Climate Change and Its Impacts on Tourism in the Alps-The Pilot Area of Auronzo Di Cadore (Belluno)

Climate changeand its impactson tourism in the AlpsThe pilot areaof Auronzo di Cadore (Belluno)

Eds. Stefano Balbi,Laura Bonzanigo & Carlo Giupponi

Università Ca’FoscariVeneziaCentro Euro-Mediterraneo

per i Cambiamenti Climatici

Climate change and its impactson tourism in the Alps-The pilot area of Auronzo di Cadore (Belluno)

Summary of the activities carried out in Venetowithin the ClimAlpTour project

eds.

Stefano BalbiLaura BonzanigoCarlo Giupponi

The ClimAlpTour project was funded bythe European Union Territorial Cooperationas part of the Alpine Space Programme 2007 - 2013

Euro-Mediterranean Centre for Climate ChangeVia Augusto Imperatore 1673100 Leccewww.cmcc.it

ISBN 978-88-97666-01-1

First printing 2011

Copyright 2011 © Regione del VenetoAll rights reserved

graphics and editing

blumilk.net / Grafiche 2AM

printing

Grafiche 2AM - Venezia

work group

Balbi S.1,2, Bonzanigo L.1,2, Dissegna M.3, Giupponi C.1,2, Moretto D.1,Pasutto I.3

1 Ca’ Foscari University, Venice2 Euro-Mediterranean Centre for Climate Change3 Veneto Region, Forests and Parks Unit

attribution of the work tasks

Stefano Balbi carried out the preliminary fieldwork, the organisation and management of the two workshops, the development of climate scenarios, the construction and application of the agent based model (as part of his PhD thesis), and the editing of the present report / Laura Bonzanigo organised and managed the two workshops, carried out the social network analysis, the definition and quantification of the indica-tors, the ClimAlpTour e-tool configuration, and edited the present re-port / Maurizio Dissegna coordinated the whole ClimAlpTour project on behalf of the Veneto Region / Carlo Giupponi coordinated the sci-entific aspects of the Auronzo case study, and particularly the environ-mental indicators’ modelling and the ClimAlpTour e-tool creation and configuration / Daria Moretto contributed to both the definition and assessment of the indicators, as part of her MSc thesis in Environmental Economics, and the organisation and running of the two workshops / Isabella Pasutto contributed to the preliminary fieldwork and the pro-ject management on behalf of the Veneto Region.

acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge the support of Paolo Angelini from the Ital-ian Ministry of Environment, Land and Sea who coordinated the Italian partners of the project and its Information and Communication features.

Table of Contents

8

8

8

9

10

10

12

12

13

15

17

20

20

21

22

25

26

26

28

29

29

30

33

33

34

36

38

40

42

Introduction: the ClimAlpTour projectProject’s rationalePartnershipScientific objectivesProject’s structureFuture exploitation of results

Veneto Region’s case study: Auronzo di CadoreResearch objectivePilot area’s description: Auronzo di CadoreNetSyMoD methodology for the ClimALpTour projectNetSyMoD in Auronzo di Cadore

Phase 1 / Actors’ AnalysisParticipants’ identificationInterviews with potential stakeholdersOutputs of the analysisActors’ identification for the workshopCriteria SelectionPossible actions of tourism developments

Phase 2 / Problem Analysis and Creative System ModellingFuture from stakeholders perspective: analysisof three scenarios of Auronzo winter tourism’ developmentin 10/15 yearsScenariosThe conceptual modelParticipatory strategy’s consolidationAttribution of weights to the main factorsof a winter holiday in the AlpsSWOT analysis

Phase 3 / DSS designModelling the indicatorsClimate ProjectionsAgent-Based Model (AWS1.0)

1

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

2

2.1

2.2

2.3

2.4

3

3.1

3.2

3.3

3.4

3.5

3.6

4

4.1

4.1.1

4.1.2

4.2

4.2.1

4.2.2

5

5.1

5.1.2

5.1.3

43

44

47

47

49

50

51

53

10

13

14

15

19

23

25

30

31

31

32

33

34

37

40

43

44

45

45

46

48

49

Other indicatorsInserting data into the ClimAlpTour e-tool

Phase 4 / Analysis of OptionsPresentation of results and weighting of criteriaResults of strategies’ assessments and discussion on outcomesAuronzo ClimAlpTour e-tool application’s key messagesAuronzo di Cadore, consideration on the exercise in the area

Conclusions: ClimAlpTour’s key messages

Table of Figures

Project’s structureMap of the Municipality of Auronzo di CadoreThe Three Peaks of Lavaredo (2,999 m)Main methodological phases of the NetSyMoD approachNetSyMoD in Auronzo di Cadore: methods & toolsEmerging social networkQuality of interactionsGIS map of areas of interestfor potential future development strategiesCognitive map of tourism in AuronzoStrategy SKINT after brainstormingStrategy ALTSKI after brainstormingStrategy BYDSNW after brainstormingDistribution of factor’s weightsScenDPSIR interfaceExample of Google Earth based exerciseSimile interfaceClimAlpTour e-tool’s catalogue of indicatorsAnalysis Matrix (AM)From AM to Evaluation Matrix (EM)Indicators’ clusteringWeight elicitation exerciseResults of strategies’ evaluation with the ClimAlpTour e-tool

5.1.4

5.2

6

6.1

6.1.1

6.2

6.3

7

Fig. 1

Fig. 2

Fig. 3

Fig. 4

Fig. 5

Fig. 6

Fig. 7

Fig. 8

Fig. 9

Fig. 10

Fig. 11

Fig. 12

Fig. 13

Fig. 14

Fig. 15

Fig. 16

Fig. 17

Fig. 18

Fig. 19

Fig. 20

Fig. 21

Fig. 22

50

50

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

27

29

34

36

36

38

39

41

47

48

Strategies ranking after weights’ elicitation (scenario B1)Sustainability triangle of the strategies evaluated (scenario B1)

List of Tables

Categories considered for the workshopList of interviews per categoryA sample of questionsfor the social network characterisation’s phaseCharacteristics of Auronzo’s social network Quality of interactions’ average scores (1-6)List of actors to invite to the workshopCriteria’s ranking Identification of tourism development actionsDevelopment scenariosfor Auronzo’s winter tourist offer in briefFactors characterising winter tourismAverage weight and coefficient of variation per factorSWOT analysisIPCC climate change scenarios utilised in AuronzoIndicators selected to load into the ClimAlpTour e-toolMonthly change signals for temperature and precipitationImpact of climate change on AuronzoOutcome of collective weighting

Fig. 23

Fig. 24

Tab. 1

Tab. 2

Tab. 3

Tab. 4

Tab. 5

Tab. 6

Tab. 7

Tab. 8

Tab. 9

Tab. 10

Tab. 11

Tab. 12

Tab. 13

Tab. 14

Tab. 15

Tab. 16

Tab. 17

Preface

The mountain area of the Veneto Region covers a third of its entire sur-face. Here the importance of tourism, and especially winter tourism, has grown constantly in time, making it a primary source of alpine wealth and a driver for the regional economy. However, in the last decade, dif-ferent studies have highlighted a phase of stagnation for what concerns tourist fluxes, partly due to a lower attractiveness of the mountain tour-ism offer. This might depend on different social and economic factors, but also on the impacts of climate change, whose occurrence makes it difficult to secure a sufficient snow cover throughout the entire winter season, particularly at lower elevations.

In this context, the project ClimAlpTour (Climate change and its impacts on tourism in the Alps), funded by the European Union as part of the Alpine Space Programme 2007 – 2013 and led by the Veneto Region, analysed one of today’s most burning issues: the impacts of climate change on tourism in the Alpine arc with particular focus on the eco-nomic, social and environmental factors related to both summer and winter activities.

The Alpine arc is characterised by both a highly heterogeneous land-scape and very dissimilar climatic conditions, which shape the region’s overall richness in terms of ecosystems and habitats. Thus, climate change does not affect this territory homogeneously. The partnership of the ClimAlpTour project, in its attempt to cover this diversity, lists representatives of the entire Alpine region including institutions from Italy (Veneto, Piedmont, Aosta Valley, Lombardy, Autonomous Province of Bolzano), Austria (Vienna and Tirol), France (Rhone Alpes), Germany (Bavaria), Slovenia, and Switzerland.

Such comprehensiveness and the involvement of several local institu-tions through whose collaboration partners were able to analyse issues and peculiarities of tourism in these areas. The project revolved around the analysis of several pilot sites, which alpine were considered by ex-perts to possess particularly significant and representative tourist and environmental conditions. The initial surveyed data included climatic data, market data, and other economic and social parameters.

One of the main objectives of ClimAlpTour was to establish and offer to the local administrations a decision support system for differentiat-ing tourism supply while adapting to possible future changes in alpine weather conditions due to climate change.

The Veneto Region selected the pilot area of Auronzo di Cadore and Misurina because it presented great opportunities – in many instances still not fully exploited – for further developments of tourist seasons. This destination, which traditionally has been alpine well positioned in terms of summer tourism, is now attempting to improve the winter season supply, taking into consideration strong neighbouring competi-tors and environmental sustainability.

The study reported herein describes the project’s experience within the Municipality of Auronzo di Cadore. Two participatory workshops alpine were conduced with the inclusion of a representative set of local stake-holders, which led to the identification and evaluation of alternative strategies for winter tourism development within a framework of adap-tation measures to climate change.

The President of the Veneto RegionLuca Zaia

8

1.1 / Project’s rationale ClimAlpTour “Climate change and its impact on tourism in the Alpine Space”, is a 3-year research project, which started in September 2009, fi-nanced by the European Commission within the Alpine Space Programme 2007-2013 - European Territorial Cooperation (Objective 3 of the Regional Policy 2007-2013) and will end in December 2011. It aims at dealing with the internationally recognized issue of the effects of climate change on al-pine tourism, with specific reference to winter tourism and winter sports in some areas of the Alps (e.g. Italian Alps, French Alps, Slovene Alps, etc.) and to all-seasons tourism in other areas (e.g. German Alps). The issue of providing appropriate strategies to ensure a balanced development of tourism, the preparation of appropriate adaptation policies at the national, regional and local level and the assessment of the economic and social ef-fects of climate change on tourism were issues of crucial interest in several studies. There is a widespread consensus that Alpine tourism needs to be re-thought and both public institutions and private stakeholders have to meet the challenge of a new idea of tourism which goes beyond the traditional vision of winter sports. This project addresses in particular the need to pro-vide both a sound knowledge of the different aspects of the impact of cli-mate change on alpine tourism and concrete adaptation strategies to apply in selected areas. The choice to directly and indirectly involve local actors (e.g. municipalities) was led by the intention to bring concrete outcomes on the alpine territory and to foster the inclusion of the consideration of the effect of climate change on tourism in the policy agendas. On the other hand the need to increase the awareness of these issues also at the interna-tional level suggested to assure the involvement in the project of national institutions participating in international conventions (e.g. Italian Ministry of Environment, Land and Sea Protection) and of an international institu-tions dealing with environmental and sustainable development issues in several mountain regions worldwide, such as for instance United Nations Environment Programme.

1.2 / PartnershipIl partenariato e i casi di studio hanno interessato l’intero arco alpino. La partecipazione di tutti e sei gli stati alpini e il coinvolgimento di aree geo-

1 / Introduction: the ClimAlpTour project

9

graficamente e orograficamente diverse ha permesso una visione piuttos-to esauriente del turismo montano in Europa. L’obiettivo centrale è stato quello di consentire un’analisi delle peculiarità del turismo stagionale, in-vernale e “all-season”, proponendo soluzioni e strategie differenziate di sviluppo turistico.

