are not willing to undertake. Their decision to reside in Whistler compared with the thousands who holiday there and return home makes this group of lifestyle migrants different. And being different is what subtly defines counter-culture. O’Reilly and Benson (2016) claim that working lifestyle migrants seek the renegotiation of work–life balance towards an ideal quality of life. This is true of the sample for this research as they all seek agency over their work–life balance.
Lifestyle migration literature recognizes many challenges to life once the migrant has landed. Depending on the context, there may be a new language to learn, making a new set of friends, local resentment, working odd jobs to subsidize life in the new destination or simply that expectations did not meet the reality. Alternatively, as O’Reilly and Benson (2016) state, ‘…reality bites once they have settled into their lives at the new destination’ (p. 8). For this group of lifestyle migrants to Whistler, three themes emerged. The first theme is predictable and relates to the everyday negotiation of the structural elements of Whistler. The second is a rationalized repositioning of the idea of residency where they see themselves as a resident as opposed to a tourist. The third is the conflicted experience of outgrowing the place and gazing abroad.
Discourse on the challenges of living in Whistler can be heard in the cafes and pubs, and read in local newspapers and online chat rooms, it is simply hard to miss. The most profound challenge echoed by all participants is the negotiation of structural elements. These include the high cost of living, the scarcity of high-paying jobs, inconsistent or unreliable work, the lack of affordable accommodation requiring multiple jobs in order to afford rent and/or having to live with multiple roommates, poor transportation and not having access to relatively basic commercial goods. Securing accommodation is the most pressing of structural challenges and the one most likely to force a prospective employee to leave. All but two participants rent and two recently purchased a small townhouse in the town of Pemberton (80 km from Whistler) and commute to Whistler for work. Those who rent reported that despite their years in Whistler and the strength of their social networks, securing accommodation year over year remains a real concern. Four participants reported that it is not uncommon for new arrivals to spend half of their pay cheque on rent, which is not sustainable. Two reported living in crowded condominium units with seven other roommates, and another had just left a house with 11 roommates. They all reported that the first 2 years were the most difficult to negotiate accommodation because, as one participant noted, ‘It takes time to get to know the place and the sleuthing to get a decent place to live and network to get a decent job … it’s easy to live here and live like crap, but it’s really hard to carve out a decent life if you’re not totally rich here’.
Pavelka and Draper (2015) identify similar structural level concerns with amenity migrants in the Bow Valley, Banff and Canmore, Alberta. Working amenity migrants in the Bow Valley reported that the constant struggle with structural level constraints were the primary reason for leaving the area. Reeder and Brown (2005) claim that number of new jobs and earning potential generally increase with increased amenity migration development. Other researchers such as Nelson (2006) claim that in-migrants tend to outnumber jobs, and that the cost of living is a factor that causes many to leave their chosen communities. However in Whistler, all participants reported holding jobs. Though low-paying, they easily outnumber accommodations, evidenced by the number of ‘Employees Wanted’ signs on businesses, and reports of some businesses having to reduce hours of operation due to a lack of staffing.
For those who manage to work through the first 2 years and carve out a positive existence, their gaze may still shift to the outside world and a cognitive dissonance inevitably festers. All participants acknowledge that Whistler spawns a powerful bubble of reality with its own narrative and priorities; its exotic adventure dynamic can easily become the dominant narrative in one’s own life. However, just under half of the participants and all those with undergraduate degrees reported that the inward focus on Whistler, and the relentless struggle with structural elements eventually palls, launching a consideration of other ways of living outside of Whistler. Participants also acknowledge that there are few career and educational upgrading opportunities. Even for supervisory levels, wages are far less than what is required to purchase a home in the area without significant external support. Retirees and second homeowners generally do not require employment at their new destination, which simplifies daily life. However, the sample for this research is at the front end of their career and life building, they must grapple with the limited opportunities within the community or leave. Of the 16 participants, ten reported that the challenge of negotiating Whistler’s structural elements caused them to consider leaving the area altogether. Some reported that the prospect of leaving Whistler is a constant concern attached to the almost seasonal renegotiation of accommodations and jobs. The worry that one or the other will not fall into place makes an exit imminent. Participants were then asked what they perceived to be the differences between those come to Whistler with the aim of long-term residence and leave, and those who stay.
