27 The Role of Cable Cars and Ski Lifts as Key Innovations in the Evolution of Winter Tourism
Universität Greifswald, Greifswald, Germany
*E-mail: marius.mayer@uni-greifswald.de
The following quotations illustrate that cable cars and surface lifts1 (CCSLs) are among the most crucial innovations for winter and ski tourism (Jülg, 1999, 2007; Denning, 2014).
• ‘There is no winter tourism without ropeways!’ (Leitner, 1984, p. 99).
• ‘Mountain transportation, but especially the ski areas developed with its help, are the true motors of mountain tourism’ (Bieger, 1999, p. 155).
• ‘The utilisation of mechanical uphill transportation was an inevitable precondition for the development of skiing to a popular mass sport’ (König, 2000, p. 195).
• ‘After the 1960s a winter sport destination without ropeways was beyond imagination’ (Jülg, 2007, p. 254.).
• ‘Cableways are at the core of alpine tourism transport system and without them a well-developed tourism industry could not exist in the alpine area with the inevitably negative impact on tourism related jobs in the surrounding alpine valleys and villages’ (Brida et al., 2014, p. 2).
• ‘Without ropeway enterprises willing to invest, the enormous frequencies of ski tourism in alpine destinations would not be possible’ (Luger and Rest, 2017, p. 28).
• ‘The importance of the ropeway industry for the Austrian winter tourism is beyond doubt. Without the technical development of the Alps for skiing, there would only be a small fraction of guest arrivals and overnight stays in the winter season’ (Hartl, 2017, p. 408).
Without uphill lifts, there would be of course ski touring as a small niche, but most likely downhill skiing as mass tourism would never have emerged (Pfund, 1984; Hartl, 2017; Wieser, 2017). Imagining that CCSLs were never invented and skiers would still have to climb up themselves, what would the Alps look like today?2 (especially the higher altitude levels where ski tourism is spatially concentrated; Bätzing, 2017). The quick development from peripheral, poor mountain villages characterized by depopulation to affluent, dynamic globally known winter sport destinations with in-migration – often within just one generation – would not have happened (Jülg, 1999). Also summer tourism would have developed much less dynamically, as attraction points to enjoy panoramic views would not be accessible for the masses (Bieger, 1999; Keller, 2003) and would be less stable, as the second season would be absent that provides the necessary utilization to pay off investments and keep trained staff (Jülg, 1966, 2007; Leitner, 1984).
Today’s skiing industry would most likely not exist if it were not for mechanical uphill transportation. However, besides being the crucial basic innovation for ski tourism, the technological progress through innovations in CCSLs also has had an important influence on the further development of ski tourism. The main aim of this chapter is to illustrate these influences in different development stages. Interestingly, this topic is not covered extensively in the literature, as also noted by Wieser (2017), possibly due to its middle position between technical history, transportation and tourism research; maybe also because the data about CCSLs are surprisingly scarce and require extensive research efforts (see Mayer, 2008, 2009; Job et al., 2014). Therefore, the chapter will frame CCSLs as innovations in tourism and then present in more detail five developments of ski tourism as consequences of technological change. The final section sheds a light on the economic relevance of CCSLs.
Bieger et al. (2005) classify cable car companies as location-bound attractions that offer recreational experiences to their customers and are part of the service sector. Two main drivers of CCSL innovation can be identified that influence the operators: (i) the propagation of technological improvements by the manufacturers, which plays a decisive role not only in the emergence of innovations but also as active propagators of their diffusion,3 and (ii) customer requirements (Bieger et al., 2005; Mayer, 2009). Thus, the demand side of CCSLs can be differentiated between the business-to-business (b2b) customers of CCSL technology, the ski area operators and the final consumers – the snow sport participants. Improvements for the latter target group can be called consumer innovations, while the first are firm (or operator/organizational) innovations. These firm innovations can be explained as technological innovations that were not realized for the benefit of guests, but for the purpose of saving costs for the operators (e.g. the so-called direct drive for chairlifts and gondolas is a motor that saves considerable amounts of electric energy and costs for the operators, but visitors would not notice any difference). Some innovations, however, offer benefits to both guests and the operators. In general, the operators’ main focus lies in adding value for their guests. As expected, the preferences of these two target groups can vary considerably. For instance, from the cost perspective a reversible aerial tramway is preferable to detachable gondolas with smaller cabin sizes, but the latter’s transport comfort is much higher (seats, not standing densely face-to-face with strangers) and waiting time is much lower due to usually much higher capacities. Operators need to assess carefully whether costly up-to-date CCSL infrastructures really pay off by creating customer added value (e.g. seat heating) (Mayer, 2008, 2009). Table 27.1 provides an overview of the different innovation types CCSLs can take, shows in which innovation typologies they can be grouped, and distinguishes between front and back stage innovations, i.e. whether innovations are directly visible by skiers (front), only by the operators (back) or both. Often, these typologies differentiate between the scope and impact of innovations, as radical and incremental innovations do not match the importance of basic innovations. If the CCSLs as such constitute the necessary basic innovation for ski tourism (see Section 27.3.1), then the introduction of detachable high-speed and high-capacity chairlifts replacing surface lifts is a radical innovation, while the slightly larger eight-seater chairlift is only an incremental step forward from six-seater lifts. The typologies by Robertson (1971) and Christensen (2003) contain similar nuances.