The partnership and the pilot studies cover the whole Alpine arc. The par-ticipation of partners from six alpine countries aims at assuring a wider perspective over the issue of alpine tourism. The need to include different geographical locations, different orographic conditions and different tour-ist strategies was central in this project, thus allowing the analysis of the peculiarities of seasonal tourism, snow tourism and all year tourism. The partnership includes different typologies of institutions ranging from universities and research institutes to national public administrations. Veneto Region - Directorate for Forest and Mountain Economy (RV) is the lead partner. Other partners, both EU and non-EU, are(1): / European Acad-emy Bolzano (IT), (EURAC); / Alpenforschungsinstitut GmbH (DE), (AFI); / Ente Regionale per i Servizi all’Agricoltura e alle Foreste (IT), (ERSAF); / Haute école spécialisée de Suisse occidentale Valais, Institut Economie & Tourisme (CH), (HES-SO); / Hochschule für Technik Rapperswil, In-stitut für Landschaft und Freiraum (CH), (HSR); / HTW Chur, Institut für Tourismus- und Freizeitforschung (CH), (HTW); / Hochschule München, Fakultät für Tourismus (DE), (HM); / Institut Universitaire Kurt Bösch (CH), (IUKB); / Ministero dell’Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare (IT), (MATTM); / Regione Autonoma Valle d’Aosta, Direzione Ambiente (IT), (RAVA Env); / Regione Autonoma Valle d’Aosta, Direzione Turismo (IT), (RAVA Tour); / Unione Nazionale Comuni Comunità Enti Montani (IT), (UN-CEM); / United Nations Environment Programme in Vienna (AT), (UNEP); / Universität Innsbruck, Institut für strategisches Management, Marketing und Tourismus (AT), (UIBK); / Université de Savoie, Institut de la Montagne (FR), (InstMont); / World Wide Fund for Nature (IT), (WWF); / Znanstve-noraziskovalni center Slovenske akademije znanosti in umetnosti, Geo-grafski inštitut Antona Melika (SI), (ZRC SAZU).

1.3 / Scientific objectivesThe project ClimAlpTour studied 24 pilot cases around the Alpine arc, through which it aimed at the following six scientific objectives: (1) to ana-lyze different possible impacts of climate change on the alpine tourist sector and their complex interrelation; (2) to provide an overview of tourist areas in the Alps where the effects of climate change can be stronger according to climate scenarios; (3) to analyze adaptation and management strategies for tourist sector which better fit in the alpine region, considering changes in customer perception and new alpine strategies for tourism industry; (4) to select a set of parameters and to identify common trends in order to feed an algorithm being able to deliver possible strategies according to the features of the examined tourist sites; (5) to build a web electronic tool

Partners are listed inthe language of their own country, followed by the country code and their acronym within the project

(1)

10

for stakeholders being able to make a first assessment of the local impact of climate change and to provide hints for possible adaptation strategies; (6) to apply the most important strategies developed in the framework of the project in pilot areas along the Alps with a direct involvement of local authorities, stakeholders and the public aiming at raising the awareness of policy makers, business sector and all relevant actors on the topic of cli-mate change and its effect on the economy (mainly in the tourist sector).

1.4 / Project’s structure The project was organised around seven work-packages, summarised be-low (Figure 1). (WP1) Project preparation, Application Form, Partnership Agreement (WP2) Project management, Management of work flow and budget (WP3) Information and publicity, website, expert hearing, con-ferences (WP4) Data survey, Collection of existing data, datasets, indica-tors (WP5) Impact analyses, environmental, social, economic analysis of climate change impact on tourist locations (WP6) Adaptation strategies, tailored adaptation strategies for pilot areas (WP7) Awareness raising, In-formation, education, communication activities for stakeholders, tourists, general public and policy makers

1.5 / Future exploitation of resultsResults of the ClimAlpTour project aim to support activities of: (1) poli-cy makers (local, regional, national), who can get valuable advice in new policies design for tourist alpine areas, to improve their attractiveness in all seasons and can implement concrete strategies for their territories (es-pecially local actors); (2) business community (hotels, resorts managers, tourist operators, business clusters, advisory companies), who can get in-formation on expected change in alpine tourism and develop strategies to counteractive negative impacts and consider new opportunities; (3) civil society (citizens, workers, students), who can know future trends and be

Fig. 1

Project’s structure

11

ready to adapt; (4) NGOs, who can promote campaigns based on sound scientific knowledge to inform the public about risks and opportunities of climate change in tourist sector; (5) academic community, who can use project outcomes to start new research in different fields; (6) international institutions (UN, OECD, Alpine and Carpathians Convention), who wish to share the experience with other mountain areas.

Project results are expected to be concretely implemented in some pilot-areas along the Alpine arc and general guidelines for alpine tourism will be spread also in other regions and worldwide as a positive experience to be possibly replicated elsewhere. The concrete implementation of innova-tive tourist strategies in some alpine locations selected in this project as pilot-areas is likely to bring positive results to the alpine economy and to increase the tourist attractiveness of the alpine space, by making a wise use of the consequences deriving from climate change to the different destina-tions analysed within this project.

The sustainability of the results is assured thanks to the will of partners to actively work for trying and implementing project main findings on their own territories. In addition, the project website (www.climalptour.eu), with the most relevant products is available for the public and all the interested stakeholders beyond the project closure.

12

Climate change is already significantly affecting the European Alpine Re-gion beyond the average temperature signals that have been registered at a global level (IPCC 2007). Not even climate sceptics may deny the evidence of a 50% decrease of glaciers’ volume since 1850 (Castellari 2008). Estab-lishing whether this change is human-induced or not remains beyond the scope of this study, which explores what it may imply for winter tourism in the Alps and how local development can be driven to take this new state into account.

2.1 / Research objective The ultimate aim of this study was to discuss about the future of Auronzo with its people through a significant set of representatives, and more spe-cifically about the prospects for revitalising winter tourism’s performances in a sustainable manner and the possible strategies to achieve that goal. This report discusses the activities carried out by the research team in order to achieve this objective.

Context / Municipality of Auronzo di Cadore located in the province of Belluno, in the Veneto Region, in the North-east of Italy. It covers a vast area (22.000 ha) which includes Misurina with its lake and the most fa-mous mountain of the Dolomites, namely the “Three Peaks of Lavaredo” part of the UNESCO world heritage since 2009. Problem / How to develop winter tourism in the next 40 years, in a context of climate change scenarios and market demand that are not favourable? Objectives / To compare four adaptation strategies: a. the pursue of the traditional downhill ski-intensive paradigm (SKINT), b. an alternative light ski-oriented post-modern development (ALTSKI), c. the process of diversification and enlargement of tourist offer beyond-snow (BYDSNW), d. no change from present situation or, in other words, “business as usual”(BAU).Of specific interest / The focus on holistic and dynamic socio-ecosys-tem analysis; / The involvement of local actors in a participatory pro-cess; / The treatment of spatial heterogeneity.Methods & tools / Implementation of the NetSyMoD framework for participatory modelling and decision support, and in particular the fol-

2 / Veneto Region’s case study:Auronzo di Cadore

Box 1

The report in brief

13

lowing combination of approaches and tools: 1. Social network analysis (AGNA, Pajek) 2. Conceptual mapping (IHMC Cmap) 3. Geographic In-formation System (Idrisi) 4. System dynamics (Simile) 5. Agent-based modelling (AWS1.0) 6. Decision-support system (ClimAlpTour e-tool)

2.2 / Pilot area’s description: Auronzo di CadoreThe Municipality Auronzo di Cadore is located in the province of Belluno, in the Veneto Region, in the north-east of Italy (see Figure 2). It covers a

vast area (22,000 ha), which includes Misurina with its lake and the “Three Peaks of Lavaredo”, the most famous mountains of the Dolomites, part of the UNESCO world heritage since 2009.

The town Auronzo di Cadore (866 m on the sea level) hosts nearly the en-tire population of the municipality of approximately 3,600 inhabitants. It is located in the Ansiei River’s valley, on the shores of the artificial Santa Ca-terina Lake. The lake basin is 3 km long and is endowed with beach facili-ties that periodically host motor nautical and canoe competitions. Misurina is a small settlement 25 km from Auronzo, placed at an altitude of 1,754 m beneath the Three Peaks of Lavaredo (Figure 3), which are accessible both through several mountain paths and through a toll regulated carriageway.The local economy depends on tourism, which at present is focused pri-marily on the summer season, whereas the winter season remains weak, with only 25% of yearly arrivals (Regione Veneto 2009). Indeed, hiking (200 km of signed mountain paths and 10 alpine refuges) and relax are the main elements of attraction. The total hosting capacity is of approximately 7,300 beds of which around 1,700 in the hotel sector and the remainder in the ex-tra-hotel sector (B&Bs, lodgings, and so forth). 75% of the hotels’ beds are located within 1 or 2 starred facilities. In 2008, 63,700 arrivals and 305,400 tourist nights were registered, showing a slight decrease from the previous year. The last 10 years have witnessed the increase of arrivals but the con-traction of average stays. Notwithstanding the presence of two small downhill ski-areas and two

Fig. 2

Map of the Municipalityof Auronzo di Cadore

14

cross-country ski-centres, some hotels do not even open for the winter season. The four ski-lifts of Mount Agudo, which reach a maximum eleva-tion of 1,600 m, connect seven ski-pistes for a total 15 km. In the locality of Palus San Marco, halfway between Auronzo and Misurina, there lays the Somadida Forest, one of the province’s largest, which becomes a cross-country ski-centre (with nine loops of a total 52.5 km) during the winter season. The Marmarole sled-dog centre and an ice-kart circuit are also lo-cated in Palus. In addition, Misurina, which has an hosting capacity of ap-proximately 500 beds is endowed with two ski-lifts of Col de Varda (from

1,756 m to 2,220 m) that connect five ski-pistes, and 17 km of cross-country ski loops. Recently, the Community Council begun to consider options for stimulating winter tourism. At present, there exist several projects of ski-areas development. The most ambitious is located in Marzon valley, a few km from the main village, which would connect the valley to the ski-area of Misurina (with an average altitude over 2,000 m). After a preliminary consultation with the local public administration, there emerged their pref-erence for a study on how to develop winter tourism in the next 40 years, in a context of climate change (warming effect on snow availability) and market demand (ageing population) that is not favourable.

2.3 / NetSyMoD methodology for the ClimALpTour projectThe chosen methodology, named NetSyMoD (Network Analysis - Creative System Modelling - Decision Support), is a flexible but comprehensive meth-odological framework that was developed during several years of research conducted by Prof. Carlo Giupponi (www.netsymod.eu). In order to facilitate the decision-making process, this methodological approach assembles vari-ous tools that aim primarily at the identification of key actors within a given decision-making context, and then at their involvement in those develop-

Fig. 3

The Three Peaks of Lavaredo (2.999 m)

15

ment phases where models of analysis are constructed (Figure 4). The NetSyMoD logo (middle of Figure 5) is a symbolic picture of the lim-ited resources available (e.g. water in the carafe), and of the various us-ers (glasses) with different needs (varying quantity and colour). The main phases that constitute the NetSyMoD fabric are:

1. Actors’ analysis / to identify all the potential carriers of inter-est/ experts on the matter under discussion. The proposed method sug-gests the organisation of brainstorming sessions with a limited sample of stakeholders, all of whom should be grounded on the issue, who sin-

gle out those most apt to attend the participatory phases. A “snow-ball” technique is often applied as it allows selecting a whole group of actors interested in the decision-making project, whether directly or indirectly. This phase includes a Social Network Analysis (SNA), which aims to rep-resent the relationship between the identified stakeholders of a given social network. Such analysis permits to highlight roles, responsibili-ties, and relationships of every actor within that network, which in turn may lead to a second selection of stakeholders to invite to the successive phases. This process both limits the risk for the participatory process to be hindered by some powerful groups and ensures a high rate of rep-resentativeness whilst at the same time maintaining the number in a manageable size. 2. Problem Analysis / In this phase the problem (or conflict) at hand is scrutinised from various perspectives and viewpoints. The envi-ronment in which the problem is embedded is explored and the relevant factors identified. The problems faced by environmental resource plan-ners and managers are complex and their drivers interwoven. It is nec-essary to identify the most relevant aspects, by focusing on which the major changes can be attained. The exploration of the problem includes analyses of legal and institutional frameworks, as well as the economy on various spatial levels and the state of environment. Future develop-ment of main drivers and pressures are simulated using models which assess alternative scenarios. Different stakeholders (identified in previ-

