Perceptions of climate change risk and sustainable adaptations in the Swedish ski industry

Abstract

Previous research demonstrated Northern Sweden may have a future competitive climatic advantage over the European Alps for ski tourism, yet knowledge of climate change risk perceptions, adaptation, and mitigation strategies undertaken by the Swedish ski industry remains limited. This study combined top-down ski season modelling and bottom-up semi-structured interviews with Swedish ski industry stakeholders to examine changing market dynamics, climate change risk perceptions, and current and future adaptations under the backdrop of Sweden’s potential climatic advantage. Findings indicate that despite a belief of having greater climate change recognition and preparedness than other international ski regions, stakeholders were reticent to link local conditions to anthropogenic climate change. Snowmaking was the most utilised adaptation option, and consistent with other regions was not explicitly seen as a climate change adaptation rather a prudent business decision. A gap between tourists’ demand for increased resort sustainability and the actions of resorts was also evident in several locations. Market dynamics are also considered as capitalising on Sweden’s potential climatic advantage will likely necessitate increased aviation travel and associated emissions, a potential barrier to the country’s ability to become a ‘last resort’ for European skiing due to Sweden’s ambitious, legally binding net-zero policy target of 2045.

Keywords:

• Climate change
• ski industry
• adaptation
• mitigation
• industry stakeholders
• Sweden

Introduction

Owing to its reliance on low temperatures and snowfall, the ski industry is widely viewed as a tourism market most at risk from climate change (Steiger et al., 2019). As the consequences of climate change for the ski industry are tied to society’s efforts to mitigate and adapt to changing conditions, it is surprising that the study of stakeholder climate change perceptions and responses remains underrepresented within the tourism literature. Alongside other significant European ski markets, including France and Italy, Sweden represents a ski market with limited research concerning its climate change risk (Demiroglu et al., 2019). This is unexpected given the long history of skiing in Sweden and its position as the ninth biggest market globally in terms of ski visits per nation (Vanat, 2021). Although warming temperatures are observed and projected to occur faster than the global average in high latitude areas like northern Sweden (Meredith et al., 2019), several governmental reports (Regeringen, 2018; Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, 2017), as well as climate change risk modelling (Prettenthaler et al., 2022; Rice et al., 2021), have indicated that Northern Sweden has a potential competitive climatic advantage over areas of the European Alps by the mid to late 21st century. This supports the notion raised by Demiroglu et al. (2020) of Northern Sweden representing a “last resort” for the European ski industry under accelerating climate change.

The present study aims to assess the perceptions of climate change risk in the Swedish ski industry, their adaptations to and mitigation of climate change, and the altered competitiveness of the Swedish industry in a European context given the climatic advantage demonstrated by Rice et al. (2021). Particular attention is given to market dynamics, because to capitalise on any potential competitive advantage necessitates increased international aviation and associated greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions; a sustainability challenge given the country’s ambitious legally binding target for net-zero carbon emissions by 2045 (Regeringen, 2020). The work is important in determining how Swedish skiing differs to the European Alps and what barriers it may face in capitalising on such advantages post 2050, specifically with the backdrop of Swedens ambitious net-zero targets.

Literature review

Climate advantage in the Swedish ski industry

With the long history of skiing in Sweden and its position as the ninth biggest market globally in terms of ski visits per nation (Vanat, 2021), research on the implications of climate change for the Swedish ski industry are surprisingly limited. Two studies have examined climate risk in the Swedish ski industry. First, Moen and Fredman (2007) examined potential climate change impacts on the mid-Swedish resort of Sälen, predicting a loss of between 64 and 96 days in ski season length between 2070 and 2100. Extrapolating this loss to other ski areas, the authors calculated the entire ski industry of the Swedish mountain region would suffer economic losses of between 946.5 to 1755.3 million SEK (∼100-186 million EUR). These findings potentially overestimate the vulnerability of the Swedish ski industry due to the use of snowfall as opposed to snowdepth as an indicator for natural snow reliability and the omission of snowmaking as a climate adaptation. Subsequently, Rice et al. (2021) used SkiSim2, a semi-distributed ski season simulation model, to analyse ski operations under low to high RCP emission scenarios at 23 Swedish Alpine ski areas for the early, mid, and late 21st century. Their results indicate a lower degree of vulnerability than Moen and Fredman (2007), with Northern Sweden showing less reduction in average ski season length than areas in central and southern Sweden. With more severe impacts predicted for areas of the European Alps (Steiger & Abegg, 2018) available evidence supports the notion raised by Demiroglu et al. (2020) that Northern Sweden may represent “a last resort” (climatically) for the European ski industry.

For the competitive climatic advantage to be realised commercially, significant spatial substitution is required by ski tourists. Positively for Sweden, it has been demonstrated in North America that poor snow conditions and unusually warm winters can benefit resorts with greater snow reliability and adaptive capacity (Rutty et al., 2017). This notion, however, remains relatively untested for substitution between geographically distant markets such as Sweden and the European Alps. Recent Regional Distribution Modelling has however, suggested areas of central and northern Sweden will profit from increased visitation under climate change due to the relatively strong snow reliability (Prettenthaler et al., 2022). Where international substitution was investigated in Australia, 38% and 16% of tourists said they would ski overseas should the next five winters have poor snow conditions (König, 1998; Pickering et al., 2009). In a regional context, similar questioning in Ontario, Canada, found that 61% of respondents who chose spatial substitution would visit one of five alternative ski areas within Ontario should their resort be closed (Rutty et al., 2015). Out of these five options, 27% chose one resort, raising questions of overcrowding and the decreased attractiveness of resorts under climate change (Ibid).

