University of New Hampshire University of New Hampshire
University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository
Sociology Scholarship Sociology
12-2007
Ski areas, weather and climate: Time series models for New Ski areas, weather and climate: Time series models for New
England case studies England case studies
Lawrence C. Hamilton
University of New Hampshire
Cliff Brown
University of New Hampshire - Main Campus
Barry D. Keim
Louisiana State University
Follow this and additional works at: https://scholars.unh.edu/soc_facpub
Part of the Sociology Commons
Comments
This is the pre-/peer reviewed version of the following article: Hamilton, L.C., Brown, C., Keim, B.D. Ski areas, weather
and climate: Time series models for New England case studies. (2007) International Journal of Climatology, 27 (15),
pp. 2113-2124, which has been published in ?nal form at https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/joc.1502. This article may be
used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with Wiley Terms and Conditions for Self-Archiving.
Recommended Citation Recommended Citation
Hamilton, L.C., Brown, C., Keim, B.D. Ski areas, weather and climate: Time series models for New England
case studies. (2007) International Journal of Climatology, 27 (15), pp. 2113-2124.
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Sociology at University of New Hampshire Scholars'
Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Sociology Scholarship by an authorized administrator of University
of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository. For more information, please contact Scholarly[email protected].
AUTHORS’ DRAFT. Final version published at:
Hamilton, L.C., B.C. Brown & B.D. Keim. 2007. “Ski areas, weather and climate: Time series
models for New England case studies.” International Journal of Climatology 27:2113–2124. doi:
10.1002/joc.1502
SKI AREAS, WEATHER AND CLIMATE:
TIME SERIES MODELS FOR NEW ENGLAND CASE STUDIES
Lawrence C. Hamilton
Sociology Department
University of New Hampshire
Cliff Brown
Sociology Department
University of New Hampshire
Barry D. Keim
Department of Geography and Anthropology
Louisiana State University
ABSTRACT
Wintertime warming trends experienced in recent decades, and predicted to increase in the
future, present serious challenges for ski areas and whole regions that depend on winter tourism.
Most research on this topic examines past or future climate-change impacts at yearly to decadal
resolution, to obtain a perspective on climate-change impacts. We focus instead on local-scale
impacts of climate variability, using detailed daily data from two individual ski areas. Our
analysis fits ARMAX (autoregressive moving average with exogenous variables) time series
models that predict day-to-day variations in skier attendance from a combination of mountain
and urban weather, snow cover and cyclical factors. They explain half to two-thirds of the
variation in these highly erratic series, with no residual autocorrelation. Substantively, model
results confirm the “backyard hypothesis” that urban snow conditions significantly affect skier
activity; quantify these effects alongside those of mountain snow and weather; show that
previous-day conditions provide a practical time window; find no monthly effects net of weather;
and underline the importance of a handful of high-attendance days in making or breaking the
season. Viewed in the larger context of climate change, our findings suggest caution regarding
the efficacy of artificial snowmaking as an adaptive strategy, and of smoothed yearly summaries
to characterize the timing-sensitive impacts of weather (and hence, high-variance climate change)
on skier activity. These results elaborate conclusions from our previous annual-level analysis.
More broadly, they illustrate the potential for using ARMAX models to conduct integrated,
dynamic analysis across environmental and social domains.
1
INTRODUCTION
Climate change presents challenges to a wide range of tourism-based economies, and to places
depending on winter tourism in particular (ACACIA 2000; Gössling and Hall 2005; OECD
2007; World Tourism Organization 2003). For many such places, climate change appears not
merely as a future hypothesis, but as a process already underway. During the late 20th century,
winter-recreation areas often saw departures from their historical climates. In some mountain
and northern regions snow cover was lighter, arrived later in fall, or left earlier in spring; it
became more restricted to higher elevations or latitudes; it more often confronted warm spells,
snow drought or rain (e.g., Huntington et al. 2004; Laternser and Schneebeli 2003; Mote et al.
2005; Nolan and Day 2006; Scherrer et al. 2004). Global climate models suggest that greater
changes lie ahead, driven by greenhouse gas buildup (e.g., IPCC 2001). Regional modeling
applications explore impacts of climate change for particular winter-recreation areas (e.g.
Elsasser and Bürki 2002; Scott forthcoming). The growing literature on this topic includes both
retrospective studies analyzing impacts of recent observed change, and prospective studies
exploring implications of future warming. Studies of both types often take a regional view,
because the geography of climate change and winter tourism vary on fine scales. Specific winter-
tourism regions of interest have included Eastern North America (Scott et al. 2006a), the Great
Lakes (McBoyle and Wall 1992), New England (Scott 2006), New Hampshire (Palm 2001;
Hamilton et al. 2003a), Vermont (Badke 1991), Ontario (Scott et al. 2003), Quebec (Scott et al.
2006b), the European Alps (OECD 2007), Switzerland (Beniston et al. 2003a, 2003b; Elsasser
and Messerli 2001; Koenig and Abegg 1997), Austria (Breiling and Charamaza 1999; Hantel
2000), Australia (Galloway 1988; Koenig 1999) and Japan (Fukushima et al. 2002).
Ski areas, emblematic of winter tourism, provide the economic engine for many rural regions.
