The ski industry
One particular subsector of the tourism industry whose vulnerability to climate change has been apparent for some time is the ski industry, at least in some countries. Many of the ski resorts of North America and Europe, and even more so those of Australia and New Zealand, have a relatively short operating season and financially vulnerable to poor snow conditions during critical holiday periods. Many of these resorts are at relatively low latitudes and altitudes, for several reasons. The first is to be close to major population centres and reduce the costs of access and infrastructure. The second is to give skiers as comfortable a climate as possible whilst still being able to ski. The third is that in some countries, these are the only skiable areas available. These areas are quite sensitive to a warmer climate in winter, which reduces the number of days with reliable snow cover at any given altitude, and also reduces the number of nights cold enough for snowmaking. They are also sensitive to any reduction in precipitation, since this reduces snowfall and also reduces water available for snowmaking. Not all ski fields are equally vulnerable. Those in Hokkaido in Japan, for example, experience much lower average temperatures than most of those in North America or Europe, and are hence much more resilient to climate change. Indeed, they may benefit from increased custom if their competitors in other continents suffer continual poor conditions. Similarly, the ski industries of siberia, Northern Canada, Alaska, and Greenland may also receive a competitive boost, though there are limitations on skiable terrain.
The ski industry was the first subsector of the tourism industru to respond actively to climate change. Broadly speaking, the larger ski corporations such as those in North America took four successive steps. Initially, they denied strongly that the climate was changing at all. Presumably this was a delaying tactic to maintain the value of their mountain property as they moved to the next steps. The second step was to move from winter ski resorts, largely closed during summer, to year-round mountain resorts offering other activities in summer. The third step was to shift the core business model from a reliance on tourist activities and hotel-style accommodation, to a reliance on residential land and property sales and associated retail businesses. The fourth and most recent step is that these corporations are now lobbying governments for special consideration in the face of climate change, irrespective of local ecological impacts, e.g. for permission to extract more water for snowmaking from local rivers; to extend ski runs and infrastructure into new terrain or at higher altitudes; or to reshape their ski slopes more radically during summer so that they can spread snow more thinly during winter. The second and third of these steps, the transition to a four-season multi-activity business model based principally on property rather than activities, would probably have occurred in any event because of the changing corporate ownership sturcture within the ski industry and indeed the changing expectation of ski tourists; but these steps have also provided a very successful buffer against the economic impacts of climate change on a particularly vulnerable sector of the tourism industry.
The ski industry
One particular subsector of the tourism industry whose vulnerability to climate change has been apparent for some time is the ski industry, at least in some countries. Many of the ski resorts of North America and Europe, and even more so those of Australia and New Zealand, have a relatively short operating season and financially vulnerable to poor snow conditions during critical holiday periods. Many of these resorts are at relatively low latitudes and altitudes, for several reasons. The first is to be close to major population centres and reduce the costs of access and infrastructure. The second is to give skiers as comfortable a climate as possible whilst still being able to ski. The third is that in some countries, these are the only skiable areas available. These areas are quite sensitive to a warmer climate in winter, which reduces the number of days with reliable snow cover at any given altitude, and also reduces the number of nights cold enough for snowmaking. They are also sensitive to any reduction in precipitation, since this reduces snowfall and also reduces water available for snowmaking. Not all ski fields are equally vulnerable. Those in Hokkaido in Japan, for example, experience much lower average temperatures than most of those in North America or Europe, and are hence much more resilient to climate change. Indeed, they may benefit from increased custom if their competitors in other continents suffer continual poor conditions. Similarly, the ski industries of siberia, Northern Canada, Alaska, and Greenland may also receive a competitive boost, though there are limitations on skiable terrain.
The ski industry was the first subsector of the tourism industru to respond actively to climate change. Broadly speaking, the larger ski corporations such as those in North America took four successive steps. Initially, they denied strongly that the climate was changing at all. Presumably this was a delaying tactic to maintain the value of their mountain property as they moved to the next steps. The second step was to move from winter ski resorts, largely closed during summer, to year-round mountain resorts offering other activities in summer. The third step was to shift the core business model from a reliance on tourist activities and hotel-style accommodation, to a reliance on residential land and property sales and associated retail businesses. The fourth and most recent step is that these corporations are now lobbying governments for special consideration in the face of climate change, irrespective of local ecological impacts, e.g. for permission to extract more water for snowmaking from local rivers; to extend ski runs and infrastructure into new terrain or at higher altitudes; or to reshape their ski slopes more radically during summer so that they can spread snow more thinly during winter. The second and third of these steps, the transition to a four-season multi-activity business model based principally on property rather than activities, would probably have occurred in any event because of the changing corporate ownership sturcture within the ski industry and indeed the changing expectation of ski tourists; but these steps have also provided a very successful buffer against the economic impacts of climate change on a particularly vulnerable sector of the tourism industry.
การแปล กรุณารอสักครู่..
