“I would favor diverting tourism funds from marketing to other community priorities.”
mandates from tourism marketing to management, or even mitigation, with varying levels of success. Those shifts have been accompanied or preceded by a call to divert funding from DMOs toward community resources. As an immediately discernible con- sequence to perceived changes to qual- ity of life, we asked respondents about tourism funding. Overall, 69 percent of respondents either agree or strongly agree with diverting funds from market- ing to other community priorities, while just 15 percent disagree in any way and 17 percent are neutral. Not surprising- ly, there is a strong correlation between Continuum departure gaps and solidari- ty around diverting funding: 76 percent of full-time, year-round residents that are renters either agree or strongly agree with diverting funding, and 75 percent of full-timers that own their residence feel the same. These groups also have the widest departure gaps on Continuum. Meanwhile, while still significant, just 42 percent of second-home owners that rent their unit as an STR agree or strongly agree with diverting funding, while 33 percent disagree or strong- ly disagree. But most surprising is the degree to which respondents favor shift- ing funds, with 41 percent overall favor- ing a 25-50 percent reduction in tourism spending, 27 percent seeking a 50-75 per- cent reduction, and 17 percent seeking a 100 percent reduction. The punchline here is correlation and causation; those that favor diverting funding are the same folks that are most impacted by tourism day-to-day. Differences in funding desires aren’t limited to ownership and residency; there are strong correlations between many of the broader traits studied. For example, lower-income households, ironically those that are most depen- dent on the tourism economy, are most strongly in favor of funding diversion, while the wealthiest are least in favor. But 65 percent of lower income house- holds are also renting their residence, while wealthier households are the most prominent owner of an STR unit, so the residency correlation continues. Further breaking it down by involve- ment in local governance, time in the community, etc., reveals similar cor-
50%
Strongly Agree 35%
40%
Agree 34%
30%
Neutral 17%
20%
Disagree 10%
Strongly Disagree 5%
10%
0%
All Respondents
relations between those traits and own- ership and residential status, helping solidify the interplay between residency and issues related to balance. Opinion around funding diversion, which may be enacted through ballot measures, needs to be taken very seriously, and Continu- um is an opportunity to understand dis- sent and address issues before long-term mandates have significant consequence on the economic viability of a commu- nity and success of resort and activity operations. TYING IT ALL TOGETHER While this article focuses largely on finding community balance by measur- ing responses based on home owner- ship and residency type, it does so only to demonstrate some clear delineations between community groups. Topics we didn’t cover here—like respondent age, income, gender, and family size—have a significant impact on how residents answered questions about quality of life and the community’s position on Con- tinuum. So did length of time in the com- munity and remote versus on-site work. And while much of what we’ve learned does come down to full-time versus sec- ond-home owner, the nuance is dramati- cally more complex and localized. Inntopia and our colleagues at The Insights Collective strongly support year-round mountain tourism and the opportunities it creates for lifestyle, com- munity, and economy. But we also see that balance between industry partners, residents, and policymakers has been upset since Covid. Pre-existing issues of the late ’teens were exacerbated by the pandemic, and new issues have aris-
en. We believe that working to restore equilibrium is critical to the long-term sustainability of mountain resort com- munities. Continuum has revealed that most residents in the study area feel that quality of life is deteriorating, that over- crowding has a negative impact on their community, and that a shift toward resi- dent centricity is critical to lifestyle, even at the expense of the tourism economic engine. But there are limits to what can, or indeed should, be done, and how quick- ly. By understanding where quality of life is being negatively impacted and correlating that to departure gap num- bers, policymakers can work surgically in partnership with their residential and resort constituents to find the balance that supports a healthy, sustainable tour- ism trade and the ski, ride, paddle and hike lifestyle we’re all passionate about, without over-sacrificing either revenue or quality of life. After spending much of the past several years being reactive, resort com- munities are now in a position to plan what the future looks like. Imbalances that existed prior to the pandemic have been exacerbated, and residents, having found a voice during the sonic boom of pent-up demand, are making their con- cerns—and desires—known. Measuring and understanding where quality of life is changing for individual groups with- in the community is key to knowing where jurisdictions can tweak funding or services to address issues and move the community toward a more balanced mix of tourism and residency, without upsetting the apple cart.
Made with FlippingBook Digital Proposal Creator