What do you do when you no longer want to teach skiing? Most participants came to Whistler to teach snow sports and move up in the ski industry. They teach skiing only to realize that it is not financially sustainable and upward mobility in the ski industry is a slow process. Many have taken on higher-paying hospitality jobs to increase their standard of living, but the choice is less appealing for the long term. This realization necessitates another reinvention, but again, the choices are to reinvent oneself within the constraints of the resources in the community, or leave. Participants discussed the underlying reasons why some people leave and others stay among those whose goal was to make Whistler their new long-term home.
When the costs of structural shortcomings overshadow the benefits of life in Whistler and an external option is presented, people leave. Perhaps for another resort community reputed to offer a better way of life, or back home where the prospects and limitations are at least familiar. Participants noted that the decision to leave is often precipitated by an event such as a physical injury that prevents them from working, creating a deficit in their finances. The decision to leave may be made when a close group of friends leave, or some are just not able to secure accommodations. Alternatively, as one participant noted, ‘They realize the cost of this great new you [reinvention] is not worth sharing a house with ten other guys’.
People leave because they are forced into successive and unsatisfying reinventions, eventually concluding that to realize their potential, they must leave Whistler. A third of the participants reported that they or their partner were seriously considering leaving to further their education. That same group expressed concerns about staying and ‘getting sucked into the Whistler vortex’ whereby they are living a life with a higher-paying job, but that offers little meaning, other than allowing them to stay in Whistler. Even so, the lure of simply staying is powerful, as one participant noted, ‘If people are not chased out, they leave because they want to be an adult, others just want to stay in the bubble’. One participant summed up the struggle by stating, ‘People come here to reinvent themselves whether they know it or not, and if they’re successful they’ll stay, if not – they won’t’.
Participants were asked to discuss their thoughts on the future of life in Whistler for working lifestyle migrants. There is no doubt that Whistler Blackcomb Mountain drives tourism for the resort municipality and that of the broader community, if not region. Vail’s 2016 purchase of Whistler Blackcomb Mountain moved it into the stable of a massive ski resort conglomerate, making change inevitable. All the participants harboured cautionary views on the future of the ‘hill’ and ‘village’, and while some were more vocal than others, the theme was consistent. Common concerns are that Whistler is getting too big, too corporate and contains too many rules. Over half of the participants noted that Whistler Blackcomb Mountain is trying to get rid of day trippers, who identify as ‘locals’, for more lucrative overnight guests. Participants reported disappointment in learning that Vail’s first significant capital development is to be a new chairlift, and not additional staff housing. They reported feeling underappreciated and fear it will erode the decades-old Whistler culture that made it a world-class resort.
The conclusion drawn by two-thirds of the participants is that despite the negative attention of the Vail Resorts Inc. acquisition, Whistler will continue to attract thousands of young people who will want to live the Whistler lifestyle. One-third offer a more pessimistic view that if a culture clash persists, it will eventually erode its reputation and attract only those who want to work a season and party, versus those who see it as a place to live and grow a career. However, this is not new, in their review of amenity migration in Whistler, Moore and Gill (2006) reported a transformation towards urbanization and a loss of character, declaring ‘The traditional ski culture of Whistler is gradually giving way to a broader and more urban lifestyle’.
The group of lifestyle migrants who are the object of this research follow a patterned course of events that frame their landed migrant experience. They are motivated to fashion an employment-based mountain recreation lifestyle within the backdrop of one of the most prominent winter resorts in North America. But the reality is that these people engage in multiple identity reinventions as they negotiate the realities of Whistler’s structure, and extend their identity to places both planned and not. At some point, they either determine that they have carved something to their liking, continue to struggle or leave. This is the likely scenario for a large group of employment-based lifestyle migrants to resort communities. It places McIntyre’s (2009; p. 230) characterization of lifestyle migration as ‘a constant negotiating and re-negotiating of a path amidst the complex, chaotic and constantly changing socio-economic conditions … (into a lived context)’.
The challenge that participants face in negotiating the structural elements of the community is central to the lived experience of this group. These findings are not new, others have reported on similar findings for lifestyle migrants (Pavelka and Draper, 2015; Benson and O’Reilly, 2016). However, it is important to situate this group within the findings, and in relation to other types of lifestyle migrants. The participants are intent on establishing an indefinite residency in Whistler with demanding constraints. They need to find employment to support themselves in a resort community where employment is mostly touristic and wages are low. They hope to grow a career that will provide stability in a community with a high cost of living and where educational and related resources are scarce relative to a larger urban environment. It is a daunting task.
