Climate Change Risk Appraisal in the Austrian Ski

Industry(Accepted in Tourism Review International – September 2006)

Christoph WolfseggerStefan Gössling

Daniel Scott

LUCSUS – Lund University Center for Sustainability Studies

„The ski tourism industry is threatened by climate change“

IPCC

BBC

Science Magazine

International Herald Tribune

EEA

Etc.

But does it really matter what researchers and media think?

…..even more important: What does the affected industry think?

Ski tourism in Austria> 300 ski resorts - 6000 km of ski runs

49 mio skier days (2004/05)

99 € per day – 4.7 billion € turnover

Many associated business

Multiplier effect important for rural economy

Climate change research in ski resorts

Studies in Japan, Austria, Switzerland, Australia, Canada, USA

-all project negative consequences of varying degrees for the tourism industry

Summery of research results• Declined season length (not a linear trend)

• Alpine Region warmed considerably more compared to the northern hemisphere average

• Low altitudes will be much more affected than higher altitudes

• Uncertainties about time horizon and magnitude of impacts

• Only very few studies incorporate the adaptive capacity (eg. snowmaking) in studies.

What can be done?

ADAPT TO CLIMATE CHANGE?

…..but this depends on the adaptive capacity of the exposed system!

Adaptive capacity depends on…

• Economical or technical resources

• How well one perceives the problem

Survey design

• Criteria for target population

>10 km of ski runs>50 % of the altitude range under 1500m

71 ski resorts qualified36 valid responses

Survey design

• internet based

• decision makers of ski resort operators

• not biased towards one certain type of ski resorts

Priority of climate change

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

high priority moderately highpriority

medium priority moderately lowpriotity

low priority

resp

onde

nts

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

large economiccosts

moderately higheconomic costs

mediumeconomic costs

hardly economiccosts

no economiccosts

resp

onde

nts

Perceived economic costs

Observed versus expected climate change

Observed changes

inconsistent

9 out of 31 did not see any sign of climate change

Expected changes

high

Inconsistency of observed impacts

Reinforcing loop

„Avoidance of cognitive dissonance bias“

approval as athreat

perveivedimpacts

+

skeptical believes

affirmative beliefs

-

+

+

R

Perceived adaptive capacity

02468

1012141618

0-15 15-30 30-45 years

45-60 60-75 75- more

resp

onde

nts

without adaptation

with adaptation

Adaptation

• What strategies do decision makers consider appropriate? (23 strategies)

• Technological adaptations• Soft Business adaptations• Government and industry adaptations

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

cloud seeding - x=4.48

artificial ski slopes (carpets) - x=3.79

shadowing of slopes by trees - x=3.39

improving seasonal weather forecasts to improvethe planning of the season - x=3.09

snowmaking with chemical additives - x=2.79

avoiding southern exposure of the slopes - x=2.24

moving to higher altitudes - x=1.91

snowmaking - x=1.26

very appropriate

moderately appropriate

medium appropriate

moderately inappropriate

inappropriate

Technological adaptations

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

closing the ski resort - x=4.41

opening slopes with less snow cover thanusual - x=3.73

insurance against financial losses causedby little snow - x=3.65

increasing capacity of lifts - x=3.55

giving up slopes which need too muchsnow cover - x=3.38

shortening of season - x=3.21

enhanced marketing to intensify shorterseason - x=2.45

diversification of all season offerings -x=2.21

diversification of winter offerings - x=2.12

joining ski conglomerates - x=2.15

sharing costs of snowmaking withaccommodation industry - x=1.65

very appropriate

moderately appropriate

medium appropriate

moderately inappropriate

inappropriate

Soft business strategies

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

governmental support in case ofeconomical losses - x=2.82

lobbying of the ski industry to redruce CO2emissions - x=2.63

softening of environmental regulations -x=2.21

governmental subsidies for snowmaking -x=1.94

very appropriate

moderately appropriate

medium appropriate

moderately inappropriate

inappropriate

Government and industry responses

Dominance of snowmaking as an adaptation strategy

Different strategies based on:

• Physical characteristics• Business Model• Management Practices

Snowmaking

Discussed environmental impacts of snowmaking

• Energy and water consumption• Stays longer on the slope• Potential disturbance of nutrient balance• Noise has impacts on humans and wildlife• Ethic• Chemical additives

Usage of snowmaking

0102030405060708090

100

1different ski resorts

% o

f ski

runs

pro

vide

d w

ith s

now

mak

ing

Snowmaking

• 84 % would increase snowmaking

• Snowmaking costs are the majorlimitations for adaptation

• 28 out of 29 deny environmentalimpacts

Why snowmaking?

Cost benefit analysis – Immediate benefits

When dealing with future impacts and anticipated adaptation uncertainties are always present!

Environmental impacts (costs) are not perceived (28 out of 29)

Positiv: No underestimation of the severity of future impacts!

Negativ: Perceived adaptive capacity maybe too high?

Perceived adaptive capacity to high?

• Snowmaking has limitations – physically and financially

• Adaptation costs will reduce demand for low altitude ski resorts – winners and losers

• Pressure on the environment from both winners and losers

To what extend can snowmaking reduce the vulnerability of the ski industry in the next decades?

Should the government subsidize snowmaking costs?

Should there be income stabilization programs?

Should Austria not support low lying ski resorts but allow high altitude ski resorts to expand?

Arising questions

What if adaptation is not supported in Austria but in other countries it will be?

What are the environmental costs of additional snowmaking or the introduction of chemical additives?