Table 27.1. Cable car and ski lifts as innovations in tourism. (Adapted from Mayer, 2009, 2014; based on the references cited in the table.)
Typology | Innovation types | Examples |
Emergence of new combinations of means of production (Schumpeter, 1939; Hjalager, 2002) |
Product innovation (front stage) | Glass-bottom gondola for ropeways; weather protection bubble for chairlifts |
Process innovation (front and back stage) | Direct drive of ropeways/chairlifts | |
Organizational innovation (back stage) | Vertical integration through take-over of accommodation by CCSL operating companies | |
Institutional innovation (back stage) | Introduction of a new technological norm (e.g. safety requirements) | |
Marketing innovation (front and back stage) | Customer loyalty programmes, social media marketing | |
Impact and range (Mensch, 1972; Koschatzky, 2001) |
Basic innovation | Ski lifts as means of transportation |
Radical innovation | Detachable chairlifts as express ski lifts | |
Incremental innovation | Introduction of the eight-seater chairlift | |
Source/initiator/point of origin (Koschatzky, 2001) |
Technology – push | Seat heating for chairlifts/gondolas |
Need – pull/demand – push | Introduction of high-capacity ski lifts reduces waiting time | |
Target group (Brown, 1981) | Consumer innovation | Seat heating for chairlifts/gondolas |
Firm innovation | Direct drive for ropeways/chairlifts | |
Effect on established patterns of consumption (Robertson, 1971) | Continuous innovation | Development from eight-seater to ten-seater gondola |
Dynamically continuous innovation | Development of detachable small-sized gondolas with seats | |
Discontinuous innovation | Introduction of cable cars and ski lifts themselves | |
Dimension/scope (Christensen, 2003) |
Sustaining innovation | Ski lifts with self-service t-bars |
Disruptive innovation | Detachable chairlifts |
Figures 27.1 and 27.2 show examples of different CCSL types.
Fig. 27.1. Photo tableau of traditional CCSL types. First line from left: cog railway, reversible aerial tramway; second line: one-seater chairlift (fixed-grip), surface lift (t-bar). (Photographs courtesy of Marius Mayer.)
Fig. 27.2. Photo tableau of modern CCSL types. First line from left: double-seater chairlift (fixed-grip), four-seater mono-cable gondola detachable; second line: six-seater detachable chairlift, doubled surface lift on glacier; third line: funitel, tricable gondola detachable. (Photographs courtesy of Marius Mayer.)
This section presents the nexus between ski tourism and CCSLs based on five theses, which refer mostly to the Alps.
The first step in the technical development of mountains for tourism included railways, which reached the Alps from the 1850s onwards. In the late 19th century also side valleys were linked and with the help of the cog and pinion technology, mountain destinations like Zermatt in Switzerland were reached. The following step extended these railways up on the actual mountains to access panoramic views (see Fig. 27.1, first line left), which was the typical form of alpine tourism then (Bätzing, 2015). Examples from Switzerland include Rigi (1871), Gornergrat (1898) or Jungfraujoch (1912) (König, 2000).
Around the same time, skiing was first practised in the Alps, adapted in technique to the downhill runs and gained fast popularity. Skiing was remarkably different from today: it was an adventurous activity including strenuous uphill hikes followed by only one downhill run (Jülg, 1999; Denning, 2014). The decisive step was then to use the existing mountain railways also in winter to do repeated runs and avoid the uphill hike.4 As these winter operations turned out to be highly successful, the first lifts were built, which were explicitly targeted to the skiers, with the Parsenn funicular in Davos, Switzerland (1931) being the most prominent. In the 1930s the crucial innovation of the surface/drag lifts followed (see Fig. 27.1, second line right). They were the first means of transportation targeting skiers only, and were much cheaper compared with cog railways, funiculars or aerial tramways (for operators and skiers alike) but had even higher transport capacities (Hannss and Schröder, 1985). The first modern surface lift was built in Davos in 1934 (König, 2000) and in the same year Sestriere was founded in the Italian Alps, the first ex-nihilo ski destination (Denning, 2014). Although interrupted by World War II, the post-war ski boom actually began during this period, which is underlined by the example of Switzerland where the first chairlifts were built during the war (König, 2000). After 1945, no new cog railways and only a few funiculars were built. The ‘ski boom’ coinciding with the German ‘Wirtschaftswunder’, the French ‘trente glorieuses’ or the Italian ‘miracolo economico’ was driven by aerial tramways, one-seater chairlifts (see Fig. 27.1, second line left) and, above all, the surface lifts.