Spatial substitutions have knock-on impacts for travel distances and GHG emissions. In Australia, tourists no longer able to ski in their domestic market would face substantially increased travel distances to reach the closest alternative ski market in New Zealand (König, 1998; Pickering et al., 2009). The aforementioned inter- and intra-market substitutions in Ontario would also increase travel distances, which would almost exclusively occur by car (Rutty et al., 2015). These increased GHG emissions raise questions for Sweden about how they capitalise on their climatic advantage, given strict national emission targets and increasing carbon taxes placed on aviation. In 2017 Sweden introduced a goal to have net zero GHG emissions by 2045, with emissions from domestic transport reduced at least 70% from 2010 levels by 2030 (Regeringen, 2020). Although this goal excludes domestic aviation, given Sweden is home to the Fridays for the Future and ‘flight shaming’ movements and has high levels of climate change concern (Di Baldassarre et al., 2021), discussions around aviation-related GHG emissions are likely to intensify.

Ski industry climate change perceptions

Despite the potential climate advantage for the Swedish ski industry over the European Alps and the high level of concern over climate change at a population level, very limited work has investigated Swedish ski industry stakeholders’ awareness and perceptions of climate change risk or how the industry plans to adapt, mitigate and potentially capitalise on climatic opportunities (e.g. Brouder & Lundmark, 2013). Although studies into stakeholder perceptions of climate change in the ski industry differ in methodologies, regional focus and sample size, several common themes exist. A central tenant is the diverse range of views concerning climate change risk. Perspectives differ both amongst ski area operators (SAOs) and between SAOs and other stakeholders. Typically, stakeholders outside of SAOs perceive climate change and its threats to be more authentic, the potential impacts more severe and the industry capacity for adaptation more restricted (e.g. Trawöger, 2014). A gap also exists between risk perception around current climate conditions and future climate change (Hopkins & Maclean, 2014; Saarinen & Tervo, 2010), with variability of current climatic conditions, including the reduced ability to produce snow under higher temperatures and delayed arrival of significant snowfall considered a present risk, whilst climate change is regarded as a far-off threat.

Although most stakeholders within the ski industry acknowledge the prospect of future climatic changes, a degree of scepticism has repeatedly been demonstrated by SAOs (Abegg et al., 2008; Morrison & Pickering, 2013; Trawöger, 2014). Notably, several stakeholders who acknowledge global climate change risk and feel it will bring significant threats do not think the area they manage, or the ski industry more widely, will be impacted significantly (Steiger et al., 2019). Other operators suggest recent warm winters result from natural climate variability (often framed as ‘cycles’) and claim that these periods have occurred previously (Ibid). Despite these low risk perceptions of climate change, the number of ski industry stakeholders that reject the scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change appears no different from the general population of the countries in which they work (Ibid). In fact, where longitudinal studies in a country have been undertaken, a growing awareness of climate change risk is observed (e.g. Morrison & Pickering, 2013).

Ski industry climate change adaptation

The disparity between ski industry stakeholder and climate scientists’ perceptions of climate change risk has been tied in part to the ski industries’ faith in snowmaking and its technological advancement (Steiger & Abegg, 2018). Most SAOs feel that with advances in snowmaking technology and continued investment, they can largely insulate themselves against climate change. For example, low elevation SAOs in Austria were seen to be highly optimistic about the long-term viability of their businesses (Wolfsegger et al., 2008). With further adaptation, predominantly snowmaking, 82% felt they would continue to operate their areas for at least another 30 to 45 years, with 44% believing they could operate another 75 years. Similarly, Bicknell and McManus (2006, p. 397) found Australian SAOs had an "overwhelming cornucopian belief that improvements in snowmaking technology would negate the effects of climate change".

Investment in snowmaking is often justified not as an adaptation to climate change but instead a method of coping with contemporary climate variability and to keep up with customer expectations (Steiger et al., 2019). Examples from multiple regions highlight how despite SAOs dismissal of climate change predictions negatively impacting snow reliability, they nonetheless use climate change as a justification for expanding snowmaking capacity and higher elevation terrain expansion (Aall & Høyer, 2005; Behringer et al., 2000). Perhaps the starkest example of this is Scottish ski industry stakeholders who wanted to use snowmaking to negate insufficient natural snow, a problem which some of the same stakeholders had previously denied (Hopkins & Maclean, 2014).

Although snowmaking relies on cool temperatures and sufficient water availability, scant evidence exists in the literature of SAOs questioning the viability of snowmaking as a method of adapting to climate change (Hoy et al., 2011; Wyss et al., 2014). This absence includes a lack of consideration of the longer-term effectiveness of snowmaking under warming temperatures and consideration of the method’s sustainability due to its water usage and GHG emissions (de Jong et al., 2014). Indeed, increasing evidence suggests that the confidence of SAOs in snowmaking and its technological advancement may be too optimistic as numerous climate change impact assessments demonstrate that even with snowmaking, significant seasonal losses may still occur (Rice et al., 2021; Scott et al., 2015; Steiger & Abegg, 2018). These analyses also only consider snowmaking from a technical and climatological capacity. In reality, aspects such as the social acceptability and attractiveness of skiing on pistes with limited natural snow and the sustainability and increased operating costs of snowmaking under warmer temperatures may act to further diminish the adaptive capacity of snowmaking (Pickering & Buckley, 2010; Scott et al., 2007; Steiger & Abegg, 2013).

Methods

Similar to Dannevig et al. (2021), who examined the adaptive capacity of Norwegian ski resorts, this research combined top-down and bottom-up methods. The top-down approach used data from projections for snow conditions and ski operations from SkiSim modelling at 23 Alpine ski areas in Sweden. The methods and data sources used in the modeling are detailed in Rice et al. (2021) and will not be repeated here. The bottom-up aspect utilised semi-structured interviews with key ski industry stakeholders and was partially informed by the SkiSim projections of future ski seasons and snowmaking needs.