Their importance extends beyond employment and revenues of the ski area itself. Real estate
booms in second homes and condominiums, and in-migration by retirees and others, raise
housing prices and transform communities in fundamental ways. Tax revenues, businesses, and
the needs for infrastructure and social services change as well. The impacts can be regional, not
confined to the ski towns (e.g., Palm 2001). If climate shifts directly affect ski areas, their
indirect impacts ripple as well. Ski areas in marginal snow areas become stressed first, and many
have in fact gone out of business (NELSAP 2006; Hamilton et al. 2003a). Others survive
through escalating investments in snowmaking, which raise the cost of staying in business—and
of skiing. Future prosperity for downhill ski areas will depend on more snowmaking, although
other snow sports such as cross-country skiing and snowmobiling might not have this option
(Scott 2006; Scott et al. 2006a). In recent years, many ski areas have diversified into real estate
and year-round recreation, to supplement their snow-season income. If snow-season income
declines, other seasons could expand to make up business, but the goals of year-round revenue
and employment, and a driver for real estate values, both are challenged. Scott and McBoyle
(2006) analyze such diversification strategies and constraints as part of their comprehensive
review of climate-change adaptation in the ski industry.
The sharp dependence of ski areas on weather, and the strong patterns of observed and predicted
climate change, make this topic particularly appropriate for interdisciplinary analyses of
2
society–environment interactions. Most work to date has studied these interactions from the
supply side of ski operations. Our analysis focuses instead on the impact of weather on demand.
Local, daily resolution allows a detailed examination of the time and spatial structure of weather
effects on skiing. For example, how is skier activity today affected by snow falling today? Or by
snow falling yesterday, or the day before that? How consequential is snow in the nearest major
city, compared with snow on the ski slopes themselves? Ski areas experience great variations in
business from one day to the next, as weekend and holiday cycles interact with unpredictable
weather at different locations. Daily resolution could also become more important if, as some
models predict and recent observations suggest, climate change involves shifts not just in means
but in variances, affecting the probabilities of extreme events such as winter thaws, droughts or
rain. Like annual data, daily data allow us to use time as an integrating dimension across social
and natural-science domains. Daily data, however, contain far more observations, hence more
information or degrees of freedom—new power for hypotheses tests and effect estimation within
dynamic multivariate models. The forecasting capabilities of mulivariate daily models could
prove to have practical applications as well.
We present two case studies below, exploring the feasibility of this general approach. Time
series models are constructed for daily attendance at two New Hampshire ski areas. The highly
erratic-appearing fluctuations in daily ski-area attendance, through multiple seasons, prove to be
reasonably well predicted from weekly cycles overlaid by irregular snow-cover and weather
effects. Because snow and weather follow deeper trends in climate, such work also has
implications for understanding the potential future consequences of climate change
CASE STUDIES, DATA AND METHODS
The New Hampshire ski areas that provide our case studies both date to the 1930s, making them
among the nation's oldest alpine resorts. Our northern site, Cannon Mountain, is located above
the state’s mid-latitude line (44º N) in the northwestern White Mountains (see map, Figure 1).
Our southern site, Gunstock Mountain Resort, is situated below mid-latitude near Lake
Winnipesaukee. Both resorts developed during the Great Depression of the 1930s, when large
government programs such as the Civilian Conservation Corps and the Works Progress
Administration employed thousands in support of new forest, conservation and development
initiatives. In New Hampshire, these efforts included the construction of ski trails and resort
infrastructure that provided a template for the industry’s subsequent growth (Gunstock Mountain
Resort 2006; New England Ski Museum 2006). Although they are comparable in size and
origins, our sites differ in their topography, elevation, average annual snowfall and proximity to
metropolitan markets.
3
Figure 1: Map showing the locations of case study ski areas in relation to nearby weather stations, the
city of Boston, interstate highways and (inset) the northeastern US and Canada.
4
Situated in Grafton County’s Franconia Notch State Park, Cannon was established in 1933 with
the help of the Civilian Conservation Corps. The area served as a prototype for the development
of alpine skiing in the northeastern United States. Given its proximity to Interstate 93, the resort
is quite accessible, although it is more distant from Boston (about 140 miles or 225 kilometers)
and other cities than ski areas located in the lower half of the state. Cannon has 55 trails and nine
lifts, a base elevation of 2000 feet (610 meters), and a vertical drop of 2146 feet (654 meters).
The resort reports an average of 156 inches (396 centimeters) of snowfall each year. Operated by
the New Hampshire Division of Parks and Recreation, the site is also home to the New England
Ski Museum (Cannon Mountain 2006; New England Ski Guide 2006; New England Ski Museum
2006; Ski NH 2006a).
Gunstock Mountain Resort, our southern site, is located in the town of Guilford and dates to
1935. It was created with help from the Works Progress Administration and is owned by
Belknap County. Gunstock is about 100 miles (161 kilometers) from Boston. It offers 51 trails,
seven lifts, a base elevation of 900 feet (274 meters), and a vertical drop of 1400 feet (427
meters). Gunstock reports receiving an average of 100 inches (254 centimeters) of snowfall
annually. In keeping with industry-wide trends, both areas have extensive snowmaking
capability and offer year-round activities including camping, summer sports, and day camps for
children (Gunstock Mountain Resort 2006; New England Ski Guide 2006; Ski NH 2006a).
With the assistance of resort personnel, we were able to obtain records of daily attendance
(roughly, counts of skier and snowboarder visits) through seven winter seasons at Cannon
(1999–2000 through 2005–06, more than 800 ski-operation days) and nine winters at Gunstock
(1997–98 through 2005–06, over 1000 ski-operation days). At Gunstock, the attendance includes
nighttime skiing. Our principal findings proved insensitive to minor variations in the definition
of “daily attendance.”