Fig. 4

Principali componentimetodologichedell’approccio NetSyMoD

16

ous step, Actor analysis) hold different perceptions and beliefs about what are the causes of the problem or how it should be tackled. Different techniques have been developed to surface tacit knowledge and deeply held beliefs, including conflict assessment, problem-structuring meth-ods, discourse analysis. The individual perspectives are further elabo-rated in the next step (Creative system modelling) to facilitate collec-tive learning and shared (agreed) boundaries of the problem. The main outputs of this phase are: (i) a list of most relevant drivers governing the perception of the problem at hand; (ii) a preliminary list of possible solutions candidate to be assessed; (iii) A set of scenarios regarding the future development of the main drivers and cause-effect relations; (iv) an extensive list of indicators against which the performance of the pos-sible solutions (alternative options) should be measured. 3. Creative system modelling / (CSM), to represent in a correct manner the knowledge, opinions, and the preferences of the stake-holders involved. The key actors gather in a meeting during which the problem is conceptualised through the construction of cognitive maps - individual and/or collective. Such exercises, elicited according to the context, allow the representation of the various understanding of the system under analysis. During this phase one can also proceed to the shared construction of the cause-effect chains, through either the con-ceptual model DPSIR (Determinants, Pressures, State, Impacts, and Re-sponse) or the elaboration of future scenarios that stimulate the iden-tification of potential solutions/ innovative approaches to the problem under scrutiny. 4. DSS Design / In this phase, all the information gathered dur-ing the previous phases of the NetSyMoD methodology are assembled through the Decision-Support-System ClimAlpTour e-tool, an updated version of mDSS, a software(2), capable of managing the data required for providing informed and robust decision in the following phase. The latest version of the ClimAlpTour e-tool adds a multicriteria spatial anal-ysis to the previous mDSS versions. This is necessary to manage and communicating the information flow between various process phases, including exchange, transformation, integration, validation and docu-mentation of gathered knowledge. Many of the previous analyses em-ploy computer-based tools such as databases (and data management systems), visualisation components, and simulation models. Different tools are frequently assembled into a comprehensive Decision Sup-port Systems, normally employing various interconnected and adapted components, controlled by an user interface.

This phase address all activities related to the development of interop-erable and useable software components; and collection of well-docu-mented and easily exchangeable data sets (including spatial data and time series). In the end, one disposes of (i) seamless data flow between various tools and software component; (ii) user interface which guides

conceived during theEU FP5 project MULINO “MULtisectoral, INtegrat-ed and Operational Deci-sion Support System for sustainable use of water resource at the catch-ment scale”

(2)

17

user though various stages of the NetSyMoD process; (iii) quality assur-ance regarding the integration of different components, and (iv) docu-mentation and report facilities which explain the process and facilitate the interpretation of results. 5. Analysis of options / The analysis of options consist of evaluating and choosing one (or more) solution to the problem (e.g. a policy meas-ure, plan or project) from a set of alternatives, or producing their com-plete ranking. Numerous methods and techniques have been developed in decision theory to make explicit (transparent) value judgements and assess the extent to which different options may contribute to achieve the pursued goals and objectives. Decision models result from the sys-tematic exploration of a ‘problem’, including its existence, boundaries and structure. They comprise alternative courses of actions; decision goals - translated into more tangible evaluation criteria - against which the policies are weighed; and preferences, which describe how well the various options satisfy the objectives. Decision methods help to avoid inconsistencies underlying judgement and choice, and make decisions more compatible with normative axioms of rationality. Furthermore, if combined with deliberative techniques, decision methods render policy processes transparent and informed the perspectives or viewpoints of all actors. This is translated into a higher acceptance of the policies. The ClimAlpTour e-tool allows the ordering of the various options under ex-amination and thus it facilitates the decision-makers’ final choice. Given that the indicators selected then truly represents the various interests and opinions of the actors, a multicriteria analysis is carried out - both individually and collectively.

2.4 / NetSyMoD in Auronzo di CadoreThe work carried out in Auronzo di Cadore consists primarily of two work-shops, for whose organisation other parallel activities took place. Overall, it aimed at raising awareness of climate change and its future impacts on the tourist sector (WP7 of ClimAlpTour project). The process was structured around the NetSyMoD phases, as visualised in Figure 5.

Actors’ Analysis (1) aimed at the selection of workshop’s participants. Field data was processed with two softwares for SNA, namely AGNA (analysis) and Pajek (visualisation). Problem Analysis (2) and Creative System Model-ling (3) led to consolidated strategies, visualised in IHMC Cmap, ranked by stakeholders and assessed in terms of a Strengths/Weaknesses/Opportuni-ties/Threats framework (SWOT) frame. In the DSS design (4-5) phase, the performance of each selected strategy under future scenarios was calcu-lated, utilising several modelling tools for quantifying various families of (social, economic, and environmental) indicators. For instance, an agent based model - AuronzoWinSim 1.0 (AWS1.0) - simulated the behaviour of tourism demand and derived socio-economic indicators, whilst system dynamics (Simile) and statistical models (SkiSim 2.0) were applied for cal-

18

culating environmental indicators, such as erosion and natural snow avail-ability. All these indicators contributed to inform the final e-tool settings, which enabled us to prepare an Evaluation Matrix for the analysis of the options/strategies to submit to the participants during the second work-shop. Finally, for the analysis of options (6), participants proceeded to the assessment of the appropriateness of the strategies. After attributing rela-tive importance to the criteria of judgement, individual assessments were mediated in the ClimAlpTour e-tool environment in order to produce one preferred strategy, emerging as a group-decision.

The first workshop, held in Auronzo on 7th June 2010, aimed at (i) engaging local actors interested in the promotion of winter tourism in Auronzo; (ii) building and evaluate potential future scenarios of the tourist offer in 10-15 years from now and consequential strategies that may be adopted; (iii) contributing to local debate on tourism.

The second workshop, held in Auronzo on 24th September 2010, aimed to fulfil five main objectives: (i) to present the instrument utilised for the evaluation of the strategies refined during the first workshop; (ii) to present the analysis work that followed the first workshop, both in terms of indica-tors and models; (iii) to elicit weights for the evaluation criteria; (iv) to rank the strategies with the ClimAlpTour e-tool’s multicriteria analysis option; (v) To facilitate discussion on results.

The following chapters describe in depth the exercise carried out in Au-ronzo for the definition and evaluation of alternative mid-term strategies for the development of Auronzo as a successful winter destination.

19

Fig. 5

NetSyMoD in Auronzodi Cadore: methods & tools

methods & tools

Implementation of the NetSyMoD framework forparticipatory modelling and decision support, and in particular the following combination of approa-ches and tools1 Social network analysis (Pajek, AGNA)2 Conceptual mapping (Cmap, SIMOS, SWOT)3 Geographic Information System (Idrisi)4 System dynamics (Simile)5 Agent-based modelling (AWS1.0) 6 Decision-support system (ClimAlpTour e-tool)

20

Social network analysis (SNA) focuses on relationships among social entities, and on the patterns and implications of social relationships. It entails a representation of social environment in terms of patterns and regularities in relationships amongst interacting units (Wasserman & Faust, 1999; Scott, 2000). Main outputs / There are three main outputs from the SNA phase, which will be an input into the preparatory phase for the Creative Sys-tem Modelling (CSM) exercise. / A list of key stakeholders/experts to be involved in the next phases of NetSyMoD. This will limit the number of participants to a manageable size, and ensure that no important actors are left out of the exercise. / The analysis of power will highlight poten-tially problematic actors and relations, whom the facilitator will need to actively manage during the creative system modelling workshop. / A conflict analysis on the basis of position and roles of actors within the network, with the purpose of identifying key alleys and/or opponents, and actors who are opinion setters.

SNA unfolds in five phases: participants’ preliminary identification, inter-views with a sample of stakeholders, successive characterisation of their social network, identification of initial scenarios and criteria for their eval-uation, and actors’ final selection for the workshops.

3.1 / Participants’ identificationAfter a couple of preliminary visits to the field, the destination was chara-terised in terms of categories and main activities, that should have a stake in the workshop in an attempt to represent all interests.Given the very nature of the participatory process, designed to promote everyone’s contribution, the number of attendances was narrowed to 20 on the basis of the organisers’ previous experiences in similar environ-ment. In addition, the organisers sought to include also a small sample of participants that live outside the Municipality – but who could nevertheless contribute to the debate because of their expertise in the matter under dis-cussion. Table 1 below illustrates the five main categories and the 20 sub-categories identified as potentially relevant participants of the workshop. Given the competitiveness and different developments of the two main

3 / Phase 1 / Actors’ Analysis

Box 2

SNA in brief

21

tourists’ destinations (Auronzo di Cadore and Misurina) within the Mu-nicipality, at times it was necessary to consult for each category, one rep-resentatives from each area. For instance, both Presidents of the two skiing schools, the two companies managing the two skiing resorts, and so forth were contacted.

In total, 41 names of individuals were chosen as representative of the cat-egories mentioned below in Table 1 that should be (possibly) interviewed and perhaps invited to the workshop.

3.2 / Interviews with potential stakeholders After providing a standard SNA questionnaire to a few “sample-tests”, this was refined with their inputs and proceeded to the main structured-inter-viewing phase that aimed primarily at assessing the reciprocal relationship among actors. This part allowed the identification of the key actors and the characterisation of their role and position with respect to the decision to be taken. It also both highlighted past, present, and/or potential conflicts that might hinder the development of the workshop and provided information about the various actors’ opinions that were necessary for the organisation of the workshop. The questionnaires comprised of four main parts:1. General information about the interviewee and the institution that he/

CATEGORY SUB-CATEGORY

a Government /para-government

1 Public administration

2 Technical office

3 “Regole” (family communal bodies)

b Tourist housing /feeding

4 Hotels/Restaurants

5 Chalets

6 Agrotourisms

7 Estate-agents

8 Construction companies

c Tourists' entertainment

9 Skiing Schools

10 Skiing resort

11 Skiing-unrelated activities(indoor sports, spa, ice-karts, pubs)

12 Alpine guides

13 Italian Alpine Club (CAI)

d Tourists' / events'management

14 Tourist office

15 Tourism board

e Facilities bothfor locals and tourists

16 Business

17 Press

18 Emergency organisations(alpine rescue, civil protection body)

f Tourists 19 With holiday homes

20 Without holiday homes

Tab. 1

Categories consideredfor the workshop

22

she represented. 2. Social Network identification, where the interviewee listed the frequency, quality, and nature of his institution’s interactions with the others on the list. 3. Position’s analysis, where he/she could ex-press his/her opinion on the potential strategies to adopt and the criteria to value the final choice against. 4. Conflicts’ analysis over the use of natural resources for tourism’s purposes. With the twenty stakeholders interviewed, the majority of the categories was covered (Table 2)(3). Respondents were also asked to mention other potential actors for the workshop (the so-called “snowball technique”, that

reduces the possibility of leaving key actors unaccounted for). As a result, the initial list was enlarged to comprise about 50 names belonging to the first five categories elicited in. It should be specified here that the majority of the actors interviewed represented more than one category. Although theoretically they answered the questionnaire for one institution, overlap-ping might have often occurred. For instance, the Municipality owns 80% of the shares of the ski-resort Auronzo d’Inverno and is de facto the owner of the Tourism board Auronzo-Misurina. When attempting to characterise the relationship between the various institutions that operate in the area, not only the presence of exchange, but also its typology and frequency in terms of both data and information exchange and participatory planning were assessed (Table 3).