Other types of lifestyle migrants are likely to experience considerably less structural resistance (e.g. retirees, the independently wealthy and second home owners usually possess adequate resources and generally do not require employment). Short-term transients, gap year workers and visa permit-holders eventually and inevitably move on, but remain as resources in the area. Resort environments such as Whistler are structured by design to attract and host short-stay visitors, not long-term and poorly resourced lifestyle seekers. Consequently, the group that is the object of this research need to either aggressively negotiate a suitable place within a Whistler’s touristic structure or leave.
Their plight can be dismissed as an experiment in privilege. However, it must also be viewed in light of the fact that as an important labour cohort, they represent a mid-level managerial layer. They also represent a force of social evolution for the destination, whereby their ideas influence the community as their tenure increases (Pavelka and Draper, 2015). Vail Resorts Inc. Whistler Blackcomb Mountain drives tourism and thus the structure of the community, and is at the crux of the landed dynamic of negotiation. When research participants were asked to comment on the future, they all acknowledged the central role of Vail Resorts Inc. and not the potential actions of the municipality, or trends in global tourism. Even prior to Vail’s purchase, Whistler Blackcomb Mountain’s growth strategies and management approaches were fixed on a pro-growth model of economic development (Gill and Williams, 2011). Vail’s intention for the mountain operation is less clear, but this group of lifestyle migrants is concerned that Vail’s culture will not fit in easily with the established Whistler community. This concern is echoed in numerous editorials in the local newspaper. Natalie Pearson (2018) specifically addressed the issue in the Bloomberg article, ‘Is Vail Resorts Killing Whistler’s Spirit?’ If nothing else, the focus on Vail’s takeover of Whistler Blackcomb Mountain is a case study that reflects the effect that a major attraction can have on the structure or on a destination.
The purpose of this research was to examine the landed dynamic of negotiation for a particular group of employment-based lifestyle migrants in Whistler, BC who are intent on permanent relocation. It was revealed that this group experiences structural resistance more comprehensively than other lifestyle migrant types less reliant on local structure. They are likely to experience multiple reinventions as part of the negotiation process and must determine if a satisfactory lifestyle is in reach or if they should leave. They are valuable to Whistler in many ways because they represent an important labour cohort of mid-level and potential future leaders of the community. They also represent an important element of the social evolution of the place. With their intent on indefinite residency, this group is more likely to see their ideas and views ripple throughout the community and thus alter the culture of the place. Other lifestyle migrants, such as second homeowners and seasonal workers, tend to have less connection with community (McNichol and Pavelka, 2014). This group of lifestyle migrants holds the possibility of altering the culture and direction of Whistler more than other clusters of residents.
Benson, M. and O’Reilly, K. (2009) Migration and the search for a better way of life: a critical exploration of lifestyle migration. The Sociological Review 57(4), 609–625.
Cohen, E. (1979) A phenomenology of tourist experiences. Sociology 13(2), 179–201.
Cohen, S.A. (2011) Lifestyle travellers: backpacking as a way of life. Annals of Tourism Research 38(4), 1535–1555.
Cohen, S.A., Duncan, T. and Thulemark, M. (2013) Lifestyle mobilities: the crossroads of travel, leisure and migration. Mobilities 10(1), 155–172. DOI:10.1080/17450101.2013.8264
Dupuis, B. (2015) Dismal staffing struggles worsen in Whistler. Available at: https://www.piquenewsmagazine.com/whistler/dismal-staffing-struggles-worsen-in-whistler/Content?oid=2667782 (accessed 31 January 2019).
Gartner, W.C. and Lime, D.W. (2000) Trends in Outdoor Recreation, Leisure, and Tourism. CAB International, Wallingford, UK.
Gill, A. and Williams, P. (2011) Rethinking resort growth: understanding evolving governance strategies in Whistler, British Columbia. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 19(4–5), 629–648.
Gill, A. and Williams P. (2006) Finding a pad in paradise: amenity migration effects on Whistler, British Columbia In: Moss, L. (ed.) The Amenity Migrants: Seeking and Sustaining Mountains and their Cultures. CAB International, Wallingford, UK, pp. 94–107.
Gosnell, H. and Abrams, J. (2011) Amenity migration: diverse conceptualizations of drivers, socioeconomic dimensions, and emerging challenges. Geo Journal 76(4), 303–322.