Weather and snow-condition indicators include daily snowfall, snowdepth and temperature for
Boston, Massachusetts, and Lakeport and Bethlehem, New Hampshire. These sites were selected
based on geography, and for data completeness and quality. The underlying dataset comes from
Climatological Data—New England, published monthly by the National Climatic Data Center,
and was provided in digital form by the Southern Regional Climate Center at Louisiana State
University. The nuances involved in the collection of snowfall and snowdepth data are fully
recognized (Doesken and Judson 1997). We view the Lakeport and Bethlehem weather-station
records as imperfect but demonstrably useful proxies for snowfall, snowdepth and temperature
conditions at the Gunstock and Cannon ski areas, respectively. Similarly, Boston provides a very
rough indicator of conditions in the urban and suburban regions of southern New Hampshire and
Massachusetts, where much of the skier/snowboarder population lives. Despite their limitations,
these proxies contribute essential predictive power to the models, exhibiting significant and
interpretable effects. Better weather/snow measures could lead to stronger effect estimates and
more accurate predictions, enhancing the models’ practical value.
5
Julian dates allowed us to merge daily ski-area and weather/snow datasets—a simple example of
using time as the integrating dimension across social and natural-science domains. From the
dates we created indicators for winter season, month, day of week, and day of season (arbitrarily
starting at 0 = November 1 each year). A variety of interaction terms (such as
weekend×snowfall) and transformations (such as log attendance and snowdepth) were tried out
as well, but these complicated the models without significant improvements in fit, and were
subsequently set aside.
Searching for predictability behind day-to-day fluctuations in ski-area attendance, we estimated
ARMAX models (autoregressive moving-average models with exogenous variables). The
exogenous variables in this case are cyclical factors and present or lagged values of daily
weather/snow indicators. The disturbances, standing for “everything else” that affects daily ski-
area attendance, were modeled explicitly through autoregressive (AR) and/or moving-average
(MA) terms, plus uncorrelated white-noise errors. AR terms reflect the influence on the
disturbance of past disturbances (or equivalently, of past values of the dependent variable). MA
terms reflect the influence of past random errors. Parameter estimation involves an iterative
maximum-likelihood procedure using the Kalman filter (Harvey 1989; Hamilton 1994). Robust
standard errors and hypothesis tests for individual coefficients, not requiring the usual (but
unrealistic) assumption of homoskedasticity, were obtained via “sandwich” variance estimates
(Huber 1967; White 1980, 1982; Royall 1986). Robust standard errors tend to be larger than the
usual standard errors, so in this sense our hypothesis tests are more conservative.
Substantial exploratory work informed the modeling process. We show results below from two
sets of models, termed “full” (about 24 exogenous variables) and “reduced” (11 exogenous
variables). Alternative specifications involving other predictors, lag structures, interaction
effects, differencing and transformations were tested along the way. The reduced-model results
reported below stood out as more stable, parsimonious, statistically supported and interpretable
than the alternatives, and their common specification replicated successfully across the two
datasets here. As with any exploratory analysis, our findings invite further replication using
independent datasets—which should be straightforward.
Some key findings have been visualized in displays influenced by Edward Tufte’s call (1990,
1997, 2001) for designing clear, information-rich graphics that allow viewers to draw their own
comparisons and examine details of relationships between variables. All graphical, database and
modeling work was conducted with Stata (Stata 2005a, 2005b; Mitchell 2004; for an overview
see Hamilton 2006).
RESULTS
Looking at daily skier-attendance data, one notices first its within-season heterogeneity. Figure 2
graphs the cumulative percentage of total attendance (number of skier/snowboarder visits) over
the ski season against the cumulative percentage of days. A consistent pattern appears: at both
6
Gunstock and Cannon, and with only minor variation across seven ski seasons, the least-busy
50% of the days accounted for less than 20% of the season’s total attendance. In contrast, the
busiest 10% of the days accounted for about 30% of the attendance each season. The percentage
of total revenues earned on the best 10% of days substantially exceeds 30%, due to the higher
lift-ticket prices during weekend and holiday periods. Figure 2 illustrates the disproportionate
importance of just a handful of good days each season. These critical days usually include the
post-Christmas and February school vacations, but weather can depress those periods or elevate
others.
Figure 2: Percent of season attendance vs. percent of season days (ordered from lowest to highest-
attendance, or busiest) across seven seasons at two ski areas. For all seasons and both areas, about
30% of the total attendance occurred on the busiest 10% of the days.
To characterize the patterns behind good and bad days, we begin with “full” models predicting
daily attendance across seven or nine seasons (roughly 870 or 1,030 days), based on:
(1) daily snowdepth, snowfall and temperature recorded at a “mountain” weather station not far
from the ski area;
(2) daily snowdepth, snowfall and temperature recorded in the city of Boston, the nearest major
metropolitan area (about 161 kilometers from Gunstock, and 225 from Cannon);
7
(3) dummy variables denoting days of the week, omitting one day when average attendance was
lowest; and
(4) for Gunstock only, a dummy variable marking days when the area was open for nighttime
skiing.
Observing distinct seasonal cycles, we initially included month indicators as well. Monthly
effects proved nonsignificant, however, after controlling for weather and snow conditions.
Unlike weekend cycles, the seasonal cycles appear mainly climate-driven.