Thus, CCSLs emerged as the basic innovation for ski tourism in the sense of Kondratieff and Schumpeter’s theory of long waves (Bathelt and Glückler, 2018): skiing in the Alps shifted nearly completely to downhill skiing and became a mass market with destinations profiting from even one CCSL. Denning (2014) argues that there was a very strong relationship between the development of CCSLs and skiing as a significant leisure activity. Due to the development of uphill transport, which made several ski runs a day possible for the first time (and also increased the horizontal and vertical distances covered), the nature of skiing changed over time from an elitist, adventurous ‘fight with nature’ to a commodified, speed-driven sport activity that became increasingly open to a diversity of social groups and to nearly everyone who could afford lift tickets. In this way, CCSLs democratized skiing as a leisure activity (Jülg, 1999, 2007).
Jülg provided empirical evidence for the crucial role of CCSLs for the take-off of winter tourism after World War II as early as 1966. The presence of CCSLs leads to a dynamic development of winter tourism. This is shown by significant literature about tourism development in alpine valleys (Jülg, 1999; see Rainer, 2005 as an example). Figure 27.3 illustrates a nearly perfect correlation (Pearson R 0.989***) between the development of the winter overnight stays in Austria and the total number of CCSLs for the 1954/55 to 1984/85 period. That means, the more CCSLs that were built (the total number of CCSLs rose from 350 to 4005 in this period, +946%), and the more ski areas were developed, the higher the number of winter overnight stays rose on parallel (from 6.0 to 45.3 million, +652%). Since the mid-1980s the total number of CCSLs is decreasing due to the replacement of surface lifts and their closing down in isolated and low-altitude locations even though the overall transport capacities are still rising. This reduces the correlation strength to 0.794** for the complete period, while the still-increasing number of all lifts without surface lifts correlates nearly perfectly with the overnight stays in the winter season (0.986***) – winter overnight stays increased by 994% from 1954/55 to 2014/15, the number of all lifts without surface lifts by 901% (with their capacities even stronger rising). This indicates, that winter tourism in Austria (except for urban tourism in cities like Vienna or Salzburg) is strongly linked to the development of cable car and ski lift infrastructure and that surface lifts lost their crucial role to larger, higher performing, more expensive and more comfortable CCSL types (see Section 27.3.4). Brida et al. (2014) show equally high correlations between the monthly overnight stays and cableway passengers for South Tyrol between 2007 and 2010.
Fig. 27.3. Development of CCSLs and winter overnight stays in Austria 1954/55 to 2014/15. (Own figure based on Jülg, 1999, 2001; BMVIT, 2018; Statistik Austria, 2018.)
This crucial nexus between CCSLs and winter tourism is further exemplified by a comparison of winter tourism in municipalities with and without CCSLs in the German Alps: Table 27.2 shows that the ski destinations are larger with more accommodation, guest beds and winter overnight stays and higher tourism intensity. However, there is of course no determinism, i.e. CCSLs were not always the starting point of the tourism development but were added as attractions by already established spa towns like Bad Gastein in the Hohe Tauern, Salzburg, Austria or Bad Reichenhall in the German Alps or summer destinations like Mayrhofen in the Tyrolean Zillertal, Austria (Jülg, 1966, 1999; Wieser, 2017). This lack of determinism also means that the presence of CCSL is no guarantee for a dynamic development of ski/winter tourism as there are many examples of closed and dismantled ski areas (Falk, 2013 for Austria; Mayer and Steiger, 2013 for the German Alps).
Table 27.2. Tourism data of municipalities with and without ski areas in the German Alps. (Adapted from Mayer and Steiger, 2013.)
The starting point for winter tourism was most often the construction of the first CCSLs for which the local tourism pioneers took high financial risks and had to overcome huge resistance, both from sceptical peers in their villages and the regional/national politics and administration (Leitner, 1984; Rainer, 2005; Wieser, 2017). These risks were lower for already established summer destinations where the CCSLs were intended to either serve primarily as further attractions for the summer season and where the winter/ski season developed rather unintentionally but often quickly overtook the summer frequentation, or where the winter was consciously intended to be developed as a second season by setting up a ski area (Leitner, 1984; Jülg, 2007).
While the sheer presence of CCSLs initiated winter tourism in many destinations, the further development of ski tourism would not have been possible without the formation of ski areas, often through the connection of single lifts to networks of increasing size and complexity to fulfil skiers’ quickly rising demand for more variety. It is evident that the boom phase of ski tourism in the Alps (late 1950s to mid-1980s) goes hand-in-hand with the increased development of new and advanced equipment of existing ski areas (Jülg, 1999, 2007; Denning, 2014). The fast increase in guest frequentation and overnight stays ensured the profitability of the initial investments and allowed for continued improvement in projects, to link the initial lifts to interconnected ski areas (‘Ski-Schaukel’) – most often by connecting the CCSLs of neighbouring municipalities sharing two sides of the same mountain and finally the emergence of large-scale ski areas, at least in the Alps. This latest trend is covered in Section 27.3.5.