Interview data collection and analysis

A qualitative approach consisting of semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders in the Swedish ski industry was conducted. Interviews were conducted by video call due to the COVID-19 pandemic and related travel and gathering restrictions. Communications between the lead author and interviewees had been established prior to the pandemic through previous research and collaboration, establishing a rapport to build on.

Stakeholders were selected through purposeful sampling, with all 23 ski areas modelled in Rice et al. (2021) invited to participate. Representatives from an association of 200 Swedish ski areas, around 99% of Swedish ski lift capacity, and the most prominent NGO working in climate change and skiing were also approached. Following the initial interviews with stakeholders, snowball sampling was used to allow stakeholders to identify additional respondents they felt could provide important insights. This approach resulted in nine interviewees with key Swedish ski industry stakeholders (Table 1). Interviewees and ski areas have been anonymised to ensure confidentiality (Lavrakas, 2008).

Table 1. Profiles of interview participants.

Participant	Area description
Participant A	Chief Operating Officer (COO) of leading industry association
Participant B	Non-Governmental Organisation (NGO) Vice Chairman
Participant C	Marketing Director of two resorts in Northern Sweden
Participant D	Manager of a small, low altitude resort in central Sweden
Participant E	Manager of a small, low altitude resort in central coastal Sweden
Participant F	Sustainability Manager for a large ski conglomerate
Participant G	Head of Strategy for a large ski conglomerate
Participant H	Manager of a large ski resort in central Sweden part of the large ski conglomerate
Participant I	Manager of a small, urban resort in southern Sweden

The limited response rate can be partially explained by previous reluctance of ski industry stakeholders to engage in climate change research due to the image sensitive nature of the industry and a fear that engagement may generate media coverage highlighting their climate change vulnerability and may subsequently impact their ability to attract financial investment and harm their destination image (c.f. Scott et al., 2012). Owing to the relatively homogenous nature of interviewees and their high level of expertise, a sample size between 6 to 12 interviewees was considered reasonable (Guest et al., 2006). This was confirmed as few new themes or perspectives emerged in latter interviews, with respondents increasingly repeating points raised in previous interviews, indicating saturation was reached. Should saturation not have been reached, further stakeholders including local tourism organisations and local governments would have been approached.

Before interviews, participants were briefed on projections from SkiSim2 modelling undertaken by Rice et al. (2021). Subsequent questioning referred to this analysis, especially projections of ski season length and snowmaking requirements under different climate futures. Participants were given time at the start of the interview to discuss the results in more detail and ask any questions they had regarding them. Interviews linked back to several key topics explored in previous studies, including the risk perceptions and adaptation plans discussed in the literature review. This approach allowed comparisons with previous studies in Australia (Morrison & Pickering, 2013), Austria (Trawöger, 2014) and Scotland (Hopkins & Maclean, 2014). Interview questions were presented to respondents prior to the interviews to allow collation of technical information such as details on snowmaking. The semi-structured nature of the discussions allowed respondents and the lead author to explore further issues arising in the interviews. Interviews lasted between 45-60 minutes and were recorded with the participants’ permission.

Following data collection, interviews were transcribed verbatim, and an interpretive reading was undertaken. All transcripts were transcribed and coded by the lead author. The coding approach was to explore the respondent’s perspectives in-depth, identify the recurrent themes, and highlight nuances and differences between respondents. This allowed similar codes to be grouped and interpreted using the broader literature, permitting theoretical triangulation (Oppermann, 2000). Greater trustworthiness was ensured by further triangulating interview data with SkiSim modelling data from Rice et al. (2021). This involved presenting stakeholders with specific SkiSim results for a range of climate change scenarios and the future need for snowmaking (with attendant operational costs and sustainability considerations) and checking that respondents claims on operations and ski seasons in warmer winters were consistent with SkiSim modeling. The approach identified the preponderant themes from interviews and the patterns and trends emerging from them to be analysed (Braun & Clarke, 2006). These trends and patterns guide the findings and discussion that follow.

Findings and discussion

Climate change risk perceptions

Previous research highlighted a diverse range of ski industry perceptions on climate change risk (Abegg et al., 2008; Morrison & Pickering, 2013; Trawöger, 2014). Participant A, COO of the industry association, expressed an overarching concern throughout the ski industry about the future implications of climate change:

[W]e believe and are worried about climate change as a people and as an organisation who work in these areas…We look at it as a fact that it’s getting warmer, and I think in general, the Swedish people are quite aware and also believe in the research regarding climate change. If you’re looking at that, I think it’s a high awareness of that. For all of us who live with the snow and in nature, it’s even stronger. It’s more like okay, this is happening we have to fight it, and we have to adapt to it.

Other participants similarly felt climate change was on the agenda for the ski industry at a global level and that most resorts were engaged in the problems resulting from current and future climate change. Stakeholders also revealed a feeling of greater awareness and engagement in climate change compared to their global counterparts.

Participant D remained sceptical, pointing to low-altitude European resorts being unable to gain funding and subsidies from governments and banks and therefore being equally, if not more, engaged in climate change.

Such results are unsurprising as public perceptions of climate change risk and backing for adaptation policies varies considerably between nations (Taylor et al., 2014), with Swedish public concern on climate change barely diverging from those of scientists and decision-makers (Di Baldassarre et al., 2021). Such closeness is postulated to result from an availability heuristic as Sweden has had high profile Arctic wildfires and record temperatures over the past few years (Watts, 2018), as well as being home of the Fridays for Future climate movement. Combined this brings substantial media coverage of climate change, potentially putting it at the forefront of Swedes’ minds.