The time structure of weather effects on skier activity was not known in advance. For example,
how is skier activity today affected by snow falling today? Or by snow falling yesterday, or the
day before that? In the full models we covered these possibilities by including weather
conditions from the same day (lag 0), previous day (lag 1), and two days previous (lag 2), for all
six “mountain” and “city” weather indicators. Through experiments, we determined that
disturbances in the full models were best specified as regular and multiplicative “seasonal”
(weekly, not yearly) first-order autoregressive and moving average processes:
ARIMA(1,0,1)×(1,0,1)
7
. Residuals from both full models, tested up to lag 24, do not differ
significantly from white noise. Squared correlations between observed and predicted values
equal .67 for Gunstock and .55 for Cannon. Individual full-model regression coefficients on the
weather variables appear unstable (high standard errors) and difficult to interpret, due to
multicollinearity among closely-related lagged values such as yesterday’s and today’s snowdepth.
Table I lists these coefficient estimates, z tests of their significance, and other modeling results.
8
Table I: Time series ARMAX models of daily attendance predicted by mountain (M) and city (C) weather
conditions, and weekly cycles. “Lag 0” refers to conditions that day, “lag 1” to the previous day, and so forth.
Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors and z tests employed. Residuals (to at least lag 24) resemble white noise.
Ski area/model
Gunstock/full Gunstock/reduced Cannon/full Cannon/reduced
Predictor coef. |z| LR ÷
2
coef. |z| coef. |z| LR ÷
2
coef. |z|
Snowdepth M 14.3* 16.2*
Lag 0 22 2.3* 9 1.3
Lag 1 –8 0.8 13 3.1* –3 0.3 11 4.1*
Lag 2 1 0.0 5 0.6
Snowfall M 10.4* 0.9
Lag 0 –13 1.3 2 0.2
Lag 1 25 1.9 12 1.9* 9 0.9 1 0.2
Lag 2 7 0.9 0 0.0
Temperature M 11.0* 8.7*
Lag 0 –36 2.9* –20 2.6*
Lag 1 –10 0.9 –20 2.7* 9 1.2 –3 0.7
Lag2 –11 1.6 4 0.8
Snowdepth C 4.7 5.6
Lag 0 –11 1.0 –4 0.4
Lag 1 21 1.7 17 1.9* 27 2.2* 18 2.2*
Lag 2 4 0.3 –6 0.5
Snowfall C 6.2 4.5
Lag 0 –7 1.1 –2 0.3
Lag 1 7 0.9 11 2.5* 9 1.4 12 3.2*
Lag 2 –7 0.9 –6 1.0
Temperature C 7.3 10.3*
Lag 0 5 0.6 8 1.2
Lag 1 27 2.1* –2 0.2 11 1.1 –7 1.2
Lag 2 –10 0.8 –25 2.7*
Sunday 1383 12.9* 1344 14.1* 771 11.3* 745 11.0*
Monday 471 4.8* 416 5.0*
Tuesday 109 1.4 277 4.4* 252 5.1*
Wednesday 45 0.8 34 0.5
Thursday 369 4.9* 340 5.8*
Friday 604 7.1* 559 7.2* 323 4.2* 301 4.6*
Saturday 1448 13.5* 1410 15.2* 935 11.7* 908 12.4*
Nighttime skiing 963 12.3* 991 12.3*
Disturbances ARIMA (1,0,1)×(1,0,1)
7
(1,0,0)×(1,0,0)
7
(1,0,1)×(1,0,1)
7
(1,0,1)×(1,0,1)
7
White noise test Q
24
p = 0.74 p = 0.78 p = 0.35 p = 0.42
observed/predicted r
2
.67 .66 .55 .53
* H
0
: no effect rejected by LR ÷
2
3
test (sets of 3 coefficients) or 1-tail z test (single coefficient) at á = .05. Significant
reduced-model coefficients shown in bold.
These models could be made more complex and arguably more realistic by including variables
marking holiday periods, but as with the monthly terms we found little advantage to including
holiday terms after weather and day-of-week had been entered. Indeed, multicollinearity and
other symptoms suggest that the full models already are unnecessarily complex. Dropping lag 0
and lag 2 weather conditions, nonsignificant day-of-week dummies, and nonsignificant ARIMA
disturbance terms led to the “reduced” models also shown in Table I. In these reduced models,
predictions based only on yesterday’s weather and snow conditions (in mountains and city),
along with important days of the week, proved very nearly as good as those from the full models:
r
2
of .66 (compared with .67) for Gunstock, or .53 (compared with .55) for Cannon. The
residuals still resemble white noise. While improving parsimony, we also gained more precise
and interpretable coefficients, within an appealingly practical structure that predicts today’s
attendance from yesterday’s weather. All effects have the hypothesized signs. Our discussion
now focuses just on these reduced-model results.