A constant problem was the lack of transport capacity especially of feeders in the morning leading to long queues (see Pause, 1970 for examples). Destinations often reacted by setting up another ski area on the neighbouring mountain to satisfy the strong demand (and often driven by competing interests of actors). At that time, the leading destinations in ski tourism were Davos-Klosters and St. Moritz, Grisons, Switzerland, each with several decentralized ski areas (Davos: five, St. Moritz: seven), which are nowadays an inconvenience given the trend for large-scale ski areas. These structures are inconvenient as economies of scale (e.g. one large artificial lake for snowmaking instead of several smaller lakes) are harder to realize for the operators (only in the case of connections that are more difficult to get permissions for in Switzerland due to restrictions). For skiers, these structures mean that they have to use their cars or uncomfortable buses to access all parts of the ski area or to move between the mountains as their offer is often not attractive enough to spend a whole day there compared with larger, connected ski areas.
With the invention and diffusion of innovative CCSLs (which were almost always linked to higher transport capacities), an ongoing concentration process began, as the new lifts provided much higher capacities from the bottom stations, which, in combination with the lifts on the mountain, increased the carrying capacity of the ski areas tremendously but required high investments and large guest bed capacities to provide the necessary utilization (Jülg, 1999, 2007).
Empirical evidence from the western Austrian Alps and the German Alps shows the strong correlations between the number of CCSLs, respectively their transport capacity and the number of guest arrivals/overnight stays. That means, the more CCSLs, the more important winter tourism (Mayer, 2009; Mayer and Steiger, 2013).
CCSLs as such prolong the ski season by providing access to higher mountain areas with their higher natural snow reliability. From the 1960s onwards, innovative ropeway technology allowed the developing of high-alpine and glacier ski areas, which guaranteed nearly year-round snow reliability and extended the season considerably (Mayer, 2012; Mayer et al., 2018). Especially important was the invention of surface lifts situated on the moving ice masses of glaciers in 1964 (Zermatt) and 1967 (Kitzsteinhorn) (Fig. 27.2, second line right), while more primitive mobile lifts on glaciers had already been developed in Cervinia/Plateau Rosa (Italy and Switzerland) and on Passo Stelvio/Stilfserjoch (Italy) as early as the mid-1950s. Other related innovations were high-capacity underground funiculars, which were also positive in terms of landscape aesthetics (Kitzsteinhorn 1974, Pitztal 1983, Saas-Fee 1984, Tignes 1993, Mölltal 1997). In the late 1980s/early 1990s extremely wind-stable double cable ropeways like the DMC, DLM or the funitel (see Fig. 27.2, third line left) were developed by the manufacturers in close cooperation with the operators to provide weather-proof access in combination with high capacity (Josserand and Piard, 1993; Wieser, 2017). In the 2000s detachable mono-cable gondolas (MGDs) with extremely long rope spans and only a few towers required were introduced, which allowed the crossing of larger ice fields and thus important upgrades in capacity and comfort (8-MGD Tiefenbachferner, Sölden, Austria in 2000). Thus, glacier ski areas often served as focal points of CCSL innovation due to the extreme geographical conditions (Mayer, 2008).
Innovative CCSLs enable important quality upgrades of transportation in ski tourism. The most crucial innovation was most likely the detachable chairlift (see Fig. 27.2, second line left) coming up in its current specification in the 1970s and taking off in terms of spatial diffusion between the mid-1980s and 1990s (Mayer, 2008). In particular the four- and six-seater express chairlifts provided enough transport capacity to replace even doubled surface lifts deemed increasingly uncomfortable by skiers. They reduced waiting and transport time, increased skiing time considerably and offered comfort features like smooth upholstery, weather protection bubbles, conveyor belts at the entrances or seat heating. In terms of feeder lifts, MGD with six, eight and ten seats replaced the reversible aerial tramways or double-seater chairlifts. This reduced queues in the morning, and improved accessibility for pedestrians and logistics for restaurants and huts alike. As a result of this innovation-driven restructuring of CCSL systems, the overall number of CCSLs has been decreasing since the mid-1980s, the number of surface lifts is strongly decreasing (in a kind of vicious cycle the decreasing number reduces the capabilities of skiers to use them), while the number of express lifts is increasing (Mayer 2008, 2009; Mayer and Steiger, 2013; see Fig. 27.3).
Correlation analyses show that the innovativeness of the CCSL system is positively related to the size and success of ski destinations measured in the number of winter overnight stays. In destinations with more winter overnight stays the share of express lifts is higher, the mean CCSL age is reduced, the share of surface lifts is reduced, and the mean capacity per lift is higher. However, the causality is ambiguous: does the innovativeness of the CCSL system determine success in ski tourism or do successful destinations lead to costly lift innovations (Mayer, 2008, 2009; Mayer and Steiger, 2013)? Bieger noted already in 1999 that the costs of replacing a surface lift with a detachable chairlift are between four and six times higher than the initial investment, which contributes to the difficult financial situation of many operators (Falk and Steiger, 2018).