3.3 / Outputs of the analysisOnce collected, the field data was inserted the data in the Pajek and the AGNA (Applied Graph and Network Analysis) softwares that supported

MAINCATEGORY INSTITUTIONS MAIN

CATEGORY INSTITUTIONS

a/ePublic admininistrator

(opposition)and businessman

c Auronzo d'Inverno(skiing resort)

a Technical office c Skiing schoolAuronzo-Misurina

a Villapiccola land authority c Italian Alpine Club Auronzo

b Panoramic hotel c Fitness and spa centre

b Rinbiancoalpine agritourism c Tourism Consortium

Auronzo-Misurina

b Estate-agent c Skiing school Tre Cime Misurina

b Padova alpine refuge c MisurinaNeve (skiing resort)

b Misurina alpine malga (agritourism) d Tourism consultant VAS

c Alpine guide d Tourist office Dolomiti(provincia BL)

c Alpine guide e Monti sawmill

Tab. 2

List of interviewsper category

As it appears, touristswere excluded from this round of interviews, which had the specific focus to contextualise tourism supply in Auronzo di Cadore.

(3)

23

respectively the analysis and visualisation of the results. In Figure 6 and Figure 7 below, the various institutions are represented as nodes, where-as the edges that unite the nodes indicate the existence of institutional

interaction. The size of the nodes represents the overall scores that each received from the other interviewees. The thinner is the edge be-tween two nodes, the worst the frequency of the actors’ interaction. The frequency of the SNA is graphically represented below, if sim-plified (Figure 6 below). For sake of simplifica-tion, reciprocity was assumed.

As it appears in Figure 6, the social network that emerges from this preliminary analysis is very compacted. Although to different ex-tents, the interviewees are inter-related. No sub-groups operate independently from the others. The network density of 0.52 indicates that 52% of the relationships that could occur indeed materialise. Nevertheless, there emerg-es some difference in the number of actors to which each institution is connected: from a

minimum of 2 of “Civil Protection” (n.17) to a maximum of 20 of the “tour-ism board Auronzo-Misurina” (n.11) and the Municipality’s technical office (n.2). Strong interactions occur also with and between tourist entertain-ment groups (alpine guides, skiing instructors, and so forth). Table 4 summarises the number of relations of each institution considered. It appears that both “estate-less” and “second-home” tourists have direct contact with 73% of the other actors.

Not only social interactions vary in frequency, but their quality fluctuates significantly (see Figure 7). Thus, respondents were asked to indicate the quality of interaction with the other nodes. “1” stood for “appalling”, “6” for “optimal”. Table 5 reports the average mark that each institution received from the others in terms of quality of relationship. Although the average remains quite positive, with an average score of 4.5 out of 6, Villagrande land authority seems to score the worst result, with an average of 2.1 (scarce quality). Conversely, the Consorzio remains at the top, together with Mis-urinaNeve, the company that owns the lifts in Misurina. Alpine rescue, which in terms of frequency was one of the lowest, is however recognised

Is there any interaction

between your institu-

tion and…

How many times per

year?

How do you judge the quality of

this interac-tion?

How often do you ask info/data exchan-

ge to…?

How often do you share

info/data with…?

How do you judge the quality of this info

exchange?

Tab. 3

A sample of questionsfor the social networkcharacterisation’s phase

Fig. 6

Emerging social network-For reference number, see Table 4. The different shapes represent the categories, which individuals belong to.

24

as offering a good service by those who interact with the body.The various institutions interviewed generally sought for a wider space for participatory long-term strategic planning.

Although at times data and information are exchanged, only few collab-orate for planning and decisional activities, mainly for the organisation of events (CAI, tourist office, sometimes the Municipality - often through Tourism board, few hotels).

3.4 / Actors’ identification for the workshopIn light of the results discussed above, some actors were assigned prior-ity. Sometimes it occurred that the same person would fit into various categories, hence the highest number of actors in the right column than those actually invited to the workshops. In addition, four external actors were invited, respectively from a mountain chalet in the region, which opens in winter, a tourism consultant, a tourism entrepreneur who has worked with surrounding countries and areas, and the press.

NODO NUMERO DI RIF. PUNTO(DEGREE)

* DEGREERELATIVO

Public administration 1 10 0.45

Technical office 2 19 0.86

Regole Villapiccola 3 9 0.40

Hotels / Rest Auronzo 4 15 0.68

Chalets 5 13 0.59

Agritourism 6 15 0.68

Estate agents 7 10 0.45

Italian Alpine Club (CAI) 8 13 0.59

Skiing school Auronzo - Misurina 9 14 0.63

Alpine guides 10 15 0.68

Tourism board 11 18 0.81

Businesses 12 13 0.59

Construction companies 13 6 0.27

MisurinaNeve 14 9 0.40

Tourist office Dolomiti 15 15 0.68

Civil protection body 16 2 0.09

Alpine rescue 17 5 0.22

Auronzo d'Inverno 18 12 0.55

“Estate-less” tourist 19 16 0.73

Second-home tourist 20 16 0.73

Hotels Misurina 21 16 0.73

Skiing school Tre Cime - Misurina 22 12 0.55

Regole Villagrande 23 11 0.50

Tab. 4

Characteristics of Auronzo’ssocial network(*) relative to number of all other nodes (self excluded)

25

Due to their non strategic role, at this stage of the analysis, alpine rescue, civil protection, and Regole Villapiccola were excluded.

3.5 / Criteria SelectionInterviewees ranked a list of evaluation cri-teria from 0 (“I do not know”) to 1 (“use-less”), to 5 (“very important”), with the addi-tional possibility to express no opinion. The selection of the criteria was determined on the basis of the initial fieldwork and checked with the sample actors before the interview-ing phase.

The criteria themselves have been classified according to the three sustainability pillars-social, economic, and environmental.

This section of the questionnaire aimed at the identification of some indicators to utilise during the following workshop in the evaluation of the various strategies identified.

Given the contained number of respondents and criteria, the individual marks were aggregated in a simple manner: the cumulative mark of

Tab. 5

Quality of interactions’average scores (1-6)

Fig. 7

Quality of interactions-For reference number, see Table 4. The different shapes represent the categories, which individuals belong to.

INSTITUTION AVERAGE SCORE INSTITUTION AVERAGE

SCORE

1 Public administration 4.1 13 Constructioncompanies 3.5

2 Technical office 4.7 14 MisurinaNeve 5.7

3 Regole Villapiccola 3.7 15 Tourist office Dolomiti 5.6

4 Hotels / RestaurantsAuronzo 5.2 16 Civil protection body 4.3

5 Chalets 4.3 17 Alpine rescue 5.2

6 Agritourism 4.6 18 Auronzo d'Inverno 5.4

7 Estate-agents 3.4 19 “Estate-less” tourist 4.7

8 CAI 5.2 20 Second-home tourist 5.3

9 Skiing schoolAuronzo-Misurina 5.2 21 Hotels Misurina 4.1

10 Alpine guides 4.7 22 Skiing school Tre Cime Misurina 4.3

11 Tourism board 5.8 23 Regole Villagrande 2.1

12 Businesses 4.8

26

each criterion was calculated by summing the individual answers. Then, x the first criteria per category of sustainability were aggregated. In or-der to maintain anonymity, the order of the scores in the single answers is random (Table 7).

3.6 / Possible actions of tourism developmentsSimilarly, respondents were also asked to rank certain actions accord-ing to how useful they considered them for the development of more competitive tourism in the Auronzo.

Those actions in Table 8 which ranked 5, 8, 9, 10, and 11 were outlined by some interviewees and as such, not posited to all, which may explain the higher presence of “0” and their overall low ranking. A better coor-dination between the various stakeholders emerges as an utter priority for the development of a sound strategy for the future.

The above results on criteria selection and development actions’ iden-tification contributed to the drafting of three (plus one foreseeing no changes in the status quo) initial strategic options that were then re-fined with stakeholders in the next phase.

Tab. 6

List of actors to inviteto the workshop

CATEGORY SUB-CATEGORY N. OF PARTICIPANTS

a Government / para-government

1 Public administration x2

2 Technical office x1

3 “Regole” (family communal bodies) x1

b Tourist housing /feeding

4 Hotels/Restaurants x4

5 Chalets x2

6 Agrotourisms x1

7 Estate-agents x1

8 Construction companies x1

c Tourists'entertainment

9 Skiing schools x2

10 Skiing resort x1

11 Skiing-unrelated activities(indoor sports, spa, ice-karts, pubs) x1

12 Alpine guides x2

13 Italian Alpine Club (CAI) x1

d Tourists'/events' management

14 Tourist office x1

15 Tourism board x1

e Facilities both for locals and tourists

16 Business x2

17 Press x1

18 Emergency organisations(alpine rescue, civil protection body)

f Tourists 19 With holiday homes

20 Without holiday homes

27

SOCIAL TOT RANK

Job opportunities Soc1 5 5 5 5 2 4 5 2 3 4 5 4 3 5 4 2 63 1

Social integration Soc2 4 4 5 5 2 3 5 2 3 4 3 4 2 3 3 2 54 3

Services Soc3 4 3 5 5 5 2 5 2 3 5 4 5 3 4 3 3 61 2

ECONOMIC TOT

Human fluxes in arrival Eco1 4 4 5 4 4 4 5 4 4 3 2 5 3 4 4 3 62 3

Apportionmentof the inv’s / benefits btw

whole areaEco2 4 4 5 5 3 2 5 4 2 4 4 5 4 4 4 5 64 1

Investmentcosts / funding Eco3 5 3 4 2 5 5 3 4 2 3 4 2 5 4 5 3 59 4

Extra winter income Eco4 5 3 5 4 5 4 5 4 4 3 2 3 5 3 5 3 63 2

ENVIRONMENTAL TOT

Pollution Env1 5 5 5 5 5 4 5 5 2 5 5 3 5 5 3 5 72 1

Deforestation--> landslides Env2 4 3 5 3 3 3 5 5 2 5 5 3 5 2 3 2 58 3

Landscape Env3 4 3 3 4 2 3 5 4 2 3 4 5 5 4 3 5 59 2

SCENARIOS SCORE TOT RANK FEASIBILITY

To expand skiing area 2 3 5 4 3 4 4 5 5 4 3 5 5 4 4 4 64 2 lowconfidence

To augment off-piste facilities(snow shoes and back-country

itineraries, snowparks)2 0 5 4 3 5 4 3 5 4 3 5 5 4 3 4 59 3 high

confidence

To open mountain chalets in winter times 3 4 0 4 5 5 4 4 2 5 4 2 5 4 4 4 59 3 lowconfidence

To create more spa facilities 0 5 0 5 3 5 4 5 4 5 5 5 4 1 4 2 57 6

To solve fragmentationtourist offices and operators 5 4 5 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 4 1 5 1 4 66 1 mid

confidence

To invest in attractions for young tourists (e.g. bars, climbing hall,..) 0 0 5 3 0 4 4 5 4 4 3 5 4 5 1 3 50 7

To promote experience exchange andbetter collaboration with other resorts 5 5 4 4 5 4 0 2 1 5 4 5 3 5 3 3 58 5 mid

confidence

To create natural parks (e.g. UNESCO site) 5 3 2 3 0 0 0 4 5 4 3 4 5 4 3 4 49 10 To develop the primary sector 5 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 14 11

To improve receiving capacities of the area (and adapt them to new type of tourism) 5 0 3 5 4 5 0 4 4 3 0 0 4 4 3 4 48 9

To increase availabilityof skiing unrelated activities

(e.g. ice-karts, sleigh pistes,…)0 0 5 5 0 5 4 5 2 2 3 5 4 0 3 4 47 8

Tab. 7

Criteria’s ranking

Tab. 8

Identification of tourismdevelopment actions

28

The problems faced by planners and managers are complex and their drivers interwoven. It is necessary to identify the most relevant aspects, by focusing on which the major changes can be attained. Different sta-keholders hold different perceptions and beliefs about what are the cau-ses of the problem or how it should be tackled. Different techniques have been developed to surface tacit knowledge and deeply held be-liefs, including conflict assessment, problem structuring methods, and discourse analysis. Main outputs / (1) A list of most relevant drivers governing the percep-tion of the problem at hand (2) A preliminary list of possible solutions candidate to be assessed (3) A set of scenarios regarding the future deve-lopment of the main drivers and cause-effect relations (4) An extensive list of indicators against which the performance of the (5) The shared mental maps elicited at the CSM workshop will be the underlying mo-delling framework for tailoring the ClimAlpTour e-tool to the specific needs (6) The qualitative and/or quantitative indicators to be used in the choice phase with the DSS ClimAlpTour e-tool (7) A quantitative asses-sment of these indicators, in addition to their identification

In this phase the problem of winter tourism development in Auronzo di Cadore was scrutinised from various perspectives and viewpoints. The key actors identified in the first phase contributed to the development of a shared vision of the human-environmental system. The exploration of the problem includes analyses of legal and institutional frameworks, as well as the economy on various spatial levels and the state of environment. Future development of main drivers and pressures are simulated using models under alternative scenarios. Moreover, since a shared model of reality is needed for the correct evalua-tion of options, through the application of Creative System Modelling (CSM) techniques, creative thinking and cognitive mapping, it was possible to fa-cilitate the process of participatory modelling and elicitation of knowledge and preferences from actors, thus building a common understanding of the problem. Moreover, CSM also provides a scientifically-sound basis for the application of effective decision support systems (DSS), such as the ClimAlpTour e-tool.