Despite feeling the Swedish ski industry was ahead of their international counterparts in their awareness and action on climate change, there was a notable reluctance amongst some stakeholders to link local changes, such as reductions in snowfall or increased winter temperatures, to anthropogenic climate change:

I don’t know if we are in the process (of climate change) if we are impacted right now, but we see changes…What we see now is that the winters in the short term may change a little, with more snow at the end of the season and less at the start, but that can be something that changes annually…The people in the village say that it happened previously, so maybe it comes and goes with these types of period. – Participant E

It could depend on whether you look at one season. You can’t compare to the season before and say it’s worse or better, that’s too short term we need a longer timespan. – Participant D

I had my first part-time job here at the slope 30 years ago, so I’ve got a long history…I’ve noticed the circularity of winters. – Participant I

These positions are consistent with SAOs feeling their ski areas would not be impacted by climate change and blaming current conditions on climate variability or suggesting similar conditions have occurred historically. This perception is consistent with ski industry stakeholders globally. A stark example given their already marginal conditions was in Scotland, where changes to local weather patterns and events were not thought to relate to longer-term climatic changes (Hopkins & Maclean, 2014). Instead, changes were tied to interannual variability or a perceived climate cycle. The downplaying of contemporary climate change risk and attribution to natural variability was also found in Australia where Bicknell and McManus (2006) witnessed a minimising of ski industry vulnerability to climate change, with emphasis instead placed on their resilience. Such assumptions are widespread within the global ski industry, and despite worsening climate change, do not appear to have shifted since the initial research was conducted almost 15 years ago.

Swedish ski industry climate change adaptation

Snowmaking

Snowmaking is viewed as the most vital climate change adaptation within the ski industry, with many operators feeling improvements in capacity and efficiency will leave them well prepared for future climate change (Bicknell & McManus, 2006; Wolfsegger et al., 2008). This said, previous studies demonstrate the initial application of snowmaking was not seen as an anticipatory adaptation against future climate change risk (Scott et al., 2022). In line with this, Participant A pointed out that snowmaking was not necessarily a climate change response as Swedish resorts have been making snow since the 1970s, to create a better product and lengthen ski seasons.

Although not demonstrated in this study there are multiple instances in diverse regional markets of SAOs not publicly acknowledging the negative impacts of climate change on snow reliability but using the potential of climate change to legitimise expansion of their snowmaking facilities (Behringer et al., 2000; Hopkins & Maclean, 2014). Participant G suggested snowmaking is not primarily used as a climate change adaptation, with stakeholders in the conglomerate using snowmaking to secure critical economic periods such as Christmas and the Sportlov holidays:

The goal is always to have resorts fully open by Christmas. For that, we are investing and will continue to invest in snowmaking, in water, storage capacity and in snow production capacity… This is the period (November and December) of building on the snowmaking so we can have our product, and it’s important to get the season started. – Participant G

We need to secure the peak season from Christmas to April, so that’s a really important part of our work (in snowmaking). – Participant H

The justification for snowmaking at Participant D’s resort differs. Investment in snowmaking is primarily undertaken to keep pace with more northerly resorts and as insurance against poor weather:

Customers want to have good conditions when they come, so we invest a lot in snow. They won’t come without good conditions. Of course, we struggle more than the resorts way up in Northern Sweden…We don’t trust the weather, it will not be enough for us these days, so we invest a lot of money in snowmaking.

Despite the widespread use of snowmaking in Sweden, Participant C’s area in Northern Sweden has rejected snowmaking in order to keep its “natural environment”. There was however, a worry that the diffusion of snowmaking in the wider ski industry would have knock-on impacts on their resort, especially if ‘Hemmabacken’ are only kept open by snowmaking. Hemmabacken are described by Participant A as unique to Nordic countries and being “a small ski hill in the society.” Participant C worries that:

[T]he younger generation do not want to learn how to ski anymore because of it (reliance on artificial snow).

This aversion to man-made snow was not reflected in other interviews. Participant C highlighted how their resorts primary attraction was their backcountry and ski touring options. Additionally, the resorts have a significant heliskiing offering. Therefore, it may be that visitors to Participant C’s areas place greater significance on natural snow and are more sensitive to snow conditions than elsewhere in Sweden.

They fear that under climate change, a situation may emerge similar to that observed in China:

They were skiing on 10cm of artificial snow and that person per slope their vision was to count between 3000 and 5000 skiers, and the slope measures probably 500m. It was like this because it’s an industry there, it’s not skiing anymore, and that’s the future because of the climate change. - Participant C

Although their resort can handle a maximum of 3000 skiers per day across a vast expanse of “90km of untouched mountain terrain”, Participant C worries Hemmabacken may soon start to resemble the areas described above and that this reliance on snowmaking in addition to overcrowded resorts elsewhere would have knock-on effects on participation locally.

Issues around snowmaking and its sustainability and economic viability will nonetheless remain, with some deeming the practice maladaptive (de Jong, 2015), whilst others argue that like most adaptation strategies, snowmaking represents a continuum from successful to maladaptive that is highly context specific (Scott et al., 2022). Participant C’s perspective is rare within the ski industry. Limited evidence exists of SAOs questioning the sustainability of snowmaking outside its economic importance (Hoy et al., 2011; Wyss et al., 2014). The ski industry tends to focus on the economic sustainability of snowmaking, highlighting its potential to drive economic developments and create employment in rural mountain areas (Moser & Baulcomb, 2020). Furthermore, previous climate change modelling tends to ignore factors like increased operating costs under warmer temperatures, water and GHG usage and most pertinently for Participant C’s argument, the social acceptance of snowmaking. Such opinions put typical SAOs in a group labelled ‘winter industry preservers’ by Moser and Baulcomb (2020). This group highlights the economic justification for snowmaking as being non-negotiable. Participant C however, reflects characteristics of ‘universalists’ who reject all uncritical and preconceived arguments both for and against snowmaking (Ibid). Participant C points out, if reliance on snowmaking at feeder resorts puts beginners and young people off learning to ski it becomes academic whether more snow reliable resorts can benefit from reduced snow reliability elsewhere. Such trends should also be viewed considering other pressures on attracting younger people to skiing, such as cost and the abundance of alternative activities (Vanat, 2021).

