MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402734470 · doi:10.36950/2024.4ciss028

Snowmaking in Austria: Energy consumption, water turnover, CO2 emissions

2024· article· en· W4402734470 on OpenAlex
Günther Aigner, Robert Steiger, Marius Mayer

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Issues in Sport Science (CISS) · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicWinter Sports Injuries and Performance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWater consumptionEnvironmental scienceConsumption (sociology)Energy consumptionNatural resource economicsEnvironmental engineeringEnvironmental protectionEngineeringEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction & Purpose Winters in Austria have warmed by 1.7 degrees Celsius since pre-industrial times (Olefs et al., 2020). Since 1961, snow cover periods in Austria have shortened by an average of 40 days (Olefs et al., 2020). This has led to a deeper look into adaptation measures and to ever more efficient snowmaking systems (Steiger & Mayer, 2008). Knowles et al. (2023, p. 2) describe “a surprising lack of research” on the resource consumption of snowmaking. This study collects for the first time evidence-based data on snowmaking. The study region is Austria, the second largest ski tourism market in the world. The focus is on water turnover, energy consumption and CO2 emissions. The study aims to improve the level of knowledge on snowmaking and thus make a contribution towards a more economically and ecologically sustainable development of ski tourism. Methods A comprehensive questionnaire was sent out to 141 ski resorts in Austria between June 2023 and April 2024. Continuous plausibility checks have been performed throughout the survey process. Data at the required level was returned from 30 small, medium-sized and large ski resorts. The sample covers an area of 4,253 hectares equipped with snow makers and 34.0% of the Austrian ski tourism volume. Results The water turnover of snowmaking per season throughout Austria is 43.8 million m³. This equals a water consumption of 3,501 m³ per hectare of slopes equipped with snow makers. The energy requirement for snowmaking is 281 GWh. This corresponds to 5.3 kWh per skier visit or 22,449 kWh per hectare of slopes equipped with snow makers. The carbon footprint of the entire annual snow production in Austria amounts to 2,831 tons of CO2. That is 54 grams of CO2 per skier visit. Discussion The electricity requirement of 281 GWh corresponds to 0.46% of Austria’s total energy requirement, which is 61,080 GWh. The CO2 emissions of 2,831 tons correspond to 0.004% of Austria’s annual CO2 emissions of 72.8 million tons (Umweltbundesamt, 2024). The range of the assumed total energy consumption for snowmaking in Austria found in the literature to date varies considerably – between 335 and 950 GWh per season (Steiger et al., 2020). The results of the evidence-based study presented here are below this range. Conclusion The consumption data for snowmaking in Austria assumed in the literature appear to be too high. Both the public and scientific debate about snowmaking need an updated discussion which includes concrete data. On the way to climate-neutral ski resorts, snowmaking is only a small hurdle compared to diesel-powered slope preparation and guests’ travel to and from the ski resorts. The increased use of renewable energy sources can reduce the carbon footprint of snowmaking even further. Similar studies in other ski tourism markets could round off the picture drawn here and lead to interesting discussions about country-specific differences and peculiarities. References Knowles, N., Scott, D., & Steiger, R. (2023). Sustainability of snowmaking as climate change (mal)adaptation: An assessment of water, energy, and emissions in Canada’s ski industry. Current Issues in Tourism, 27(10), 1613–1630. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2023.2214358 Olefs, M., Formayer, H., Gobiet, A., Marke, T., & Schöner, W. (2020). Klimawandel – Auswirkungen mit Blick auf den Tourismus [Climate change – Impacts on tourism]. In U. Pröbstl-Haider, D. Lund-Durlacher, M. Olefs, & F. Prettenthaler (Eds.), Tourismus und Klimawandel (pp. 19-46). Springer Spektrum. https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-662-61522-5 Steiger, R., & Mayer, M. (2008). Snowmaking and climate change. Mountain Research and Development, 28(3), 292-298. https://doi.org/10.1659/mrd.0978 Steiger, R., Pröbstl-Haider, U., & Prettenthaler, F. (2020). Outdooraktivitäten und damit zusammenhängende Einrichtungen im Winter [Outdoor activities and related facilities in winter]. In U. Pröbstl-Haider, D. Lund-Durlacher, M. Olefs, & F. Prettenthaler (Eds.), Tourismus und Klimawandel (pp. 109-122). Springer Spektrum. https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-662-61522-5 Umweltbundesamt. (2024). Treibhausgase [Greenhouse gases]. https://www.umweltbundesamt.at/klima/treibhausgase

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.913
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.335 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it