In the past two decades there has been a trend in the Alps to join neighbouring ski areas to large-scale ski destinations (Bätzing, 2015; Linseisen, 2016; Falk, 2017; Hartl, 2017). The main argument is usually the competitive edge gained through the relatively large extension of the available ski areas often by only adding a few connecting lifts. In many cases, these connections were only made possible by innovative lift technology like the crossing of deep valleys with high-capacity lifts. Since 2003/04, the 200-person reversible aerial tramway Vanoise Express has linked the two French ski areas La Plagne and Les Arcs to form one of the biggest resorts in the Alps (and around the globe) with 425 km of ski runs. Similarly, since 2004/05 a 3.6-km tricable gondola detachable (TGD) links the two formerly separate parts of the Kitzbühel ski area in Austria, which doubles the accessible ski area and, in addition, provides a unique transport experience more than 400 m above the ground made visible through glass bottoms in some gondolas (Mountain Manager, 2005; Mayer, 2009). According to the operator, the ongoing connection project between the Kitzsteinhorn glacier ski area and the town of Kaprun is also only feasible with the TGD technology (Salzburg.Orf.at, 2018), which unites the advantages of reversible aerial tramways with those of detachable gondola lifts (see Fig. 27.2, third line right). These connections are usually successful in economic terms, which is shown in the empirical studies by Linseisen, 2016 and Falk, 2017. However, as the overall number of skiers and first entries (in Austria) is merely constant, it might be argued that these connections only foster the concentration processes of ski tourism to the detriment of smaller destinations and a regionally balanced development (Hartl, 2017).
Without CCSLs the economic relevance of ski tourism would be much smaller, as it would never have developed into the mass market we have today (see above) in terms of frequentation, and as the expenditures would be much lower (see Mayer and Kraus, Chapter 10). Skiers would not spend a considerable proportion of their travel budget on lift passes, which, in combination with their further skiing-related spending, generates important economic impact (€7.9 billion gross turnover lead to €3.6–4.3 billion direct and indirect economic impact of CCSL users in Austria; Manova, 2016). The increased spending also creates direct employment at the operating companies (7,050 year-round and 10,250 seasonal jobs directly from the Austrian CCSL industry; Manova, 2016), and indirect employment in accommodation, gastronomy, retail, services in the destinations, and ski service and retail in the source areas (81,930 job equivalents in forward- and backward industries in Austria; Manova, 2016) (see also Luger and Rest, 2017; Wieser, 2017). Studies by Manova (2016) for Austria and the Deutsches Wirtschaftswissenschaftliches Institut für Fremdenverkehr e.V. an der Universität München (DWIF, 2013) for Germany underline these considerable multiplier effects of CCSLs. In Austria, these multipliers vary between 5.3 (gross) and 7.1 (net value added). In other words, €1 spent at CCSLs leads to €5.3 to 7.1 total value added in Austria (Manova, 2016). Also the highly qualified manufacturing and R&D jobs with ropeway suppliers and their forward- and backward-linkages would only exist on a very limited level. Doppelmayr, one of the leading CCSL manufacturers, generates an annual gross turnover of €0.8 billion and has 2,720 employees in total, among them 1,398 in Austria and 384 in Switzerland (Doppelmayr, 2018). In the same vein the snowmaking business would not exist, as it is unlikely that these innovations would have been developed to ensure the snow reliability of ski touring slopes or Nordic ski tracks. Thus, the whole ski industry as we know it today would not be in place if it were not for CCSLs, which therefore can be regarded as the fundamental basic innovation of ski tourism.
Given this economic key function of CCSLs for the ski tourism economy, it makes sense to speak of these companies as focal enterprises (Luger and Rest, 2017). This also explains why these companies do not necessarily need to be profitable on their own because they pay off indirectly by detour profitability (Jülg, 1966) stressing the regional economic functions of lifts (Keller, 2003). The destination of Ischgl (Austria) is the best example of this strategy, where allegedly not 1 cent of dividend has been paid to the shareholders (mostly local tourism entrepreneurs) since its founding in 1961 and all profits have been reinvested to create one of the best-equipped and most modern ski areas of the world. The shareholders profit indirectly by high utilization of their own hotels, restaurants and bars filled with visitors attracted by the very competitive ski area (Wieser, 2017).
Technological advances in mountain transport technology are among the major drivers of industry change in ski tourism. CCSLs are the crucial basic innovation without which ski tourism would never have emerged as mass tourism including its economic relevance. CCSL innovations made it possible to develop both high-alpine/glacier ski areas and large-scale ski destinations. The resulting increase in transport quality and comfort, the reduction of waiting time and the accessibility of higher regions (although there is a decrease of CCSLs in absolute numbers; Wieser, 2017; also see Fig. 27.3) contributed decisively to the competitiveness of winter tourism, but are contrasted by rising costs for operators and guests alike. The connections of ski areas due to innovative CCSLs are mostly successful, but increase the spatial concentration of winter tourism, which might not be desirable when it comes to a balanced regional development (Bätzing, 2017). However, it may be argued that the skiers’ pursuit of more extended ski areas is partly fuelled by the diffusion of high-speed/high-capacity lifts. Although the empirical test might be difficult, it is only the fast transportation and the reduced waiting time that enables skiers to discover much larger ski areas. Earlier, they spent much more time queuing or riding the lifts so larger ski areas were neither possible to ski for the average guest nor necessary. In this way, skiers nowadays can experience many more ski runs in the same time, which corresponds to the time/space compression noted by Denning (2014) for the introduction of CCSLs compared with ski touring.