4 / Phase 2 / Problem Analysisand Creative ve System Modelling

Box 3

Participatory developmentof shared scenarios in brief

29

4.1 / Future from stakeholders perspective: analysis of three scenariosof Auronzo winter tourism’ development in 10/15 years

4.1.1 / ScenariosScenarios are hypothetical sequences of events constructed with the pur-pose of focusing attention over causal processes and decision points (Eden, 1998). Hence a scenario is a representation of a possible future with an ex-plicit effort to understand the forces that shape it. The underlying idea that inspired this process was the identification of the most robust among three active adaptation strategies that are presented, in general terms, in Burki et al. (2007): (1) pursue of the traditional downhill ski-intensive paradigm; (2) alternative light ski-oriented post-modern de-velopment; (3) process of diversification and enlargement of tourist offer beyond-snow. On these bases and according to interviewees’ suggestions (Table 8), four infrastructure-oriented and spatially-explicit alternative strategies for the specific Auronzo context (SKINT, ALTSKI, BYDSNW, and BAU, see Table 9) were extrapolated for winter development. The additional one suggests a passive “business as usual” scenario. These take into account various orientations towards tourism and the per-ception of climate change from the local stakeholders’ viewpoint.Each strategy consists of a defined set of non snow-related facilities (i.e. accommodations, restaurants, retailers and others) and snow-related faci-lities (i.e. downhill skiing areas, cross-country skiing areas, off-piste skiing areas and snowpark) located in the areas of interests. In the map generated with a geographical information system (GIS), Figure 8, there appear the heterogeneous areas of interest in which the strategies and the simulation take place. In the first local workshop, the three alternative strategies were presented and further tailored to the participants’ suggestions; in the second, they were evaluated according and results discussed. Targeting the discussion

Tab. 9

Development scenariosfor Auronzo’s winter tourist offer in brief

CURRENT (BAU)

/ Everything remains the same, no new investments

SKI-INTENSIVE (SKINT)

/ High-tech downhill skiing centre: construction of new lifts/ Few hotels, restaurants, etc to frame the skiing offer

ALTERNATIVE-SKIING (ALTSKI)

/ New typology of skiing resort: free-ride skiing, nordic skiing, snow shoes/ Few hotels, restaurants, etc to frame the skiing offer

BEYOND SNOW (BYDSNW)

/ Abandonment of investments in skiing (and artificial snow) / Auronzo becomes a specialised resort for wellness and for family tourism:more non-snow related infrastructure (spas, sport centre, shopping, gastronomy, etc.)

30

on three distinct strategies and organising separate analyses might indeed be unrealistic, as in practice the a preferred strategy would quite likely con-tain elements of all three, but in this characterising phase it was considered a necessary approach, as only thus one may acquire specific information of each of the three alternatives and stimulate discussion about alternative futures. The workshop was divided into two parts, respectively a brainstor-ming one (diverging phase) over the proposed adaptation strategies and a consolidation one (converging phase).

4.1.2 / The conceptual modelWithin the three future development scenarios, organisers delineated al-ternative development “packages” for the area, in terms of use of natural,

social, and economic resources. During the workshop, after an initial over-view of the current situation in Auronzo (Figure 9), these strategies were refined through the use of cognitive maps, where stakeholders highlighted fundamental and redundant aspects of each of the scenarios, by answering to the following questions: If we opted for a strategy like the proposed one: / What would be missing? / What would be redundant? / What should be reminded?

The development of visual representation of the elements characterising the strategies was carried out by means of a specific piece of software (IHCM Cmap) use also at the workshop for real time annotation and sharing of the views of local actor.

Figures 10, 11, and 12 illustrate the results of this initial brainstorming pha-se. The SKINT strategy (Figure 10) develops new ski-areas both in the lower and in the upper part of the municipality. It includes a large project in Val Marzon area, a 40 millions € cableway connecting the lower part of the municipality to the “Tre Cime di Lavaredo”. Further ski-lifts and pistes are located around Misurina and in Val d’Onge creating a fully connected ski-area devoted to the tour of the Cadini peaks. At the same time the Monte

Fig. 8

GIS map of areas of interestfor potential futuredevelopment strategies

31

Agudo area is doubled in size extending into Val da Rin. Two snowparks become available: one in Auronzo and one in Misurina. The use of artificial snow is significantly increased covering 50% of the ski-pistes and even some cross-country tracks. Other limited non-snow facilities are created, mainly restaurants and bars and two new kindergartens.

With the ALTSKI strategy (Figure 11) the same Val Marzon installation is used to create the free-ride skiing/back-country tour of Cadini supported by few ski-lifts but no artificial snow and pistes preparation, apart from what already exists. This installation is thought to substitute the use of the carriageway to the Tre Cime in summer, moving towards a more sustaina-ble mobility.

One bigger snowpark becomes available in Misurina. Cross-country ski-tracks are further extended including itineraries dedicated to the snow-shoes practitioners. Other limited non-snow facilities are created, mainly restau-rants, bars, rentals and a new kindergarten. Comprehensively investments are inferior to the previous strategy and more flexible with regard to snow conditions. According to the BYDSNW strategy, Figure 12, artificial snow is abolished and the qualification of the receptive facilities is enhanced mo-ving the supply structure to higher standards and creating several new fa-cilities for wellness, kids and other indoor sports (i.e. a big pool-spa centre in Auronzo).

Further shops are created to stimulate holidays’ shopping. All the investments concern the non-snow-related facilities in order to move out from a snow-dependent tourism system.

Fig. 9

Cognitive mapof tourism in Auronzo

32

Fig. 10

Strategy SKINTafter brainstorming

Fig. 11

Strategy ALTSKIafter brainstorming

33

4.2 / Participatory strategy’s consolidation

4.2.1 / Attribution of weightsto the main factors of a winter holiday in the AlpsBuilding on ClimAlpTour’s WP6, participants ranked a list of eleven items that tourists had previously singled out as the most influential factors for their choice of an alpine destination in winter (Table 10). This allowed us to promote coherence between the demand and supply sides.

Stakeholders, through the application of the methodology developed by Simos (Simos, 1990), evaluated the above factors and attribute different weights to them according to their relevance for the objective that is how to make an Alpine destination attractive. One of the primary strengths this methodology is that it greatly reduces possibility of individual biases of the final outcomes. In Figure 13 below, there appear the results of the factors’ weighting.

The central box includes the central 50% for the average weights’ distribu-tion (between the second and the third quartile). The whiskers above and below the box delineate the total range, from minimum to maximum. Table 11 below illustrates the coefficients (weights and variability) related to the main factors, which characterise the Alpine winter offer. It is interesting to notice how factor A (snow-related activities) was given the highest ave-rage weight whilst factor J (artificial snow-making) one of the lowest. It is

Fig. 12

Strategy BYDSNWafter brainstorming

34

also remarkable that in the WP6 results, factor A ranked only 5th. Moreover, whereas during the workshop, participants repetitively men-tioned mobility as one of the greatest problem, in the analysis factor K (use of car in the resort) ranks one of the lowest.The outcome this exercise was then taken into account when choosing the indicators for stra-tegies’ evaluation.

4.2.2 / SWOT analysisThe SWOT analysis is a strategic planning method used to evaluate the Strengths, We-aknesses, Opportunities, and Threats of a given project. It involves both specifying the objec-tive of the project and identifying the internal and external factors that are favourable and unfavourable to achieve that objective. During

the workshop, each participant filled in one SWOT-form for each of the strategies, except BAU (Table 12).

The following peculiarities emerged from the SWOT analysis:/ An objective agreement on the idea of a re-organisation of the tourist sector with a better optimisation of the uniqueness of the Municipality’s

a Activities on the snow

b Outdoor activities not directly dependent on snow availability

c Outdoor activities in resorts and lower areas

d Culture

e Entertainment (shows, pubs, etc.)

f Gastronomy

g Wellness (sauna, Turkish baths, massages)

h Training / schools (ski, other e.g. cooking courses, yoga, etc.)

i

Hosting facilities (hotels/hospitality)

j Adaptation (artificial snow-making)

k Car utilisation in the resort

Fig. 13

Distributionof factor’s weights

Tab. 10

Factors characterisingwinter tourism

35

territory; / A general awareness on the necessi-ty to differentiate the tourist offer: for instance, alpine-skiing in Misurina and other activities in Auronzo and other lower-lying areas; / The inefficiency of public transport and the need of connecting the various skiing resorts in the area as one of the first obstacles to overcome; / The high competitiveness with other resorts which may hinder the success of SKINT, as several of them are already more developed in that direc-tion; / The uniqueness of territory itself may become an obstacle for local development, as a large share of the Municipality’s territory falls within protected areas of the Dolomites. / An overall concord on the need to differen-tiate the category “tourist” to respond more adequately to their needs and the possibility of

their discordance: foreigners for spring breaks, families for weekends, off-piste skiers, cross-country skiers, tourist with second-homes, non-sporty mountain lovers, and so forth.

Overall, during this participatory phase, a wide variety of opinions was col-lected, not only on the topic of winter tourism management but also about possible evolution patterns of the area. These results seem well-suited to promote further discussion between participants on the issue.

Tab. 11

Average weight and coefficient of variationper factor

Tab. 12

SWOT analysis

FACTOR NAME AVERAGE WEIGHT CV%

A Activities on the snow 0.109 32.197

BOutdoor activities

not directly dependent on snow availability 0.090 41.846

C Outdoor activities in resorts and lower areas 0.078 58.632

D Culture 0.074 35.363

E Entertainment (shows, pubs, etc.) 0.089 37.671

F Gastronomy 0.104 23.436

G Wellness (sauna, Turkish baths, massages) 0.104 18.078

HTraining / schools

(ski, other e.g. cooking courses, yoga, etc.) 0.095 40.363

I Hosting facilities (hotels/hospitality) 0.105 26.997

J Adaptation (artificial snow-making) 0.076 46.819

K Car utilisation in the resort 0.077 51.252

Total 1.000

- +

INTERNAL FACTORS

Strengths and weaknesses

related to internal capacities and

willingness

Strengths Weaknesses

EXTERNAL FACTORS

Opportunities and threats related to the external context to the Municipality

Opportunities Threats

36

Many of the previous analyses employ computer-based tools such as databases (and data management systems), visualisation components, and simulation models. Different tools are frequently assembled into a comprehensive Decision Support System, normally employing various interconnected and adapted components, controlled by an user inter-face. This phase addresses all activities related to the development of interoperable and useable software components, together with the col-lection of well documented and easily exchangeable data sets (including spatial data and time series). Main outputs / Seamless data flow between various tools and software component / User interface which guides user though various stages of the NetSyMoD process / Quality assurance regarding the integration of different components / Documentation and report facilities which ex-plain the process and facilitate the interpretation of results

In this phase, both the knowledge developed so far (previous phases of the NetSyMoD methodology) and separate research on climate change and social, economic, and environmental scenarios in Cadore were utili-sed for designing the toolbox of procedures and software tools capable of managing the data required for providing informed and robust decision in the following phase. This is necessary to both manage and communicate the information flow between various process phases, including exchan-ge, transformation, integration, validation and documentation of gathered knowledge. Hence, all information gathered was assembled in the ClimAlpTour e-tool. In practice, the performance of each selected strategy was modelled under future scenarios, utilising several modelling tools for quantifying various families of - social, economic, and environmental - indicators. All these in-dicators contributed to inform the final ClimAlpTour e-tool setting, which enabled us to prepare first an Analysis Matrix (AM) and then an Evaluation Matrix (EM) for the analysis of the options/strategies to submit to the par-ticipants during the second workshop.

