Local is good, but having the flexibility to be global might be better…?
Random weird comparison:
Australian gannets from a small colony are restricted to feeding locally even in years of bad environmental conditions (reduced food availability). This constraint might be due to intra-specific competition with other near-by colonies, which prevents birds from this small colony to extend their foraging range. The result is reduced breeding success in bad years.
Reading this I somehow am reminded of an article I read on Derek Siver’s blog about being local vs global. After experiencing both, he prefers being global. He prefers to have bigger reach to have a bigger impact. I wonder if this bird example can provide a case-study of what happens when you limit yourself to one location/thing/etc.
But of course, in good conditions, being local rocks! So I guess it all depends (as with many things in life).