Adaptive capacity of ski resorts in Western Norway to projected changes in snow conditions

Figures & data

Table 1. Framework for assessing ski resorts’ adaptive capacity.

Determinant of adaptive capacity	Indicators
Physical situation	Local climate, height above sea level and access to water for snowmaking.
Technology	Snowmaking equipment and ski lifts.
Economic resources	Turnover and profit for the last five years and owners’ financial resources.
Networks and collaboration	Cooperation with other industry actors at the destination, nationally and internationally.
Innovative ability	Developed new products, services and/or markets.
Institutions	Regulatory framework, including land use regulations.

Figure 1. Ski Areas Participating in the Study.

Table 2. Characteristics of ski resorts involved in study.

Ski area	County	Lifts (n)	Bottom station height above sea level	Top station height above sea level
Harpefossen	Sogn og Fjordane	6	242	820
Stryn	Sogn og Fjordane	4	325	995
Jølster	Sogn og Fjordane	4	250	780
Sogn	Sogn og Fjordane	4	325	994
Sogndal	Sogn og Fjordane	5	500	950
Myrkdalen	Hordaland	8	475	1060
Hemsedal	Buskerud	20	640	1450

Table 3. Indicators for adaptive capacity determinants in the case study ski resorts.

Resort	Physical situation	Technology (Likely to achieve needed snowmaking by 2050)	Economic resources R = Average annual revenue in 1000 NOK; Average growth rate for the last five years in % P= Annual average profit in 1000 NOK; average % of revenue for the last five years	Innovative ability	Networks and collaboration	Institutions Land use regulations allow for increased snow production and upward lift expansion
Harpefossen	Low-lying. Road access to middle station.	No.	R = 4402; 11% P = −259; −9%	Introduces cat skiing.	Part of regional ski pass and local support.	Yes
Stryn	Low-lying.	Maybe.	R = 2991; 1% P = 86; 1%	Destination development ongoing.	Part of regional ski pass and local support.
Jølster	Low-lying. Road access to middle station.	No	R = 2876; 3% P = 86; −4%	–	Local support	Yes
Sogn	Low-lying.	Maybe.	R = 3928; 1% P = −42; −2%	–	Part of regional ski pass and local support.	Yes, but low potential for expansion.
Sogndal	Large annual snowfall.	Yes, but requires new reservoir.	R = 7166; 25% P = 120; −4%	Comprehensive destination development. Brand development. Ski touring.	Part of regional ski pass. Local guide companies and local support.	Yes.
Myrkdalen	Large annual snowfall. Chairlift to middle station.	Yes, but requires additional water supply.	R = 141415; 19% P = 1587; 11%	Comprehensive destination development and attracts foreign customers.	Engine in local tourism development. Local guide companies. International tourism operators.	Yes, but conflicts.
Hemsedal	Chairlift and road to middle station.	Yes.	R = 502423; 7% P = 13913; 28%	Took control of lodging and hotel booking and attracts foreign customers. Snow guarantee.	Engine in local and regional tourism development. International tourism operators.	Very limited potential for expansion. Water supply is sufficient within existing zoning plan.

Table 4. Snow production coverage and capacity in the resorts.

Resort	Slope covered (m)	% coverage of technical snow production	Snow production capacity (number of days with continuous snow production to open the ski area without natural snow)
Harpefossen	1500	15	6
Stryn	600	15	14
Jølster	5300	90	3
Sogn	1000	60	6
Sogndal	0	–	–
Myrkdalen	5000	18	5
Hemsedal	19100	42	7

Figure 2. Probability of 100-day seasons with snowmaking.

Figure 3. Modelled snowmaking requirements in cm.