Our models follow the basic ARMAX form
y
t
= x
t
â + z
t
[1]
where y
t
represents daily ski-area attendance at time t. x
t
is a matrix of exogenous predictor
variables, and â the vector of coefficients on these x variables. The z
t
are “everything else”
disturbances. For the full models of Table I we found it best to describe these disturbances as
first-order autoregressive and moving average processes at both daily and multiplicative
“seasonal” (weekly) lags — in time series notation, ARIMA(1,0,1)×(1,0,1)
7
:
(1 – ñ
1
L)(1 – ñ
7,1
L
7
)z
t
= (1 + è
1
L)(1 + è
7,1
L
7
)å
t
[2a]
or, rearranging [2a] and writing with subscripts instead of L (lag) operators:
z
t
= ñ
1
z
t–1
+ ñ
7,1
z
t–7
ñ
1
ñ
7,1
z
t–8
+ å
t
+ è
1
å
t–1
+ è
7,1
å
t–7
+ è
1
è
7,1
å
t–8
[2b]
In [2a] and [2b], the å terms represent random “white noise” (uncorrelated) errors. Expanding
the disturbance term in [1] using [2b], our full models therefore have the form
y
t
= x
t
â + ñ
1
(y
t–1
x
t–1
â) + ñ
7,1
(y
t–7
x
t–7
â) – ñ
1
ñ
7,1
(y
t–8
x
t–8
â)
+ è
1
å
t–1
+ è
7,1
å
t–7
+ è
1
è
7,1
å
t–8
+ å
t
[3]
The reduced models in Table I involve a simplified set of predictors (x variables), and in the case
of Gunstock, drop the unneeded MA disturbance terms. Systematic components x
t
â in the
reduced models are linear functions of dummy variables indicating significantly “big” days of the
week, together with the previous day’s snowdepth and snowfall (centimeters) as well as mean
temperature (EC) recorded at a nearby mountain location (Lakeport or Bethlehem) and at a more
distant city location (Boston). For example, the reduced model for Cannon is
y
t
= 745sunday + 252tuesday + 340thursday + 301friday + 908saturday
+ 11beth_snowdepth
t–1
+ 1beth_snowfall
t–1
– 3beth_temperature
t–1
+ 18bos_snowdepth
t–1
+ 12bos_snowfall
t–1
– 7bos_temperature
t–1
+ .68(y
t–1
x
t–1
â) + .57(y
t–7
x
t–7
â) – (.68)(.57)(y
t–8
x
t–8
â)
– .20å
t–1
– .43å
t–7
+ (.20)(.43)å
t–8
+ å
t
[4]
where å
t
etc. are white-noise errors.
The unstandardized coefficients in Table I or equation [4] estimate changes in daily
attendance—the number of skiers or snowboarders—expected from each one-unit increase in a
10
predictor variable, if other predictors stay the same. For example, a one-centimeter increase in
the previous day’s snowdepth at Bethlehem, near Cannon, increases the predicted attendance by
11 skiers/snowboarders, other things being equal.{1} A one-centimeter increase in the previous
day’s snowdepth in the more distant city of Boston increases predicted attendance somewhat
more, by 18 skiers, even though Boston snow might have no bearing on Cannon-area conditions.
Although our snow and weather proxies are rough indicators for actual ski-slope and urban-area
conditions (and do not take snowmaking into account), these results support the “backyard
hypothesis” that snow in urban backyards can be as important to ski businesses as snow in the
mountains. Further encouragement for the backyard hypothesis appears in the Gunstock reduced
model, with significant effects of 13 skiers/snowboarders for each centimeter of snowdepth
yesterday in the mountains, and 17 for each centimeter in the city.
Cannon mountain is larger, at higher elevation, more northerly, and less sustained by local
(including nighttime) visitors. At its lower and more southerly location, Gunstock has a shorter
season and greater exposure to winter thaws and rains. We are not surprised to see a number of
differences between the two areas’ results in Table I, including differences in weekly cycles
(which partly reflect business strategies). The similarities are nevertheless striking. Common
findings include:
(1) the effectiveness of the basic ARMAX modeling approach based on yesterday’s city and
mountain weather, day of the week, and ARIMA disturbances;
(2) significant positive effects from yesterday’s snowdepth in the mountains;
(3) significant positive effects from yesterday’s snowdepth in the city, net of snowdepth in the
mountains—confirming the backyard hypothesis;
(4) further supporting the backyard hypothesis, significant positive effects from yesterday’s
snowfall in the city, net of mountain conditions;
(5) no monthly effects, net of snow conditions and temperature; and
(6) large Saturday and Sunday effects (more than 40% of total skier-days) that should surprise no
one, but serve to underline the importance of a handful of days to each season.
A crucial subset of weekends and holiday periods account for much of the annual attendance.
Figure 3 visualizes this point with respect to the central part of one very good ski season at
Cannon, 2002–2003. Jagged lines track the day-to-day variations in actual and predicted
attendance from December 1 to April 10 (30 to 160 days after our arbitrary zero point, November
1). Predictions were calculated from the reduced model of Table I (equation [4]), although that
model applies to all days for all seven ski seasons 1999–2006, not just the central 2002–2003
period shown. In the background of Figure 3, a light-gray mountain depicts the rise and fall of
daily snowdepth reported from the mountain town of Bethlehem. A lower, darker mountain
depicts the more transient snowdepth in Boston. The two highest peaks in attendance, around
days 60 and 110, roughly correspond to the two snowiest periods in Boston.
11
Figure 3: Actual and reduced-model predictions of attendance at Cannon during the 2002–03 ski season,
graphed with snowdepth in Boston and in the White Mountains town of Bethlehem.
Figure 4 contains nine small graphs of similar design, depicting data and reduced-model
predictions for all the analyzed ski seasons at Gunstock. In Figure 4, the light-gray background
mountains indicate snowdepth reported from the nearby town of Lakeport, and dark gray again
indicates Boston.
12
Figure 4: Actual and reduced-model predictions of attendance at Gunstock through nine ski seasons,
graphed with snowdepth in Boston and in the mountain town of Lakeport.