Lifts are also very important for mountain tourism in summer. They serve as important attractions in themselves but also provide access to important attraction points and panoramic views (see also Brida et al., 2014). The lifts to the most prominent locations can be highly profitable as they have no costs for ski run grooming, snowmaking, etc. but charge nearly the same or even higher prices compared with the lift passes in winter (e.g. Jungfraujoch and Titlis in Switzerland, or Zugspitze in Germany). This does not work for all lifts operating in summer of course.
What are the future prospects of CCSLs, especially in light of the challenges brought about by climate change and a relatively flat growth path for skier visits due to mature and ageing source markets (Steiger, 2012)? As the importance of the role of CCSLs for the summer season and pedestrians shows, transportation by CCSLs will continue to play an important role for mountain tourism in the future (Wieser, 2017). Depending on the individual vulnerability of destinations to global warming impacts, the seasons not depending on snow will become more important. Concerning skiers’ transportation, the ongoing concentration process, quality upgrades and the replacement of existing lifts instead of new developments will most likely continue in the future. No-frills skiing concepts with simple and low-cost CCSLs (in combination with no snowmaking) implying low ticket rates for less affluent skiers do not seem to be viable on a large scale at the moment, but in specific niches definitely. Finally, the CCSL manufacturers have already started to diversify and to tap into new markets like urban transportation, however, of course not with surface lifts, but with high-capacity gondolas, which are much more cost-effective compared with underground metros.
1This combined term encompasses all mechanical means of transporting people up- (and down-) hill on mountains like cog railways, funiculars, aerial tramways, ropeways (gondola lifts, chairlifts) and surface/drag lifts. Unfortunately, there is no overarching English term that encompasses all means of mountain uphill person transport as does the German ‘mechanische Aufstiegshilfen’, the French ‘remontées mécaniques’ or the Italian ‘impianti di risalita’.
2Leitner (1984) compares deserted valleys in the western Alps without tourism with the vibrant development of valleys in the Austrian federal state of Salzburg with tourism. He also describes the case of Thomatal, a municipality in the Lungau region of Salzburg, which he deems ‘a real victim of the modern ski development’ (p. 78) because the slopes ideally suited to skiing have not been equipped with CCSLs so far, while it was highly frequented during the ski touring era. Jülg (1999) also mentions Mürzzuschlag am Semmering (Styria, Austria) as an early hot spot of skiing, which is nowadays nearly completely forgotten.
3Technical abilities of skiers had improved so much that the downhill run took less and less time. This fact fostered the demand for uphill transportation to improve the relationship between up- and downhill movement again (Denning, 2014).
4In the western Austrian federal states of Vorarlberg, Tyrol and Salzburg, the correlation between winter overnight stays and the size of ski areas is very strong (Pearson R 0.890***), which fits well to the high importance of ski tourism there (Mayer, 2009).
5As indicator for the ski area size, transport capacity correlates highly significantly with the winter overnight stays in commercial accommodations (Pearson R 0.719***) (Mayer and Steiger, 2013).
6Correlation between overnight stays in the winter season 2007/08 in Vorarlberg, Tyrol and Salzburg (all Austria) with the innovativeness ranking: Spearman Rho −0.509***, with the mean transport capacity per cable car (2007/08): Pearson R 0.468*** (Mayer, 2009). For the German Alps (winter season 2010/11) these values are −0.216 (n.s.), respectively, 0.345* (Mayer and Steiger, 2013).
Bathelt, H. and Glückler, J. (2018) Wirtschaftsgeographie, 4th edn. UTB, Stuttgart, Germany.
Bätzing, W. (2015) Die Alpen, 3rd edn. Beck, Munich, Germany.
Bätzing, W. (2017) Orte guten Lebens. Visionen für einen Alpentourismus zwischen Wildnis und Freizeitpark. In: Luger, K. and Rest, F. (eds) Alpenreisen. Erlebnis. Raumtransformationen. Imagination. Studien Verlag, Innsbruck, Austria, pp. 215–236.
Bieger, T. (1999) Bergbahnen und Skigebiete auf dem Weg vom individualisierten Kleingewerbe zu konsolidierten Grosskonzernen? Erfahrungen und Tendenzen aus Nordamerika und ihre Wirkungen auf die Schweiz. Jahrbuch der Schweizerischen Tourismuswirtschaft 1998/99, 155–169.
Bieger, T., Laesser, C. and Romer, D. (2005) The relevance of revealed preferences in market oriented innovations. In: Keller, P. and Bieger, T. (eds) Innovation in Tourism – Creating Customer Value (Publication of the AIEST 47). AIEST, St. Gallen, Switzerland, pp. 31–48.
