![Sample our Social Sciences journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/110822/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Social-Sciences.jpg"})
Abstract
The article describes the snowpark innovation in French ski resorts through a processual approach focusing on what constitutes the link between heterogeneous stakeholders. The process studied is first that of a reversal of the norm, leading to new conventions. Relocation from the edge to the center has not, however, obliterated the subcultural identity of freestyle. Moreover, despite the fact that snowparks have become mainstream, a number of their features remain laden with cultural specificities, showing the compromises made by resort managers. At the same time, increasing snowpark attendance is the result of other compromises making it possible to go beyond an elitist trend and its latent competitive technical escalation. These various compromises joined with a process of rationalization which, for its part, contributed to the gradual solidification of the network constituted around these facilities.
Cet article décrit l’innovation que constituent les snowparks au sein des stations françaises, à travers une approche processuelle tournée vers ce qui a fait lien entre des parties prenantes hétérogènes. Le processus étudié est d’abord celui d’une inversion de la norme, débouchant sur de nouvelles conventions. Pour autant, cette translation de la marge vers le centre n’oblitère pas l’identité subculturelle du freestyle. Ainsi, en dépit de la banalisation des snowparks, certaines de leurs caractéristiques restent empreintes de spécificités culturelles qui attestent de compromis consentis par les gestionnaires des stations. Parallèlement, la fréquentation des snowparks par une population grandissante voit son origine dans d’autres compromis ayant permis de dépasser un développement élitiste et la surenchère technique qu’il portait en germe. Ces différents compromis se sont combinés à un processus de rationalisation qui a contribué à la solidification progressive du réseau constitué autour de ces aménagements.
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to thank the Fondation MAIF for financing the research project on specifically designed and equipped slopes, from which this article is taken.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Notes
1. Source: ‘La Montagne en mouvement,’ press release from Domaines Skiables de France in September 2012 (professional body of ski area operators). Online at http://www.domaines-skiables.fr/downloads/uploads/CP-DSF-2012-09-FrancePremiereDestination.pdf (accessed 19 March 2014).
2. Snowpark management is the responsibility of shapers, who have three main duties in the areas of communication (making sure users are aware of safety rules and risks); security (erecting appropriate signs, checking structure conformity, closing dangerous structures); and trail maintenance and finishing (shaping the structures, putting down rails, etc.) (Watier, Citation2011). Their work is carried out in cooperation with resort managers, piste management services and more particularly snow groomer drivers. Their job is to give information and advice, and is not supposed to deviate toward freestyle organization and teaching, which is solely the prerogative of alpine ski instructors.
3. For an illustrated overview, an online document may be viewed on the website of École Nationale de Ski et d’Alpinisme (France): http://www.ensm.sports.gouv.fr/images/stories/actu/e-cahiers_ENSM_2.pdf (accessed 2 December 2013).
4. See for instance http://www.zapiks.fr/ligne-jib-du-snowpark-du-col.html.
5. See for instance http://vimeo.com/64740274.
6. Simply producing acrobatic moves could lead to having their pass removed, owing to the assumed danger of such maneuvers on the pistes, and also for fear of legal proceedings in the case of accidents (source: US Terrain Park Council).
7. The disruption caused by clients unaccustomed to snowparks also affects the shapers’ work: ‘we get really fed up here, because we’re passionate about what we do […] I spend hours shaping for riders and then I see hours of work just ruined by people who shouldn’t even be there’ (a shaper from Chamrousse).
8. It should be noted that this evolution followed a period (1995–2000) characterized by the almost exclusive presence of structures that were difficult and dangerous for less seasoned practitioners; the tendency at the time was to produce structures that were increasingly voluminous, high up, impressive, etc.
9. This line of questioning concerning profitability can also be seen at Les Deux Alpes, where low attendance rates for the halfpipe and red and black big air structures, which are particularly expensive to make and maintain, raise questions, all the more so since the easy park is always full.
10. The superpipe at Les Deux Alpes is acknowledged as being a European ‘hot spot’ for practicing halfpipe. Yet, it is expensive equipment which requires 250 hours of snow grooming at the beginning of the season (150 or 200 euros per hour), as well as specialized maintenance. As a result, it was decided to lower it by 50 centimeters to make it more accessible, less of a sport, and also less expensive to produce. Apart from experts, few people realized what had happened since this state-of-the-art equipment is in fact not used very often (it is both in contradiction with the anti-federation image conveyed within Freestyle Land and difficult to use on account of its highly technical nature).
11. Like Burton, who contributed 35,000 euros to the development and extension of Freestyle Land at Les Deux Alpes.
12. For shapers, the shovel is an essential tool for the maintenance (and more rarely creation) of structures (jumping/landing areas, etc.). In several places, practitioners were welcome, if they wished, to participate in maintaining structures they were particularly fond of (and which may be damaged through repeated use). This flexibility of use makes the shovel a circulating non-human element, contributing to the continuous harnessing of snow in snowparks. Further increasingly more sophisticated tools of this type moreover emerged alongside snow groomers, including an increasing number of spades and rakes, since they were more effective for shaping soft or hard snow.
13. In the Grand Bornand, the association KGB (Krew Grand-Bornand) took on an active role in snowpark organization. In Val Thorens, it was the sports club. Col de Porte’s snowpark is supported by an association of riders from Grenoble, C2P, with the aim of becoming a valid interlocutor among the resort’s decision-makers. Makeshift structure design and amateurish organization are cultivated there.
14. https://usterrainparkcouncil.org/history.html (accessed 15 November 2014).
15. Following this reference document of good practice, produced only as an incentive, the stakeholders once again joined forces, this time to draw up a norm, which came into effect in early 2015. It is expected to make it possible to deal with the heightened heterogeneity of practitioners’ profiles and the specific information needs they bring with them. Initial standardization is therefore now moving toward regulation.
16. Costly in snow and maintenance, with low attendance rates, these facilities were avoided by many operators. Fewer than 10 facilities were present in France in 2010, of which only three had dimensions similar to those at standard international competitions (Curtet, Citation2011).