The gray background mountains in Figure 4 paint a snow portrait of nine winters, visualizing
their year-to-year variation. Some winters, notably 2000–01 and 2002–03, featured relatively
deep and continuous snow cover in the mountains, with intermittent periods of substantial snow
cover in Boston. Others such as 2003–04 and 2005–06 saw only shallow and discontinuous
snow cover in the mountains, and very little in Boston. Skier activity likewise varies from year
to year. Spikes in attendance mark weekends and holidays. The highest spikes occur at different
times from one year to the next, however, because they are influenced by snow conditions and
weather. Some years had many good weekends, whereas others appear dominated by a few. The
winter of 2005–06, among the least snowy on record, exhibits comparatively few and mild
attendance peaks.
IN THE CONTEXT OF CLIMATE CHANGE
Recent analyses of the ski business and climate change have emphasized the adaptive importance
of snowmaking (e.g., Scott 2006; Scott et al. 2006a, 2006b). So long as temperatures stay low
enough to make and keep snow, and the necessary water and infrastructure exist, ski areas can
13
manufacture snow that is deeper and more durable than what snowfall provides. Snowmaking
costs millions, but has become a competitive and climatic necessity in many places. Smaller,
less capitalized resorts, and those in marginal climates, have trouble making the necessary
investments—a factor in their high failure rate, and the industry’s consolidation into a smaller
number of larger resorts (Hamilton et al. 2003a; NELSAP 2006). One ski-business report
discussed New Hampshire’s low-snow winter of 2005–06 (see Figure 4) as follows:
“A key contributor to the business levels during a winter with little natural snow can be
directly attributed to the state’s vast snowmaking efforts. New Hampshire Governor John
Lynch felt this past winter’s effort was so vital to the state’s economy that he issued an
official commendation to New Hampshire’s snowmakers.” (SkiNH 2006b)
This is not to say that business levels remained normal, despite little snow. As Figure 5 shows,
the 2005–06 attendance was low, like the snow cover. Without major snowmaking, however,
attendance would have been even lower. Figure 5 demonstrates that although snowmaking
surely cushions the impact of low-snow seasons, it has not made the business independent of
natural snow. The gap between highest and lowest-snow years is on the order of 100,000 skier-
days at these two areas alone.{2}
Figure 5: Annual attendance at two ski areas vs. cumulative annual centimeter-days of snow cover at
nearby towns. Attendance and snowdepth totals aggregated from daily data.
14
One limitation on snowmaking as a substitute for snowfall is the fact that snowmaking, too,
depends on winterlike weather. During the seasons graphed in Figure 5, the number of
December through March days with average temperatures above freezing ranged from 6 at
Bethlehem and 19 at Lakeport, in the cold winter of 2000–01, up to 38 at Bethlehem and 55 at
Lakeport, in the warm winter of 1999–00. Note that the cold winter of 2000–01 was also the
most snowy and highest-attendance in Figure 5. Conversely, the warm winter of 1999–00 was
among the least snowy and lowest-attendance. Within each season, moreover, days with less
snow often also are warmer, which can complicate snowmaking when it is needed the most.
Skiers individually might adapt to weather by waiting until poor conditions improve, or by skiing
more frequently once conditions become good. But such behavioral flexibility evidently is not
enough to overcome the impact of low-snow winters, as seen in Figure 5. We saw no large-scale
pattern of skiers adapting to a poor start of the season by increasing their attendance later on. At
both Cannon and Gunstock, total early-season (November through January) attendance exhibited
a weak positive correlation with late-season (February through April) attendance, instead of the
negative correlation one might expect if many skiers were compensating within seasons. Daily
autocorrelations appear predominantly positive or zero, as well.
Figure 5, like the modeling results in Table I, confirms that skier activity still depends upon
weather. Snowdepth in the mountains matters, controlling for temperature (noteworthy because
low temperatures permit artificial snowmaking). Moreover, both snowdepth and snowfall in the
city matter, although they do not necessarily reflect snow conditions in the mountains. If this
backyard effect reflects ignorance, then education is the cure—skiers could be persuaded that
great skiing exists in the mountains, even when their backyard is bare. The backyard effect
might also partly reflect subtler dynamics, such as people who feel less like skiing, or perceive
more activity choices, when conditions are not wintry near home.
Weather follows climate, and the weather/snow indicators analyzed above have been moving
with more general climate trends. Mean annual temperatures over the Northeastern US increased
by an average of 0.08EC/decade over the past century, a trend that steepens to 0.25EC/decade in
the past three decades, and becomes even more pronounced, 0.70EC/decade, if we focus
specifically on winters. The Northeast’s observed winter warming has been accompanied by
decreases in snowfall amounts, snowpack depth, and ratio of snow to total precipitation (Hayoe
et al. 2006). Both the observed trends and the consensus of nine atmosphere-ocean general
circulation models (AOGCMs) support a conclusion that “the impacts of climate change are
already being experienced across the NE” (Hayoe et al. 2006).
Earlier studies noted similar warming trends in New England (NERA 2001) and New Hampshire
(Hamilton et al. 2003a) specifically. Over the period of historical records from 1896 through
2006, the mean December through March winter temperature in New Hampshire warmed by 3.7E
F (2.1E C), a significant linear rise. As seen in Figure 6 the main warming occurred not linearly
but in two steps, roughly 1910–1945 and (more steeply) after 1975—parallel to regional trends
(Hayoe et al. 2006, in review; also see NECIA 2006) and also to the more general rise in global
15
mean temperatures (e.g., Zweirs and Weaver 2000). Although the timing of New Hampshire
winter warming parallels the global, all-season trend, it has been more pronounced. As mean
winter temperature rose closer to the melting point in the late 20th century, and warm winter days
became more frequent, many New Hampshire ski areas went out of business (Hamilton et al.