The ClimAlpTour e-tool allows end-users - local administrations, NGOs, stakeholders in general - to explore alternative adaptation strategies with

5 / Phase 3 / DSS design

Box 4

DSS design in brief

37

reference to future climate change scenarios for each case study area. Such exploration allows identifying strengths and weaknesses of alternative strategies according to their performances regarding a set of evaluation cri-teria developed upon the indicators analysed during project activities: e.g. potential effects of the strategies on local employment, on environmental compartments, etc.

Required inputs are: 1. downscaled climate change scenarios; 2. a list of possible adaptation strategies/policies/actions; 3. estimated effects strate-gies on the set of the selected evaluation criteria; 4. preferences and priori-ties of the end users (e.g. weights assigned to the different criteria).

The structure of the ClimAlpTour e-tool input data is: 1. the core of the data to be analysed is an AM with alternative adaptation strategy options on the columns and evaluation criteria on the rows; 2. the cells of the matrix are filled with the performance of each strategy (column) on every criterion (rows) and may derive from surveys, modelling, contributions from local experts, etc. Elaboration procedures, provided to consider scientific eviden-ces, local knowledge, interests, and preferences, are based on multicriteria analysis methods developed upon previously existing algorithms and con-figured according to the specific need of the project.

Outputs are: 1. strengths and weaknesses of each strategy option; 2. ranking of the options according to the preferences expressed by the end-users in-volved.The main features of the ClimAlpTour e-tool include the formalisation of local problems and socio-economic and environmental systems according to the DPSIR conceptual framework further developed to become a concep-

Fig. 14

ScenDPSIR interface

38

tual model of the climate change impacts and for the analysis of adapta-tion measures (ScenDPSIR), as depicted in Figure 14, which simulates the ClimAlpTour e-tool interface.

The DPSIR approach is adopted by the software interface in order to for-malize the problems by means of indicators. These are used to describe the criteria upon which the selection of options is performed. Stakeholders weight them according to their preferences in order to eventually identify the preferred adaptation strategy and explore trade-offs between alterna-tive options based upon their strengths and weaknesses. In preparation of

the second workshop the most relevant indica-tors were short-listed and quantified.

5.1 / Modelling the indicatorsA list of social, economic, and environmental indicators emerged from both those identified by stakeholders during the first workshop and our judgements developed throughout former project activities and literary reviews. From those, 15 indicators were picked that were more suitable to the evaluation of the strategies (see Table 14). These criteria were selected on the

basis of both the preferences emerged during the first workshop and ex-perts’ judgements. For instance, uniqueness and beauty of the territory was often mentioned, hence our stress on those indicators with (either direct or indirect) environmental relevance, such as air quality, erosion, visibility, protected areas affected, garbage disposals, and so forth. In addition, the poor state of public transport remained on the forefront during the whole workshop: hence, during the calculation of air quality, for instance, experts forecasted an improvement of the service by 30%. Lastly, amongst the va-rious inputs in AWS1.0, competitiveness of the neighbouring resorts, ano-ther primary concern of our stakeholders, was considered.

Then, quantitative data needed for the assessment of the strategies were collected, according to the previously defined criteria. In order to gather data required for the evaluation of the strategies, several tools were utilised. Firstly, the various types of available and relevant information concerning the case study, including economic, demographic and biophysical time-series, were obtained by secondary sources. Secondly, other social and eco-nomic indicators, such as employment opportunities, energy consumption for snow-making, number of tourists, tourists’ peaks, and so forth, were calculated by running AWS1.0. Here, the information available on the tou-rists’ ethnography aided the creation of the tourist profiles necessary for the ASW1.0 simulation of tourist fluxes, in their turn needed to quantify those indicators mentioned above. This information is for obvious reasons incomplete, because one cannot adequately forecast the decision-making

CLIMATESCENARIO DESCRIPTION

CURRENT There are no changes from the recent past despite CO2 emissions

A1B

Rapid globalisation and economic growth with total exploitation of all

Energy resources available (higher va-riation of climate than B1)

B1More efficient technologies and socio-

economic development oriented to-wards services

Tab. 13

IPCC climate changescenarios utilised in Auronzo

39

Category Name Description Unit of meas. DPSIR Calculated with:

1 ECON Investment costs

Sum of costs persector per strategy € D AWS1.0

2 ECON/ ENV

Energyconsumption

Average cost ofenergy of a season € P AWS1.0

3 ECON/ SOC

Tourists' ex-penditures

Average dailyexpenditures per

visitor€/day I AWS1.0

4ECON/ SOC/ ENV

Total garbage disposal

Garbage disposalper winter season

per numberof tourist nights

ton I AWS1.0 (tourist nights), lit review

5 ECON/ ENV

Water con-sumption for snow-making

Water usefor artificial snow m3/y I AWS1.0

6 ENV Air quality

CO2 capturedby forest - (C02tran-sport + CO2hotels +

CO2ski-lifts)

ton/y I

AWS1.0 for n. of tourists and their

displacement, IDRISI for ha deforested, lit.

review for average CO2 emissions

7 ECON SCI affectedSite of Community

Importance altered by interventions

ha S GIS/maps Region

8 ECON Erosion

Delta tons of average soil loss after each

strategy'simplementation

ton I RUSLE (Simile), GIS (Idrisi), Google Earth

9ECON/ SOC/ ENV

ArrivalsN. of arrivals,Existing data

on guest structure N° I AWS1.0

10 ECON/ ENV Tourists' peaks

Standard deviation of total daily visitors

over 40 seasonsCV% P AWS1.0

11 ECONSynergies with

summertourism

Sum of contributionof each strategy

to summer tourism0-4 D Experts' judgement

12ECON/ SOC/ ENV

Long-termsustainability

The strategy seems appropriate from a

long-term-sustainabi-lity perspective

0-4 D Experts' judgement

13 ECON/ ENV Innovativeness

Innovativeness of strategy in terms of

green-initiatives, new activities proposed,

type of tourism, niche offer etc

0-4 D Experts' judgement

14 ECON Labour tourist sector

Approximated with variable cost of run-ning tourist facilities

€ I AWS1.0

15 SOC/ ENV

Visibilityof skiing areas

Allows to associate to each cell of the urban landscape

the percentage of a given ski area that is visible from there, as a function of terrain topography and land

cover

ha I GIS

Tab. 14

Indicators selected to loadinto the ClimAlpTour e-tool

40

process of winter tourists, particularly with regards to the potential ones. This is a knowledge gap that was partially covered with the simulation of representative behaviours in winter tourism.

Thirdly, other sub-models (Simile and SkiSkim 2.0) were used for snow days (SkiSim 2.0) and erosion (Simile). For other indicators, such as garba-ge disposal, several sub-indicators were calculated separately, such as the number of tourists and their average stay, the number of residents, and the average yearly garbage disposal per person. In addition, GIS files were

created - Figure 15 - to proceed with the comparison of the environmental impact of the strategies, particularly in terms of Site of Community Impor-tance (SCI) affected, erosion, and visibility.

Fourthly, some indicators were elicited by experts’ judgement through a Li-kert scale (0-4), amongst others sustainability of the strategy and synergies with summer tourism. Where relevant, indicators were matched against the three different climate scenarios adopted (Table 13).

5.1.2 / Climate ProjectionsData about projected weather conditions, concerning temperature, precipi-tation, and snow cover were produced with the SkiSim 2.0 model (Steiger 2010), consisting of two main components: the snow model and the snow-making module. For the project, natural snow accumulation and melt are simulated (first module). SkiSim 2.0 is able to create the requested daily data for each altitudinal band (100 m) of the ski-area in form of time series of 40 years. This becomes an input to AWS1.0, which reads the time series

Fig. 15

Example of Google Earth based exercise-Polygons / areasof interventionRed polygons/ current Auronzo Light blue / SKINTPink / ALTSKI Dark blue / BYDSNW

41

at the initialization phase, according to the selected climate scenario. Then, it passes the information to the simulated areas’ weather stations (i.e. refe-rence points), according to their elevation.

Climatic parameters were calculated on the basis of an absolute change from the reference period (1961-1990) to the 20 year mean of two future pe-riods (2011-2030 and 2031-2050). In Table 15 we present the absolute chan-ges for temperature and the relative changes for precipitation deriving from a downscaled regional circulation model, in the two scenarios of clima-

te change. The variations in temperature exhibit a coherent and univocal message of temperature increase of more than one degree in both scena-rios. However the B1 shows more constant changes while the A1B is more progressive, and in the end more severe, considering the two reference periods. Conversely the variability of the precipitations is very different in the two scenarios: while the A1B assumes a mean relative increase of 6 to 8% in both the periods of reference, the B1 assumes a drier fist period (CLI-SP, 2009).

REMO UBA M 2006 A1B

2011 - 2030 2031 - 2050

ABS. ΔTMEAN (ºC)

% ΔPMEAN (MM)

ABS. ΔTMEAN (ºC)

% ΔPMEAN (MM)

Dec 0.56 -0.17 1.53 30.67

Jan 0.57 -1.15 1.45 -8.47

Feb 1.86 2.87 2.17 12.94

Mar -0.17 16.88 1.18 4.99

Apr -0.07 10.56 1.55 -0.4

Seasonal over the 20 year period 0.5ºC 5.80% 1.6ºC 7.90%

REMO UBA M 2006 B1

2011 - 2030 2031 - 2050

ABS. ΔTMEAN (ºC)

% ΔPMEAN (MM)

ABS. ΔTMEAN (ºC)

% ΔPMEAN (MM)

Dec 1.81 -31.56 1.45 -14.26

Jan 1.98 -21.74 2 20.63

Feb 1.83 21.24 2.08 0.07

Mar -0.45 7.58 0.11 9.5

Apr 0.78 -5.94 0.4 25.81

Seasonal over the 20 year period 1.2ºC -6% 1.2ºC 8.30%

Tab. 15

Monthly change signalsfor temperatureand precipitation

42

5.1.3 / Agent-Based Model (AWS1.0 )AWS1.0 is an agent-based model (ABM) developed ad hoc within the project ClimAlpTour. An ABM model derives from the assumption that the aggre-gated behaviour, which emerges from simultaneous operations and inte-ractions between several actors in the community, defines the functiona-lity of the system that one intends to model. AWS1.0 mapped the tourist system in Auronzo, its heterogeneous elements, the behavioural rules and their change in space and time according to climate scenarios, expecta-tions, trends, competition with other resorts, and so forth. It is a tool to explore a system, without however pretending that it may give an exact prediction of its future characteristics.

The model is an original concept in the sense that, to our knowledge, this is the very first application of agent-based modelling to investigate adap-tation to climate change of winter tourism at a local level, integrating so-cio-economic and environmental components, and adopting a complexity science approach. The model, which has been firstly developed in Unified Modelling Language (UML) (Bock et al 1999), is fully tailored on the case study, the municipality of Auronzo di Cadore, located in the Dolomites. However, it has the potential to be generalized and eventually become an ontology of a generic winter tourism destination, especially for what con-cerns its conceptual structure in classes.