Conglomerates and relationships between resorts

Although not intended as a climate change adaptation strategy, ski conglomerates may provide an effective financial coping capacity against climate variability, future warming temperatures and reducing snowfall (Scott & McBoyle, 2007). Three representatives of Scandinavia’s largest ski conglomerate (participants F/G/H) and one representative of a conglomerate of two resorts in Northern Sweden (Participant C) were included in this study. Several of the smaller resorts interviewed also commented on feeder/parent relationships. The participants all felt that involvement in a conglomerate offered greater security against poor snow and adversely warm winters trough increased adaptive capacity:

[Y]ou have the ability to spread risk across several geographically distributed resorts which are across several countries and geographical locations, and with this increased variability of weather and climate, it is less likely we will be hit across all of our resorts simultaneously…We are able to benefit from the competence gathered within the group to help us develop snowmaking capabilities across the group and implement best practices. And then thirdly, from the scale that we have we can carry out big infrastructure projects whilst driving cost-efficiency. – Participant G

Participant F concurred, highlighting the speed at which construction and infrastructure projects could be started at smaller resorts within the conglomerate, claiming this would not be feasible if they operated independently.

Although Participant G highlighted the diversity of their company’s geographic locations as buffering them against the “increased variability of weather and climate”, this may be optimistic. The company is predominantly spread across central Scandinavia, meaning poor conditions are likely to be experienced simultaneously. To increase protection against variable conditions the company requires a portfolio akin to Vail Resorts who have spread operations across Australia, Canada, and the US (Vail Resorts, 2022).

Participant A also highlighted several smaller, more marginal resorts being helped by larger resorts acting as parent organisations, sharing sustainable innovations, advanced snowmaking techniques and technologies smaller resorts cannot afford.

Resort diversification

In line with other ski regions, diversification of operations to develop year-round revenues (Scott & McBoyle, 2007) has become a popular strategy in Sweden over the last few decades. Amongst respondents, diversification was the dominant climate adaptation strategy outside snowmaking, and was witnessed to some degree in all areas interviewed with resorts developing their portfolio to include activities like mountain biking, hiking and golf:

We started to talk more about summer. Alpine skiing will be the main activity, of course, and we are looking a little more at cross country skiing and building products to include more activities. – Participant H

The ski resorts work a lot more with the summer business as well. Biking is increasing, and in the summer (2021) you had maybe up to 10 new resorts out of our 200 members offering biking. – Participant A

Participant D’s resort recognised during the 1980s they had become an almost exclusively winter destination and reversed this over the subsequent decades. Instead of being “absolutely closed” between May and December, they now run activity programmes through this period. Participant D highlighted initial difficulties convincing customers they were open during this time and consequently found it hard to encourage hotels and restaurants to remain open.

Participant I also discussed their resort’s year-round offering:

We are developing the year-round product. So we have been building on the bike park for a couple of years now. It’s more situation of making the infrastructure work full-time the whole of the year.

They also highlighted how diversification reduced the resort’s vulnerability to weather conditions and allowed greater flexibility in their offerings:

The bike park helps, it’s more weatherproof. Last winter, we didn’t have many ski days so we open the bike park in February for a couple of weeks, but we also started really early in the spring and can go all the way to November.

Participant I was the only respondent to discuss the protection against weather variability that diversification offered. Other respondents instead supported diversification because it made business sense to create year-round revenue streams.

Comparing this to Alpine areas, a major diversification initiative has been undertaken by the Dèpartment d’Isére in France focussing on struggling smaller resorts (Simon, 2006). To future-proof these more vulnerable resorts, the regional government funded diversification away from ski tourism, providing financial support to extend and improve the quality of summer activities and the removal of redundant snowsports facilities.

In Sweden, there was no mention of a centralised or coordinated government and industry approach to diversification. Instead of helping less snow reliable areas move away from ski tourism, diversification in Sweden appears to focus on creating a year-round tourism product. A centralised approach for more marginal Swedish areas may allow an easier transition towards attracting summer tourists, a potentially prudent move given summer tourism is predicted to increase in Scandinavia as popular destinations like the Mediterranean potentially become uncomfortably warm during summer (Grillakis et al., 2016). The replacement of these areas may however, come at the cost of depleting the supply of new skiers for the larger, more snow reliable resorts. As such, diversification should be considered at a tourism system level to avoid unwanted secondary consequences.

Mitigation

Sustainability and transportation

Given tourism accounts for ∼8% of global GHG emissions (Lenzen et al., 2018) and largely relies on carbon-intensive travel, questions are increasingly being asked about the sustainability and mitigation efforts of the sector (Scott & Gössling, 2021). Disclosure of emissions, sustainability actions and climate change risk are also becoming increasingly formalised and required by stock markets meaning ski areas will increasingly face scrutiny over their emissions (Scott et al., 2019).