2003a).
Figure 6: Mean December–March temperature in New Hampshire, 1896–2006. Shown as deviations
from the overall mean, with lowess regression curve. Linear trend +2.1EC (+3.7EF). The mean winter
temperature was constructed from an updated 2007 issue of the United States Historical Climate Network
(USHCN) (Karl et al. 1990). These USHCN stations for New Hampshire were then used to derive climate
divisional data according to the methods of Keim et al. (2003, 2005).
Looking forward, the New England Regional Assessment report (NERA 2001) described results
from two AOGCMs that project rises of 3 to 7EC in minimum winter temperature over 21st
century, assuming that greenhouse gas concentrations rise by 1% of current levels per year.
Regional models also project decreasing winter snow depth in the 21st century, including the
particular locations of our two case-study ski areas (Scott, personal communication). Hayoe et
al. (2006, in review) note that, although an ensemble of eight current AOGCMS generally do
well in modeling historical Northeastern US temperature trends, none succeed in reproducing the
rapid 0.7EC/decade increase in winter temperatures observed over 1970–2000. This difficulty
might reflect their limitations in modeling regional snow cover. The (possibly conservative)
16
ensemble projected further winter warming on the order of +1.1 to +3.1EC under different
emissions scenarios by 2064, and more by century’s end. Warming trends would shift the
distribution of daily temperatures upwards, thereby “decreasing the number of days that fall
below cold-temperature thresholds” (Hayoe et al. 2006). Such projections, together with our
demand-side findings about weather effects, suggest steeper challenges ahead for this industry.
DISCUSSION
Nearly three decades ago, as global warming began its not-yet-recognized takeoff, Dunlap and
Catton (1979:243) described the emergence of environmental sociology, which asserted that
“physical environments can influence (and in turn be influenced by) human societies and
behavior.” The development signaled, in principle, a rejection of the idea that researchers can
explain social facts only in terms of other social facts. Perhaps most of us now agree, but in
practice the goal of integrating environmental indicators as variables in social research has not
been simple. Much environmental sociology remains focused within the social domain, making
progress in research on environment-related policies, movements, attitudes or behavior.
Environmental conditions themselves then appear indirectly, as background concerns or objects
of social construction, instead of direct measures that covary as cause or effect with human
activities. More formal integration has been limited by the fact that environmental and social
data tend to be observed across different units, at different scales, and have different dynamics.
The two obvious dimensions for integrating environmental variables are time and space. Spatial
integration occurred classically in cross-sectional research where, for example, nations, states,
counties or cities comprise the units of analysis. Environmental variables available for such units
include measures of resource consumption (e.g., oil, electricity, or proxies based on wealth),
effluent emissions (e.g., CO
2
, solid wastes, hazardous wastes), environmental quality (e.g., air,
water or soil contamination), or mean climate (for examples see Adeola 2001; Brooks and Sethi
1997; Carson, Jeon and McCubbin 1997; Dietz and Rosa 1997; Ehrhardt-Martinez 1998; Hope
et al. 2006; Jorgenson 2004; Rasker 2006; Rudel 1999; York, Rosa and Dietz 2003).
Environmental circumstances such as climate-change vulnerability can be considered among the
background factors affecting individual survey respondents whose locations are known (e.g.,
Zahran et al. 2006). Recent advances in modeling and remote sensing have made technically-
defined spatial units such as grid cells or satellite-image pixels available for integrated research
(e.g., Grove et al. 2006). Spatially-integrated data of most types can be mapped or, where
enough observations exist, analyzed through multiple regression and related methods.
Alternatively, we might employ time as the integrating dimension, using years, months or days
for our units of analysis. Yearly time series of aggregated social data are widely available, as are
yearly series of business and economic statistics, resource-use measures such as fishery landings,
farm harvests, mine output or timber cutting, some ecological monitoring, and weather/climate
summaries at many scales. Yearly time series permit simple integration and, importantly, focus
our attention on change. Such data tend to be limited, however, in the length of available
17
series—often, just a few decades or less, not enough to support modeling. Consequently, their
analysis has often been informal, using time plots and narratives to infer connections between
environmental and societal change (e.g., Hamilton et al. 2000, 2003a, 2003b, 2004a, 2004b).
Daily data of interest to environmental sociology are less common. Where they do exist,
however, the rich information contained in hundreds of daily observations could open new
analytical doors. This paper began as a “test of concept,” investigating whether ARMAX
modeling of daily time series could yield practical new information regarding the specialized
topic of climate impacts on ski areas. Time series modeling provides a toolkit that might prove
broadly useful for this and other types of detailed impact studies.
Our first results are encouraging, although it is too soon to generalize from the findings.
Whether our two case studies will turn out to be representative of other ski areas, and how things
differ elsewhere, are questions best addressed through replications using more diverse samples.
As steps in that direction, we are currently exploring other Northeastern case studies, as well as
parallel work in Colorado where trends in mountain snowpack have been a concern (Mote et al.
2005). A more ambitious step will be to develop ways to look forward from daily-attendance
models, driving them with future winter days generated stochastically from place-adjusted
models under alternative climate scenarios. Such integration should yield new insights about the
role of variability in this very quick-response domain.