BMVIT (Bundesministerium für Verkehr, Innovation und Technologie) (2018) Anzahl der Seilbahnanlagen 1999/2000, 2004/05, 2009/10, 2014/15. Unpublished documents requested in personal communication. BMVIT, Vienna, Austria.
Brida, J.G., Deidda, M. and Pulina, M. (2014) Tourism and transport systems in mountain environments: analysis of the economic efficiency of cableways in South Tyrol. Journal of Transport Geography 36, 1–11. DOI:10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2014.02.004
Brown, L.A. (1981) Innovation Diffusion. A New Perspective. Methuen, London.
Christensen, C.M. (2003) The Innovator’s Dilemma. Harper, London.
Denning, A. (2014) From sublime landscapes to “White Gold”: how skiing transformed the Alps after 1930. Environmental History 19(1), 78–108. DOI:10.1093/envhis/emt105
Doppelmayr (2018) Zahlen, Daten, Fakten. Available at: https://www.doppelmayr.com/unternehmen/zahlen-daten-fakten/ (accessed 5 October 2018).
DWIF (Deutsches Wirtschaftswissenschaftliches Institut für Fremdenverkehr e.V. an der Universität München) (2013) Wirtschaftliche Effekte durch Seilbahnen im Winter in Bayern. Available at: https://docplayer.org/35866402-Wirtschaftliche-effekte-durch-seilbahnen-im-winter-in-deutschland.html (accessed 1 June 2018).
Falk, M. (2013) A survival analysis of ski lift companies. Tourism Management 36, 377–390. DOI: 10.1016/j.tourman.2012.10.005
Falk, M. (2017) Gains from horizontal collaboration among ski areas. Tourism Management 60, 92–104. DOI:10.1016/j.tourman.2016.11.008
Falk, M. and Steiger, R. (2018) An exploration of the debt ratio of ski lift operators. Sustainability 10(9), 2985. DOI:10.3390/su10092985
Hannss, C. and Schröder, P. (1985) Touristische Transportanlagen in den Alpen. Bedeutung, Merkmale und räumliche Verteilung der mechanischen Aufstiegshilfen. disP – The Planning Review 21(79), 19–25.
Hartl, F. (2017) Alpentourismus im Wandel. Überlegungen zur wirtschaftlichen Entwicklung einer Branche. In: Luger, K. and Rest, F. (eds) Alpenreisen. Erlebnis. Raumtransformationen. Imagination. Studien Verlag, Innsbruck, Austria, pp. 401–420.
Hjalager, A.-M. (2002) Repairing innovation defectiveness in tourism. Tourism Management 23(5), 465–474. DOI:10.1016/S0261-5177(02)00013-4
Job, H., Mayer, M. and Kraus, F. (2014) Die beste Idee, die Bayern je hatte: der Alpenplan. Raumplanung mit Weitblick. GAIA 23(4), 335‑345. DOI:10.14512/gaia.23.4.9
Josserand, P. and Piard, J.-F. (1993) Le Funitel de Val Thorens. Internationale Seilbahn-Rundschau ISR 3/1993, 20–22.
Jülg, F. (1966) Die Seilbahnen Österreichs und ihre Auswirkungen auf die Wirtschaft. Österreichisches Institut für Raumplanung, Vienna, Austria.
Jülg, F. (1999) Faszination Schnee – Der Wintertourismus im Gebirge. Historische Entwicklung. In: Isenberg, W. (ed.) Der Winter als Erlebnis – Zurück zur Natur oder Fun, Action und Mega-Events? Neue Orientierungen im Schnee-Tourismus (Bensberger Protokolle 94). Thomas-Morus-Akademie, Bergisch-Gladbach, Germany, pp. 9–38.
Jülg, F. (2001) Österreich. Zentrum und Peripherie im Herzen Europas. Klett-Perthes, Gotha/Stuttgart, Germany.
Jülg, F. (2007) Wintersporttourismus. In: Becker, C., Hopfinger, H. and Steinecke, A. (eds) Geographie der Freizeit und des Tourismus. Bilanz und Ausblick, 3rd edn. Oldenbourg, Munich, Germany, pp. 249–258.
Keller, P. (2003) Perspektiven der Seilbahnwirtschaft. Jahrbuch der Schweizerischen Tourismuswirtschaft 2002/03, 187–205.
König, W. (2000) Bahnen und Berge. Verkehrstechnik, Tourismus und Naturschutz in den Schweizer Alpen 1870 – 1939. Campus Verlag, Frankfurt/Main, Germany.
Koschatzky, K. (2001) Räumliche Aspekte im Innovationsprozess. Ein Beitrag zur neuen Wirtschaftsgeographie aus Sicht der regionalen Innovationsforschung (Wirtschaftsgeographie 19). LIT, Münster, Germany.
Leitner, W. (1984) Winterfremdenverkehr. Entwicklung, Erfahrungen, Kritik, Anregungen. Bundesland Salzburg 1955/56–1980/81. Amt der Salzburger Landesregierung, Salzburg, Austria.