Stakeholders were canvassed on whether tourists visiting their resorts demanded sustainable practices. At a macro scale, Participant A suggested the Swedish ski industry was approaching a tipping point whereby tourists were increasingly assessing the sustainability credentials and demanding sustainable practices in resorts. Participant A had not previously witnessed this desire:

They haven’t been that interested in recycling waste or asking for products to be sustainable. It’s not been driven so far, but I think it’s starting. I think now together tourists in the resorts will drive this in a much more effective way. But it hasn’t been that strong. When you go on vacation, you want to forget about it. That’s been a little bit of the attitude before, but it’s changing.

Such developments are perhaps inevitable as within the ski industry specifically, first-hand experiences of events such as glacier retreat and snow–deficient winters play an essential role in shaping perceptions of climate change (Morrison & Pickering, 2013; Wyss et al., 2014). Given that Arctic Sweden has experienced record temperatures (Cox, 2021) and wildfires recently (Di Baldassarre et al., 2021), it is possible that the availability heuristic has heightened Swedish ski tourists’ awareness of environmental issues, increasing their demands for sustainable actions. In terms of Sweden’s population generally, the attitude–behaviour gap around sustainable actions is smaller than most countries. 83% of 15–29-year-olds think climate change and its consequences are the most significant risk facing humanity in the 21st century, and 65% feel climate change is already impacting their day-to-day lives (European Investment Bank, 2021).

These societal trends are not reflected in the actions of ski industry stakeholders. Although all resorts spoke positively about the need for sustainability and action on their carbon footprints, only the ski conglomerate had a dedicated section on their website for sustainability and a specific department devoted to it. The company has prepared annual sustainability reports in accordance with GRI standards, have “initiated a transition to non-fossil fuels”, increased the proportion of non-fossil fuel usage across the company to 60% and pre-pandemic reduced their carbon footprint 18% compared to the 2018/19 season. Within the resort they are also “working toward better developed infrastructures for (electric vehicle) charging stations” and offer fossil fuel free bus transport in resort. In terms of snowmaking and grooming, all piste machines have both GPS and snow depth measurers to ensure snow is spread efficiently across pistes, consequently reducing snowmaking and associated energy usage.

A visible absence in the sustainability reporting of the conglomerate however, was the building of the Scandinavian Mountain Airport (SMA). The SMA opened in 2019 with a 250 million SEK (∼€23.5 million) grant from the Swedish government and part ownership by the conglomerate (Vanat, 2021). The SMA aims to allow easier access to mega Swedish and Norwegian resorts in the region, particularly for Danish, British, Dutch, German and Russian tourists (Demiroglu et al., 2019) and was specifically mentioned by participants A and F as a method for the ski conglomerate to attract more international visitors.

Several organisations including Participant B’s have objected to the development, with a particular goal of their strategic plan being to:

mobilise our community to advocate against carbon-intensive and unnecessary developments like the Scandinavian Mountain Airport.

Paradoxically the SMA will increase longer carbon-intensive fly-in ski tourism at a time when climate change is contributing to shorter and more variable ski seasons. The development and part-funding by the ski conglomerate also contradicts their goal of having no GHG emissions from its vehicles or energy consumption at their resorts by 2030. To overlook these scope 3 emissions, is to omit the largest source of GHG emissions in the tourism sector and is considered by some to be a disingenuous climate change pledge or action plan (Scott & Gössling, 2021).

The airport may also face rebound effects due to mitigation–oriented carbon taxation and increased awareness of the environmental impacts of air travel (Demiroglu & Sahin, 2015). The airport’s desire to increase international visitors will substantially increase GHG emissions at a time where trends like ‘flight shaming’ and ‘train bragging’ are shaping climate change discord in Sweden, particularly amongst younger generations. Indeed, pre-pandemic, these trends were tied to a 9% decrease in domestic air travel (Swedavia, 2020) and 1.5 million more train tickets being sold in 2018 than in 2017 (SJ, 2019). To highlight the increased GHG emissions of domestic versus foreign tourists, a return trip from London Heathrow to the SMA by plane emits approximately 829 kg of CO₂ per passenger compared to 194 kg CO₂ flying from Stockholm Arlanda (Atmosfair, 2022). As many domestic Swedish ski tourists drive to their destination, a consideration of vehicle emissions is also relevant. The same return journey emits approximately 288 kg CO₂ per car in a mid-range petrol vehicle or 79 kg in an mid-range electric car (My Climate, 2022).

Building on the topic of transportation and related emission, stakeholders were asked how tourists reached their resorts. The two overwhelming transport choices were flying and driving or combining the two. Respondents were asked whether they incentivised sustainable travel, for instance, by having discounted lift passes if they travelled by train. There was, however, a unanimous negative response.

Swedish resorts could perhaps look to the example of Montagne Verte in Morzine in the French Alps, which offers tourists visiting by train discounts on ski lessons and food and drink and plans to offer discounted lift passes for train travellers next season (Montagne Verte, 2022). Given that ∼86% of emissions from ski holidays result from travel (Unger et al., 2016), it would be more pertinent if resorts focused their sustainability efforts and reduction of GHG emissions on tourists reaching their resort rather than the in-resort carbon emissions.

Unsurprisingly, given the current background of Swedish domestic transportation, an increasing trend of train travel was apparent:

We have a growing proportion of clients who are taking the train directly from Stockholm. The night train arrives directly, and you can stay all the way on the train, and once you get to the resort, your accommodation is located 50m away. So it’s super convenient and very comfortable. It takes a long time, but it travels during the night, so you don’t lose that many hours, and it’s convenient because with the train you can take a lot of luggage. – Participant C

Participant C highlights that often the train is the most convenient form of transport as you cannot fly directly to many northern Swedish resorts. Instead, you need to fly to a nearby airport and then take a bus, taxi or train. Participant C also suggested that carbon emissions are also an important factor:

[T]he CO₂ factor, that also plays more and more on the conscience of our travellers…When you have the convenience, the price, and the sustainability, it’s a serious argument to convince people to use the train rather than flying and especially for skiers as most of the time they come for a week or five days or seven days, and they have a lot of equipment. In this scenario, the train is more convenient, of course.