The spatial representation is particularly relevant given the characteristics of the system to be modelled that shows an extended geographical area with an evident bipolarity emerging from the presence of two main vil-lages, Auronzo and Misurina, which stand at very different climatic and environmental conditions, thus possess different elements of tourism at-traction. One further distinctive element that heavily influenced the mo-del’s design, and justifies per se the agent-based approach, was our interest in representing the supply-demand structure of the local winter tourism system capturing the multifaceted behaviour of its active components. In particular for the Auronzo context, experts opted for simulating the deci-sion-making process of different typologies of winter tourists, including those that are currently preferring other destinations or that are emerging since recently as a post-modern social phenomenon of tourism fruition (i.e. free-style and free-ride).

Tourists’ composition and their attitude towards the competing destina-tions contribute to the societal dimension of the model, which together with the climatic projections and the development strategies to be tested, allow for the constitution of multiple integrated scenarios. These are to be considered as a set of composed glimpses into reasonable futures. Such formulation is also well suited for our case’s participatory context, in which public and private actors, who constitute the supply side of the market, could be involved. Yet, for obvious reasons, tourists’ participation could

43

not be assured, especially with regard to the prospective ones. In the end, results were produced for the indicators described in Table 14, for the four strategies(4).

5.1.4 / Other indicatorsNot all the indicators were calculated by means of the AWS1.0 simulations, as reported in Table 14. One of the new features introduced in the ClimAlp-Tour e-tool was tested, namely that for live link with a system dynamic simulation environment called Simile (by Simulistics). A rather simple ero-

sion model was thus developed for comparing soil losses which could de-rive from developments, with the situation “ex ante”, based on the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE). Figure 16 depicts the Simile interface with a conceptual model in terms of stock & flow on the left and the simu-lated losses over time in the graph on the right (with or without deforesta-tion). Having adapted the parameters of the model to represent the surface interested by developments (average slope, vegetation cover, length of the slopes, and soil erodibility), four runs were performed. This fed directly the analysis matrix of the ClimAlpTour e-tool with the pertinent values of estimated average soil losses.

Fig. 16

Simile interface

For a more detaileddescription of the model, please refer toBalbi et al. (2011)

(4)

44

5.2 / Inserting data into the ClimAlpTour e-toolThe results of indicators’ calculations were then inserted them in the Cli-mAlpTour e-tool (see Figure 17). When the ClimAlpTour e-tool saves a new catalogue, it creates a .xls file which can be used for successive uses of the tool. This adds value to our exercise as it makes it possible to replicate it in similar contexts.

The previous exercises allowed us to fill in three Analysis Matrixes (AM), one per climate scenario, where for each indicator calculated values per

strategy and per climate change scenario were provided (see Figure 18). From the AMs, each indicator is normalised in Evaluation Matrixes (EM), in order to produce comparative values, which the stakeholders weighed in the next phases (Figure 19).

Due to this preparation, during the second workshop end-users could be provided with a DSS, the ClimAlpTour e-tool, in which information and knowledge acquired by the project are made efficiently manageable for group decision-making, informing local communities about possible adap-tation strategies and their ranking according to the set of criteria previously identified by the project and according to the preferences expressed by the stakeholders and the experts involved.

Fig. 17

ClimAlpTour e-tool’scatalogue of indicators

45

In order to both facilitate their weighting by the stakeholders and ensu-re coordination with WP6’ criteria (see Figure 1), the 15 indicators were grouped under seven criteria: environmental impact, economic costs with environmental relevance, impact on local economy, impact on the tourist sector, strategy feasibility, innovativeness, and long-term sustainability (see Figure 20). In other words, the figure represents the interface between this work and other activities on strategies’ analysis.

Fig. 18

Analysis Matrix (AM)

fig. 19

From AM to EvaluationMatrix (EM)

46

Fig. 20

Indicators’ clustering

47

Decision methods help to avoid inconsistencies underlying judgement and choice, and make decisions more compatible with normative axi-oms of rationality. Furthermore, if combined with deliberative tech-niques, decision methods render policy processes transparent and in-formed the perspectives or viewpoints of all actors. This is translated into a higher acceptance of the policies.Main outputs / Investing on the dimensions of winter tourism that are detached from the activities based on snow seems like the safest way to proceed for a destination with the characteristics of Auronzo di Cadore. / A BYDSNW strategy should however be linked to a project for the en-hancement of the public transportation as the in-destination transfer needs of tourists may significantly increase. / An ALTSKI strategy could be the way to mediate between the lifts industry, which has already invested a lot in the past and the possible futures that the local winter tourism will have to face. / Apart from the snow-related risks and costs, a SKINT strategy could undermine the bulk of Auronzo’s traditional tourism rather than building on it, turning such a choice into a strategic error in the medium to long term. Lift operators should rather take into account the optimization of the existing downhill skiing infrastructure and the related services.

The analysis of options consists in evaluating and choosing one (or more) solution to the problem (e.g. a policy measure, plan or project) from a set of mutually exclusive alternatives, or producing their complete ranking.

In order to accomplish this phase, stakeholders need to weigh the seven and, once results are inserted into the ClimAlpTour e-tool, discus-sion on the outputs ensues.

6.1 / Presentation of results and weightingof criteriaIn order to explain the stakeholders that the various indicators were calculated in three dif-ferent climate change scenarios, first the im-pact that the three situations might have on the

6 / Phase 4 / Analysis of Options

Box 5

Evaluation of thestrategies in brief

2031 - 2050 CURRENT A1B B1

Variation of averagewinter temperature - +1.58°C +1.20°C

Variation of averagewinter precipitation - +7.9% +8.3%

Snow daysper season(max 126)

Auronzo 55 20 32

Misurina 121 111 113

Tab. 16

Impact of climate change on Auronzo

48

snow availability in Auronzo was described, as a driving factors for the de-velopment of the resort’s winter offer (Table 16). The reader may notice the difference in changes of snow days between Misurina and Auronzo, due

primarily to the higher altitude of the former. The workshop then turned to individual weight elicitation exercise (Figure 21).

Each stakeholder has 100 points to allocate among the criteria; the highest score goes to the most important criteria, and the total must add up to 100. Although this methodology is more vulnerable to individual biases than the previ-ously utilised SIMOS, in terms of time needed to calculate the result and insert them into the ClimAlpTour e-tool, this one is much faster, hence suitable to the half-day workshop.

As it appears from Table 17, the macro-crite-ria, which describe impacts on local economy, scored the highest marks (score 26.31), whereas environmental criteria such as energy con-sumption and total garbage disposal did not seem to preoccupy stakeholders to any signifi-cant extent (score 8.25).

Fig. 21

Weight elicitation exerciseCRITERIA CRITERIA’S

SCORES INDICATORS INDICATORS’ WEIGHTS (%)

Environmental impact 19.06

Erosion 8.17

Air quality 8.17

Visibility 8.17

Water consumptionfor snow-making 8.17

Economic costs withenvironmental relevance 8.25

Total garbage disposal 3.54

Energy consumption 3.54

Impact on local economy 26.31

Tourists' expenditures 11.28

Labour tourist sector 11.28

Impact on tourist sector 16.19

Erosion 6.94

Tourists' peaks 6.94

Synergies with summer tourism 6.94

Strategy feasibility 9.19CSI affected 3.94

Investment costs 3.94

Long-term sustainability 11.56 Long-term sustainability 4.96

Innovativeness 9.44 Innovativeness 4.05

Tab. 17

Outcome of collectiveweighting

49

6.1.1 / Results of strategies’ assessments and discussion on outcomesThe insertion of individual weights into the ClimAlpTour e-tool permitted us to rank the strategies according to collective judgements for the three chosen climate scenarios (Figure 22) and view the result in histogram- and sustainability-triangle shapes (Figure 23; Figure 24). This was highly bene-ficial for the stakeholders, as they could easily get a feeling of what strategy dominated and why.

Figure 23 illustrates the histograms, whose height resulted from the strategies’ evaluation. Each represents one strategy, whilst the differ-ent colours represent how the various indicators contribute to the final outcome. Similarly, Fig-ure 24 exemplifies the sustainability chart of the four strategies. The inner triangle is the ideal area, in which a strategy should be spotted, as a consequence of the good balance among the environmental, the social and the economic di-mensions. The results represented here partly depend on the structure of the selected evalu-ative criteria, which reflect primarily the eco-nomic and environmental issues rather than the social one, in accordance with the stake-holders’ priorities. Given the current indicator structure, the second-best choice (ALTSKI) ap-pears to be slightly more sustainable than the preferred one (BYDSNW).

Overall, the preferred strategy resulted to be BYDSNW for the three climate scenarios. As shown in Figure 23, this development strategy seems more suited for Auronzo di Cadore, compared to the others, due to several fac-tors: 1. long term sustainability; 2. synergies with the summer tourism; 3. capacity of incrementing the arrivals and tourist’s expenditures.

ALTSKI is robustly performing as the second-best option, showing higher appropriateness in the “current” and “B1” climate scenario. A more ex-treme future with considerable less snow precipitations may significantly penalize this strategy. A SKINT strategy results to be particularly deficient in terms of investment costs and environmental impacts, but it would be desirable in terms of creation of job opportunities, increase of tourists’ ex-penditure and containment of seasonality. This result did not seem to surprise the majority of participants, notwith-standing the fact that during the first workshop the participants attributed the highest importance, in terms of influence in the choice of an alpine destination, to snow-related activities (see Table 11). Hence, one may con-

Fig. 22

Results of strategies’evaluation withthe ClimAlpTour e-tool

50

clude that the perception on the desirability of, and the value attributed to snow-related activi-ties changed throughout the participatory pro-cess as a consequence of merging local and sci-entific knowledge and structuring the informa-tion in an indicator-based framework. In fact, before the first workshop, Auronzo’s develop-ment strategies was still oriented towards the development of ski-intensive activities despite the fact that the competition of the neighbour-ing destinations is exceptionally strong and the possibility to connect with successful ski-tours

appears to be highly improbable.

6.2 / Auronzo ClimAlpTour e-tool application’s key messagesInvesting on the dimensions of winter tourism that are detached from the

activities based on snow seems like the safest way to proceed for a desti-nation with the characteristics of Auronzo di Cadore. A BYDSNW strategy should however be linked to a project for the enhancement of the public transportation as the in-destination transfer needs of tourists may signifi-cantly increase.

An ALTSKI strategy could successfully mediate between the lifts industry, which has already invested a lot in the past and the possible futures that the local winter tourism will have to face.

Apart from the snow-related risks and costs, a SKINT strategy could under-mine the bulk of Auronzo’s traditional tourism rather than building on it, turning such a choice into a strategic error in the medium to long term. Lift operators should rather take into account the optimization of the existing

Fig. 23

Strategies rankingafter weights’ elicitation(scenario B1)

Fig. 24

Sustainability triangle ofthe strategies evaluated(scenario B1)

51

downhill skiing infrastructure and the related services. Given the already high cost of energy for the accommodations compart-ment, in particular, local planners should focus on this issue before any new investment is made. A sound reflection about renewable energy based heating systems might be appropriate and could be part of a new market-ing strategy to characterise the destination.

Even without investments in new structures and facilities, a strategy may be to focus on other issues that have not been considered here such as the development of a public transportation (permanently linking Auronzo to Misurina), or the enhancement of the standards of hospitality through investments in formation and awareness raising, etc. However, sometimes the costs of pursuing such kind of activities may require a greater magni-tude of tourism fluxes in order to sustain them. Hence it is important to start developing tourism since today, in a proper direction.

All development strategies other than a BAU approach have the merit of improving the tourism all year-seasonality. However, this is not a measure that should be maximized per se (i.e. with a SKINT approach) renouncing to the flexibility of the destination in facing the tourists evolving needs and the natural cycles.