Linseisen, A. (2016) Touristische Entwicklungspfade österreichischer Alpengemeinden. Eine vergleichende Analyse der Effekte von Skigebietszusammenschlüssen und sanften Tourismuskonzepten aus evolutionärer Perspektive. MSc Thesis, University of Greifswald, Greifswald, Germany.
Luger, K. and Rest, F. (2017) Alpenreisen-Alpentourismus. Eine Standortbestimmung mit Rück- und Fernblick. In: Luger, K. and Rest, F. (eds) Alpenreisen. Erlebnis. Raumtransformationen. Imagination. Studien Verlag, Innsbruck, Austria, pp. 15–38.
Manova (2016) Wertschöpfung durch österreichische Seilbahnen. Wertschöpfung im Winter. Endbericht Oktober 2016. Available at: https://www.wko.at/branchen/transport-verkehr/seilbahnen/Wertschoepfung-durch-Oesterreichische-Seilbahnen.pdf (accessed 25 August 2018).
Mayer, M. (2008) Schneller, höher, weiter. Raumzeitliche Diffusionsmuster und wirtschaftliche Bedeutung innovativer Seilbahnanlagen in Westösterreich. Mitteilungen der Geographischen Gesellschaft in München 90, 151–187.
Mayer, M. (2009) Innovation as a success factor in tourism: empirical evidence from western Austrian cable-car companies. Erdkunde 63(2), 123–139. DOI:10.3112/erdkunde.2009.02.02
Mayer, M. (2012) Summer ski areas in the Alps: first victims of climate change? In: Kagermeier, A. and Saarinen, J. (eds) Transforming and Managing Destinations: Tourism and Leisure in a Time of Global Change and Risks (Studien zur Freizeit- und Tourismusforschung 7). MetaGIS, Mannheim, Germany, pp. 27–35.
Mayer, M. (2014) Tourism and innovation, innovation in tourism or tourism innovation? – Conceptions and approaches. In: Küblböck, S. and Thiele, F. (eds) Tourismus und Innovation (Studien zur Freizeit- und Tourismusforschung 10). MetaGIS, Mannheim, Germany, pp. 11–29.
Mayer, M. and Steiger, R. (2013) Skitourismus in den Bayerischen Alpen – Entwicklung und Zukunftsperspektiven. In: Job, H. and Mayer, M. (eds) Tourismus und Regionalentwicklung in Bayern (Arbeitsberichte der ARL 9). ARL, Hannover, Germany, pp. 164–212.
Mayer, M., Demiroglu, O.C. and Ozcelebi, O. (2018) Microclimatic volatility and elasticity of glacier skiing demand. Sustainability 10(10), 3536/1–14. DOI:10.3390/su10103536
Mensch, G. (1972) Basisinnovationen und Verbesserungsinnovationen. Zeitschrift für Betriebswirtschaft 42(4), 291–297.
Mountain Manager (2005) Spektakuläre 3 S-Bahn in Kitzbühel. Eine große Vision wurde Wirklichkeit. Mountain Manager 1/2005, 64–65.
Pause, W. (1970) Münchner Skiberge. BLV, Munich, Germany.
Pfund, C. (1984) Die Bergbahnen als Motor der touristischen Entwicklung. In: Brugger, E., Furrer, G., Messerli, B. and Messerli, P. (eds) Umbruch im Berggebiet. Die Entwicklung des schweizerischen Berggebietes zwischen Eigenständigkeit und Abhängigkeit aus ökonomischer und ökologischer Sicht. Haupt, Bern, Switzerland, pp. 391–405.
Rainer, K.J. (2005) Eine Seilbahn verändert ein Tal. Rainer Thomas & Co. KG, Kurzras/Schnals, Italy.
Robertson, T.S. (1971) Innovative Behaviour and Communication. Holt McDougal, New York.
Salzburg.Orf.at (2018) Kaprun baut längste Seilbahn der Ostalpen. Available at: https://salzburg.orf.at/news/stories/2931552 (accessed 9 October 2018).
Schumpeter, J.A. (1939) Business Cycles: a Theoretical, Historical, and Statistical Analysis of the Capitalist Process. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Statistik Austria (2018) Winter overnight stays in Austria 1999/2000, 2004/05, 2009/10, 2014/15. Database retrieval. Available at: http://statcube.at/statistik.at/ext/statcube/jsf/tableView/tableView.xhtml (accessed 4 October 2018).
Steiger, R. (2012) Scenarios for skiing tourism in Austria: integrating demographics with an analysis of climate change. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 20(6), 867–882. DOI:10.1080/09669582.2012.680464
Wieser, K. (2017) Die Erfindung des ‘Halbschuh-Touristen’. Seilbahnen als Rückgrat im Bergtourismus und Alpha-Tiere der wirtschaftlichen Entwicklung in den Alpenregionen. In: Luger, K. and Rest, F. (eds) Alpenreisen. Erlebnis. Raumtransformationen. Imagination. Studien Verlag, Innsbruck, Austria, pp. 193–212.