A return train journey from Stockholm to Åre per passenger emits ∼0.0041 kg of CO₂ (SJ, 2022) compared to 194 kg when flying. Such low emissions result from the operator SJ running all trains on renewable electricity, consequently meaning per kilometre each passenger accounts for 0.0039 g CO_2. The disparity between CO₂ emissions from flying and train travel demonstrates how targeting visitor transportation has a far greater environmental impact than focussing on in-resort emissions.

Reliance on fossil fuel-based travel is potentially problematic if Sweden is to become a "last resort" for the European ski industry. A dual vulnerability exists as spatially substituting skiers will need to travel further to Northern Sweden, whilst at the same time, GHG intense transport options such as flying will increase in cost due to more stringent mitigation policies including Sweden’s world largest carbon price (as of April 2022). These cost changes and environmental implications may also impact the attractiveness of visiting Sweden (Demiroglu et al., 2019).

The competitiveness of Sweden in the European ski market

Considering the potential competitive future snow reliability for Northern Swedish resorts over the European Alps post-2050 (Rice et al., 2021), participants were asked whether the Swedish ski industry could benefit from increased visitation and what barriers increased international visitation may face. The most prominent response was that skiing holidays in Scandinavia are culturally different to those in the European Alps:

We offer a different kind of product to the large ski resorts in the Alps. There are not all high-rises and apartment buildings everywhere, it’s not really artificial. The mountains are lower for sure, and it’s a bit more spread out, but the mountain environment is a much more friendly environment than the big steep mountainside in the Alps. It’s a much more child-friendly environment, you can let children ski alone, and they always come back to the same place. There is no risk of them ending up in the wrong valley and having to take a two-hour taxi ride. The skiing is a bit different, and the scenery looks different and is well suited to other types of activities and the combination of different options as well. So if you want to have a cosy, relaxed family holiday, I think it’s much better than the Alps. – Participant H

You go to the Alps for many reasons like the high mountains and if you look at those cultural things like the high steep mountains it’s different in nature to Sweden which is safer and a bit more family-friendly. – Participant A

Participant I agreed, suggesting that cultural differences between the European Alps and Sweden were more important than potential cost barriers:

[I]t’s more of a cultural step, I would say because the Nordic countries have a possibility to sell something different to the Alps…In general, it’s more of a stay in your cabin and be close to nature kind of experience in the Swedish Alps. They’re selling the closeness to nature.

Cultural differences between skiing in Sweden and the European Alps appear to be more pronounced in Northern Sweden, where the potential future climatic advantage is greatest. Participant C emphasised this when suggesting the main reason people visit their northerly resorts is their scale, undeveloped nature, and natural beauty:

Lapland is Lapland. The ski resorts and the mountains are really unique. I’m French, and I’ve been in the Alps all my life, but the Alps are grandiose, it’s big, but here it’s so different and so unique. I think that’s the main motivation.

They also explored how activities such as après ski, a vital aspect of ski culture in the European Alps, does not exist to the same extent in Sweden:

The Scandinavians are very outdoorsy, they come because they want to ski, they don’t just party. So I’ve seen in France and Europe places where people are barely skiing, and they were only partying. It’s very different here. People do skiing first and have a good time after, or maybe they’re just coming just for the skiing.- Participant C

The exception was the resort operated by Participant F, G, and H’s organisation who highlighted its similarity to larger resorts in the European Alps. This notion was supported by other participants outside the conglomerate who agreed that if you want the experience of big mountains in a built-up resort with an atmosphere akin to the European Alps, then X was the only viable Swedish resort.

Such cultural and market differences highlight how Northern Sweden’s climatic advantage over the European Alps beyond 2050 will not necessarily translate into increased visitation as postulated in some government reports (e.g. Regeringen, 2018). Indeed, Participant C’s resort, in contrast to many areas of the European Alps, has a goal to keep it at the scale they are today rather than building up mass tourism.

The regions in Sweden with the greatest projected snow reliability are also protected due to their ecological and cultural uniqueness. Previously, conflicts have arisen around potential expansion plans for the Sälen and Idre Fjäll ski areas into the Städjan National Park due to the hunting, fishing and reindeer herding rights of the indigenous Sámi population (Vail & Heldt, 2000). Such issues raise the question of whether Northern Sweden would want to be a “last resort” for the European ski industry if it necessitated a mass tourism trajectory. Instead, it has been suggested that northern Swedish ski areas should pursue a slower, more sustainable growth trajectory inclusive of local stakeholders (Demiroglu et al., 2020).

The second issue raised was that the potential benefits in snow reliability in Northern Sweden not being realised at smaller Hemmabacken. Participants suggested that the loss of these slopes would negatively impact the development of new skiers in urban markets, a point elaborated by Participant I:

Compared to the Alps, Sweden, Finland and Norway probably have an advantage climate-wise. But if we lose too much of the recruitment base, it will still be a problematic situation for the industry. So new recruits is a big part. If the population are in areas that there is no availability of skiing then the step to do a trip to Äre and spending around €3000 for a family is going to be pretty steep if you don’t have that interest from childhood.

SAOs previously suggested that a lack of snow in urban markets negatively correlates with public perception of good snow within resorts and consequently depresses market demand (Steiger et al., 2019). Such notions are supported by Hamilton et al. (2007) who found demands on ski areas were impacted by the weather at the resort as well as conditions in nearby urban markets. In the context of this work, the closure of Hemmabacken may have a similar impact to the ‘backyard snow effect’ hypothesis (Ibid). If younger, urban markets no longer have easy access or the conditions to learn how to ski, they are increasingly unlikely to associate winter with skiing and go on holidays to more snow reliable areas.