It must be acknowledged here that the framework of the assessment is limited by the fact that the four strategies considered were so extreme that very unlikely they could be implemented in a self-standing manner, while a possible real world solution could arise from the integration of elements belonging to different strategies. However, since the objective of the exer-cise was to stir discussion on the topic of winter tourism development, this remains an effective way to approach the issue. It must be clear that this study is not suggesting to dismantle previous investments, but it is rather exploring the most robust directions for new ones.

In a nutshell, Auronzo is certainly well characterized to focus on traditional skiing families and BYDSNW activities, whilst Misurina could well become a point of reference for the ALTSKI emerging paradigm.

6.3 / Auronzo di Cadore, consideration on the exercise in the areaThe quantity of information obtained during the second half-day work-shop is certainly satisfactory: a wide variety of viewpoints emerged on the topic of winter tourism management, particularly spurred by the analysis of the histograms that resulted from the weight elicitation procedure. These results suit well the promotion of further discussion between participants on the issue. However, a concrete package of implementation measures remained beyond the scope of this exercise.

One of the most significant outcomes was the awareness of stakeholders of

52

the need of defining a commonly agreed trademark for “Auronzo in winter” and act accordingly. And, although economic rationale scored the high-est, stakeholders were deeply aware of the importance of environmental indicators. In the discussion that followed the exercise, the uniqueness of the Municipal landscape and the obligation to promote the UNESCO brand, remained at the forefront. In terms of the preferred strategy, as expected, participants agreed that the only option implementable would be a mixture of the strategies analysed.

Participation has been intense and constructive. Local actors participated actively in the exercise proposed and demonstrated awareness of both the current situation and potential risks related to impacts of climate change. In addition, they showed great creativity in identifying tailored strategies and willingness to discuss them.

The participatory techniques adopted limited the unavoidable tensions be-tween different perspectives. Moreover, they enable a longer-term discus-sion than the usual short-term political and administrative strategies. This will be a key, if not the utmost, factor for facing future challenges in the Municipality.

There seems to be a spread preference, as the ClimAlpTour e-tool applica-tion in other pilot areas demonstrated, of the benefits that a less intensive infrastructural development strategy may be the way to achieve environ-mental, social, and economic sustainability. Generally, an intensive infra-structural strategy is penalised by the high cost of construction and its po-tentially negative impact on the environment.

53

7 ConclusionsClimAlpTour’s key messages

The exploratory and experimental case study of Auronzo di Cadore led to the development of a pilot application of the ClimAlpTour e-tool that could best exploit its capabilities for decision support. Later, the authors suc-cessfully tested its potentials for transferability and re-use in other Alpine destinations’ contexts, two located within the Aosta Valley (Monte Rosa and Valgrisenche) and two in Slovenia (Kranjska Gora and Soca Valley). Altogether, both from this experience and stakeholders’ feedback, there emerged the following conclusions. 1. The Alpine Region is extremely vulnerable but very diverse. The Al-pine Region in Europe is among the areas that are most rapidly affected by climate change. However the local conditions are very different across the region in terms of expected changes in climate, tourism typology and intensity and capacity to adapt, making it impossible to envision a single way to tackle the issue. The project analysed 24 pilot areas with diverse environmental, social and economic conditions in order to provide a global perspective on the Alpine tourism. The preliminary results of the project confirm the lack of a single and simple strategy to cope with the issue at stake throughout the Alpine arc. 2. Climate change is a source of opportunities and threats. Summer tourism could benefit from climate change. Hotter summers (as in 2003) would bring more people to the mountains and activities on fresh water may become more viable. The tourism season could be extended. At the same time droughts, and in general an intensified pressure on water re-sources, are likely to happen more frequently in summer even in the Alps, the Water Tower of Europe. Conversely winter tourism will be challenged by the expected decrease in snow and ice cover. The negative implications for winter tourism and sports mainly concern snow reliability. Nowadays already 57 of the main 666 ski resorts of the European Alps are considered to not be snow-reliable(5). However, climate change is also an opportunity for those resorts that are snow-reliable, as they will face less competition in the future. 3. The future socio-economic scenarios are as crucial as the climate con-ditions. In the last few decades, the positive trend of tourism demand in tourism has decreased in Alpine destinations and the average duration of the journey has diminished substantially. Many destinations have reached their maturity stage and the market is now saturated. Globalization has ex-

In general, a ski resort isconsidered to be snow-reliable if, in 7 out of 10 winters, a sufficient snow covering of at least 30 to 50 cm is available for ski sport on at least 100 days between December 1 and April 15.

(5)

54

ponentially increased the number of competitors and changed the behav-iour of travellers. The cost of energy is progressively eroding the margins of return for the accommodation and the transportation compartments. Water availability and cost is increasingly becoming an issue for the arti-ficial snow production. These elements are, per se, justifiable reasons to question the traditional development model based on the ski-based “white dream” which has prevailed since the seventies. On the contrary Alpine tourism needs trademarks (e.g. Pearls of the Alps), innovativeness and flex-ibility. 4. Adaptation should be mainstreamed into long-term tourism plan-ning. Adaptation to climate change should not be considered in isolated terms. Climate change is just another pressure that is adding up to tour-ism systems already under pressure that have specific strengths and weak-nesses. While tourism demand is very adaptive and the tourists’ behaviour is constantly and rapidly evolving, the tourism supply, meaning the Alpine destinations as a whole, need more time to plan their actions in order to re-spect their social, economic and environmental constraints. There certainly are autonomous actions (e.g. artificial snow, ski-pistes design, etc. ) that can be taken by the tourism suppliers, but the most crucial part of the ad-aptation effort will be played by the so called “planned adaptation”. There-fore adaptation should be regarded as a thoughtful and concerted process of tourism development planning for the long-term, and definitely beyond the mandate of one political administration. Climate change is but an op-portunity to involve the most appropriate set of local stakeholders into the process of definition of the actions to be taken for improving the sustain-ability of tourism within each Alpine resort. 5. There are “no regret” actions to be taken. Some tourism related issues are particularly crucial for the Alpine Region beyond the impacts due to cli-mate change. An Alpine tourism destination needs to be identifiable. Local culture, handicraft, gastronomy and agriculture are elements of strength, among the destination’s specificities, and should be incentivised. Other crucial factors that can have huge impact on the Alpine tourism are trans-portation and energy. A sound reflection about how to improve their sus-tainability might be appropriate for most of the Alpine resorts. 6. People of the Alps are ready. Raising the awareness of the stakehold-ers including tourists, population and businesses on the impact of climate change on tourism in the Alps is one of the goals of the whole project. However, in the participatory workshops that have been taking place dur-ing the duration of the project the local stakeholders have shown to be the sentinels of the climatic changes that have already happened. They are already deeply interested and aware about this issue. Moreover they have expressed the desire for a higher degree of inclusivity and participation. Indeed, what is still missing in many destinations is the capacity to let the stakeholders sit together around one table and agree on the way to proceed for improving the situation. In the pilot sites where it has been tested, the ClimAlpTour e-tool has provided the opportunity and the methodology to

55

overcome this limitation. Moreover, the results of the ClimAlpTour e-tool application have penalized the downhill skiing infrastructure- oriented ad-aptation strategies (e.g. new ski-areas) emphasising that, when consulted with the appropriate methodology, the local collective might have a coher-ent and “climate-change-safe” vision of how the future of Alpine tourism could look like.

What is particularly remarkable is the coherency of these key messages with the International Commission for Alpine Protection (CIPRA)’s 2011 pri-orities, where climate change and sustainable development lay at the fore-front, and various other studies: amongst others, OECD’s “Climate change and the European Alps: adapting winter tourism and natural hazard man-agement” report (2007); and UNWTO’s Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Climate Change and Tourism (2003). At this stage, the dissemination and the consolidation of the project ex-perience remains the key challenge for all the institutions involved in the ClimAlpTour project. Following up, there already exist new European proj-ects that continue to pursue this research and cooperation theme, that will benefit from this distinctive contribution.

56

References

Balbi et al. (2011). An Agent-Based In-tegrated Assessment of Winter Tourism Development in the European Alpine Region. Submitted to Environmental Modelling & Soft-ware. Bourdeau, P. (2009). Mountain tourism in a climate of change. Alpine space - man & en-vironment 7, Global Change and Sustainable Development in Mountain Regions. Innsbruck University Press. Innsbruck, Austria. Burki, R., B. Abegg, & H. Elsasser. (2007). Climate change and tourism in the Alpine Region of Switzerland. In Climate change and tourism: assessment and coping strategies, ed. B. Amelung et al, pp. 165-172. Maastricht. Castellari, S. (2008). Climate change, im-pacts and adaptation strategies in the Alpine Space: some results from the INTERREG III B project ClimChAlp. Proceedings of the confer-ence on Mountains as Early Indicators of Cli-mate Change. Padova, Italy, 17-18 April. CIPRA (Commissione Internazionale per la Protezione delle Alpi). (2011). Tourism in Climate Change – 08/2011. Climate Change Adaptation by Spatial Planning in the Alpine Space (CLISP). (2009). Report of Working Package 4- Vulnerabil-ity Assessment. Task 4. 3. 3. 3 Processing of regional climate model data & providing climate projections for MRs (CLM and/or REMO), Climate change exposure indica-tors, The Alps. Website http://www.clisp.eu/content/?q=node/229. Accessed August 2011. Eden, C. & F. Ackermann (1998). Making Strategy: The Journey of Strategic Manage-ment. Sage Publications: London. Giupponi, C. (2007). Decision Support Sys-tems for implementing the European Water Framework Directive: The MULINO approach. Environmental Modelling & Software, 22(2): 248-258. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (2007). Contribution of Work-ing Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report

of the IPCC, Climate Change 2007: The Physi-cal Science Basis. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, United Kingdom. Modello AuronzoWinSim, Website http://www.dse.unive.it/clim/climalptour.htm . Ac-cessed August 2011. OECD. (2007). Climate change and the European Alps: adapting winter tourism and natural hazard management. Gennaio. Provincia Autonoma di Bolzano, (2009). ASTAT, Profilo dei turisti in Alto Adige: anno turistico 2007/08, Info N. 29, May, 2009. Web-site http://www.provinz.bz.it/astat/it/mobili-ta-turismo/474.asp. Accessed August 2011. Provincia Autonoma di Trento, Osservato-rio Provinciale per il Turismo. (2007). La sta-gione turistica invernale 2006/07 in Trentino. Website http://www.turismo.provincia.tn.it/osservatorio/pubblicazioni/pubblicazioni_re-port/report_andamenti_stagionali/ . Accessed August 2011. Regione Veneto, (2010). Banca dati online. Website http://statistica.regione.veneto.it/dati_settoriali_turismo.jsp. Accessed August 2011. Scott, J. (2000). Social Network Analysis: a Handbook. London: Sage. Simos, J. (1990). Evaluer l’impact sur l’environment: Une approche originale par l’analyse multicitere et la negociation. Poly-techniques et universitaries Romandes, Laus-anne. Steiger, R. (2010). The impact of climate change on ski season length and snowmak-ing requirements in Tyrol. Climate Research, 43(3):251-262. UNWTO (2003). Climate change and tour-ism. Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Climate Change and Tourism. Djerba, Tunisia. 9-11 April. WWF (2006). Alpi e turismo: trovare il pun-to di equilibrio. WWF Italia. February.

Climate change is already significantly affect-ing the European Alpine Region beyond the average temperature signals that have been registered at a global level (IPCC 2007). Not even climate sceptics may deny the evidence of a 50% decrease of glaciers’ volume since 1850 (Castellari 2008). To establish whether this change is human-induced or not remains beyond the scope of this study, which specifi-cally explores what this may imply for winter tourism in the Alps. The ClimAlpTour project focused on how local development can adapt to changing climatic circumstances in an ad-vantageous way for one of its prime economic activity, tourism.