Gripton, S.V. (2009) The effects of amenity migration on the resort municipality of Whistler and its surrounding environs. Environments 37(1), 59–81.
Jackson, E.L., Crawford, D.W. and Godbey, G. (1993) Negotiation of leisure constraints. Leisure Sciences 15(1), 1–11.
Kannisto, P. (2018) Travelling like locals: market resistance in long term travel. Tourism Management 67, 297–306.
McIntyre, N. (2009) Re-thinking amenity migration: integrating mobility, lifestyle and social-ecological systems. Die Erde 140(3), 229–250.
Nudrali, O. and O’Reilly, K. (2016) Taking the risk: the British in Didim, Turkey. In: Benson, M. and O’Reilly, K. (eds) Lifestyle Migration: Expectations, Aspirations and Experiences. Routledge, London, pp. 137–152.
O’Reilly, K. and Benson, M. (2016) From lifestyle migration to lifestyle in migration: categories, concepts and ways of thinking. Migration Studies 4(1), 20–37.
Pavelka, J. (2008) Leisure negotiation and amenity migration for gateway communities. Available at: https://prism.ucalgary.ca/bitstream/handle/1880/46943/Pavelka.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y (accessed 31 January 2019).
Pavelka, J. and Draper, D. (2015) Leisure negotiation within amenity migration. Annals of Tourism Research 50, 128–142.
Pearson, N.O. (2018) Is Vail Resorts killing Whistler’s spirit? Available at: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-04-09/is-vail-resorts-killing-whistler-spirit (accessed 31 January 2019).
Perdue, R. (2004) Skiers, ski bums, trust fund babies, migrants, techies and entrepreneurs: the changing face of the Colorado ski industry. In: Weiermair, K. and Mathies, C. (eds) The Tourism and Leisure Industry: Shaping the Future. Haworth Hospitality Press, New York, pp. 209–226.
Reeder, R. and Brown, D. (2005) Rural areas benefit from recreation and tourism development. Available at: https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2005/september/rural-areas-benefit-from-recreation-and-tourism-development (accessed 31 January 2019).
Resort Municipality of Whistler (2018) Economic development. Available at: https://www.whistler.ca/business/economic-development-whistler (accessed 31 January 2019).
Robertson, B. and Stark, C. (2006) Alberta’s amenity rush. In: Moss, L. (ed.) The Amenity Migrants: Seeking and Sustaining Mountains and their Cultures. CAB International, Wallingford, UK, pp. 120–134.
Sherlock, K. (2001) Revisiting the concept of hosts and guests. Tourist Studies 1(3), 271–295.
Skrbis, Z., Woodward, I. and Bean, C. (2014) Seeds of cosmopolitan future? Young people and their aspirations for future mobility. Journal of Youth Studies 17(5), 614–625.
Statistics Canada (2016) 2016 Whistler census. Available at: https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/dp-pd/prof/details/page.cfm?Lang=E&Geo1=POPC&Code1=1309&Geo2=PR&Code2=48&Data=Count&SearchText=Whistler&SearchType=Begins&SearchPR=01&B1=All&TABID=1 (accessed 31 January 2019).
Suvantola, J. (2002) Tourist’s Experience of Place. Ashgate Publishing Company, Aldershot, UK.
Torkington, K. (2010) Defining lifestyle migration. Dos Algarves 19, 99–111.
Torkington, K. (2012) Place and lifestyle migration: the discursive construction of ‘glocal’ place-identity. Mobilities 7(1), 71–92.
Tourism Whistler (2018) Whistler’s awards, ratings and recognition. Available at: https://www.whistler.com/about-whistler/awards (accessed 31 January 2019).
Vail Resorts Inc. (2018) Fact sheet. Available at: http://news.vailresorts.com/corporate/vailresorts/fact-sheet (accessed 31 January 2019).
Waltert, F. and Schlapher, F. (2007) The role of landscape amenities in regional development: a survey of migration, regional economic and hedonic pricing studies (Working Paper No. 0710). University of Zurich – Sozialökonomisches Institut, Zürich, Switzerland.
Williams, D.R. and McIntyre, N. (2002) Where heart and home reside: changing constructions of place and identity. In: Michigan State University (ed.) Proceedings of the 5th Recreation and Tourism Trends Symposium East Lansing MI. Department of Parks and Recreation and Tourism Resources, East Lansing, Michigan, pp. 392–403.