The final point raised by respondents was a concern about changes to the timing of their season, in particular a perceived trend of delayed winters:

[W]hat we see from our own data is that winters are being pushed further on. So they’re starting later and finishing later. – Participant I

April and May is now the best time to go skiing here. – Participant C

This perceived alteration in season timing presented two challenges for participants. The first is that Hemmabacken will lose out on the Sportlov and Christmas holidays, which play a crucial role in encouraging uptake of skiing:

In Sweden weeks 7 to 10 we have what’s called Sportlov where all the kids are free and after that period visitors to the resort dips pretty significantly if it’s not really good snow conditions around which makes people aware of skiing being possible. So if we lose the holiday season for good, I would say it would implicate the ski industry pretty badly in the long-term, and we would have to find other ways to make the recruitment base. – Participant I

The flipside of this is that conditions for skiing like stable weather and sunlight are much better later in the year. Therefore, resorts are increasingly seeing this period as a potential opportunity:

We have such good conditions in April when it’s sun all day, and it’s really light up in the mountains. It’s great conditions in April, and that’s an opportunity we see instead of going when it’s dark in November. – Participant A

The worry from participants is that should these observations of a shift in ski season continue, tourists will not associate late spring with skiing and instead want “to play golf” or go on warm-weather trips.

The notion of a shift in the timing of the Swedish ski season raises issues around temporal substitution as to get the full benefit of utilising the late spring, tourists may need to temporarily substitute their Christmas ski holiday. There is no guarantee that the tourists unable to ski at Christmas or visit their desired resort would substitute skiing in spring or even whether skiing then is socially desirable. Indeed, data from Norwegian Alpine summer skiers showed that a significant proportion would take longer-distance flights if ski conditions in Norway were deemed too poor (Demiroglu et al., 2018). Such spatial substitution for further ski destinations or alternate, and potentially more carbon intense, types of holidays (e.g. a cruise on the Mediterranean), remain important uncertainties associated with dynamic ski tourism markets under climate change.

Conclusion

Under the backdrop of climate modelling suggesting Northern Sweden will have a competitive climatic advantage over the European alps post-2050 (Rice et al., 2021), this paper examined the Swedish ski industry’s perceptions of climate risk, adaptation and mitigation actions against climate change, and competitiveness in a European context by interviewing key industry stakeholders.

Participants recognised climate change was the most significant future challenge they faced but felt Sweden and Swedish ski areas were ahead of their international counterparts in terms of their awareness and engagement with climate change. Despite this, and in line with other regions, stakeholders were reticent to link contemporary changes in local ski conditions to anthropogenic climate change, instead attributing changes to natural variability and claiming they had occurred previously. Such perceptions or public statements are perhaps unsurprising given the potential risk to business of acknowledging climate change impacts. In terms of climate adaptations, snowmaking was the most utilised option (by 90% of ski areas in Sweden). As in other regions, snowmaking was not explicitly seen as a climate change adaptation; instead, as a strategy to lengthen the ski season and improve the reliability of critical economic periods such as the Christmas and Sportlov holidays. There was however, a worry that reliance on snowmaking elsewhere might impact more snow reliable areas due to new generations of skiers not being able to learn to ski. Therefore, any climatic advantage for Northern Sweden must be considered at a tourism system and industry-wide level.

In terms of mitigation actions, there was a recognized trend of increased demand for sustainable actions from tourists visiting Swedish ski resorts. These demands appeared to have only minor influence at a resort level, apart from the large ski conglomerate that had detailed sustainability plans and reporting. Importantly, there was little to no mention of the emissions produced by tourists reaching the resort. Given the conglomerates partial-funding of the new Scandinavian Mountain Airport and the almost doubling of CO₂ emissions of flying domestically versus from a market like the UK, this must be considered a visible omission. Transportation to Swedish ski areas will play an essential part in the future discourse of the Swedish ski industry, given it is likely to rely on GHG-intense transport and the backdrop of younger Swedes increasingly rejecting air travel. Given trends of reduced domestic flying and increased train travel it would seem prudent for resorts to consider the emissions produced in reaching resorts. Such challenges combined with Sweden’s ambitious, legally binding emissions reduction targets may pose challenges to Sweden becoming a ‘last resort’ for the European ski industry due to constraints it places on transportation.

Given that the postulated ‘last resort’ climatic advantage for Sweden requires spatial substitution from the European Alps, this paper also explored this potential shift in competitiveness and the implications. The most prominent issue highlighted was the cultural difference between skiing in Sweden and the European Alps. Sweden was seen to lack the big mountains, built-up environments and aprés ski of the European Alps, but was thought of as being a better alternative for beginners, families and those wanting to connect with nature. As areas with the greatest future snow reliability are currently underdeveloped in terms of the ski industry, a conflict was also highlighted concerning whether these areas should pursue a mass tourism trajectory or, due to their cultural and ecological uniqueness, seek a more sustainable development path.

Considering the potential for Sweden to become a ‘last resort’ for the European ski industry, too little is known about the perceptions of the Swedish ski industry from international ski tourism markets. Future research should, therefore, look to investigate the drivers and barriers of current and potential foreign visitors to the region in order to assess the potential of Sweden as a ‘last resort’ ski destination. The present work has addressed an important gap in determining how the Swedish ski industry differs from the European Alps and the barriers it may face in capitalising on its potential climatic advantage post 2050. These findings will be pertinent to stakeholders driving tourism development policy in Swedish, specifically whether their competitive advantage can be exploited in a sustainable manner compatible with the nation’s net-zero goals.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.