NOTES
{1} Effects in the reported models are linear. Nonlinear specifications, such as a decreasing
impact from additional snow as the base becomes deeper, seem quite plausible. We watched for
this possibility by trying log snowdepth instead of snowdepth as a predictor, but saw no
consistent improvement in fit. Log versions of the dependent and other variables likewise did
not yield better models, so we retained the simple linear versions.
{2} Although the same set of years comprises the data points in both panels of Figure 5, some
years (notably 2001–02) plot at different relative x-axis positions, reflecting divergent snow
experiences at two mountain locations less than 50 miles (80 km) apart. This observation
highlights snow variability and the importance of location-specific analyses.
18
REFERENCES
ACACIA. 2000. Tourism and recreation. In Assessment of Potential Effects and Adaptations
for Climate Change in Europe, ed. M. Parry, 217–226. Norwich, UK: University of East
Anglia, Jackson Environmental Institute.
Adeola, F. 2001. Environmental injustice and human rights abuse: The States, MNCs, and
Repression of Minority Groups in the World System. Human Ecology Review 8:39–59.
Badke, C. 1991. Climate Change and Tourism: The Effect of Global Warming on Killington,
Vermont. Unpublished undergraduate thesis, Deparment of Geography. Waterloo, Canada:
University of Waterloo.
Beniston, M., F. Keller, B. Kofi, and S. Goyette. 2003a. Snow pack in the Swiss Alps under
changing climatic conditions: An empirical approach for climate impact studies. Theoretical
and Applied Climatology 74:19–31.
Beniston, M., F. Keller, B. Kofi, and S. Goyette. 2003b. Estimates of snow accumulation and
volume in the Swiss Alps under changing climatic conditions. Theoretical and Applied
Climatology 76:125–140.
Breiling, M., and U.P. Charamaza. 1999. The impact of global warming on winter tourism and
skiing: A regionalised model for Austrian snow conditions. Regional Environmental Change
1:4–14.
Brooks, N., and R. Sethi. 1997. The distribution of pollution: Community characteristics and
exposure to air toxics. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 32:233–250.
Cannon Mountain. 2006. http://www.cannonmt.com, accessed 4 August 2006.
Carson, R., Y. Jeon, and D. McCubbin. 1997. The relationship between air pollution emissions
and income: U.S. data. Environment and Development Economics 2: 433–450.
Dietz, T. and E. Rosa. 1997. Environmental impacts of population and consumption. In
Environmentally Significant Consumption: Research Directions, P. Stern, T. Dietz, V. Ruttan, R.
Socolow, and J. Sweeney eds., 92–99. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
Doesken, N.J., and A. Judson. 1997. The Snow Booklet: A Guide to the Science, Climatology,
and Measurement of Snow in the United States. Colorado Climate Center, Department of
Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University.
Dunlap, R.E. and W.R. Catton, Jr. 1979. Environmental Sociology. Annual Review of Sociology
5:243–273.
19
Ehrhardt-Martinez, K. 1998. Social determinants of deforestation in developing countries: A
cross-national study. Social Forces 77:567-586.
Elsasser, H. and R. Bürki. 2002. Climate change as a threat to tourism in the Alps. Climate
Research 20:253–257.
Elsasser, H. and P. Messerli. 2001. The vulnerability of the snow industry in the Swiss Alps.
Mountain Research and Development 21(4):335–339.
Fukushima T., M. Kureha, N. Ozaki, Y. Fujimori, and H. Harasawa. 2002. Influences of air
temperature change on leisure industries: Case study on ski activities. Mitigation and
Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 7(2):173–189.
Galloway, R. 1988. The potential impact of climate changes on Australian ski fields. In
Greenhouse: Planning for Climatic Change, ed. G. Pearlman, 428–437. Melbourne, AU:
CSIRO.
Gössling, S., and C. Hall, eds. 2005. Tourism and Global Environmental Change; Ecological,
Social, Economic and Political Inter-relationships. London: Routledge.
Grove, J.M., M.L. Cadenasso, W.R. Burch, Jr., S.T.A. Pickett, K. Schwartz, J. O’Neil-Dunne, M.
Wilson, A. Troy and C. Boone. 2006. Data and Methods Comparing Social Structure and
Vegetation Structure of Urban Neighborhoods in Baltimore, Maryland. Society and Natural
Resources 19:117–136.
Grove, JM; Cadenasso, ML; Burch, Jr., WR; Pickett, STA.; Schwartz, K; O’Neil-Dunne, J;
Wilson, M; Troy, A; Boone, C. 2006. Data and Methods Comparing Social Structure and
Vegetation Structure of Urban Neighborhoods in Baltimore, Maryland. Society and Natural
Resources 19:117–136.
Gunstock Mountain Resort. 2006. http://www.gunstock.com/about_us/, accessed
4 August 2006.
Hamilton, J. D. 1994. Time Series Analysis. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Hamilton, L. C. 2006. Statistics with Stata 9. Belmont, CA: Duxbury.
Hamilton, L.C., P. Lyster and O. Otterstad. 2000. Social change, ecology and climate in 20
th
century Greenland. Climatic Change 47(1/2):193–211.
Hamilton, L.C., D.E. Rohall, B.C. Brown, G. Hayward, and B.D. Keim. 2003a. Warming
winters and New Hampshire’s lost ski areas: An integrated case study. International Journal of
Sociology and Social Policy 23(10):52–73.
20
Hamilton, L.C., B.C. Brown and R.O. Rasmussen. 2003b. West Greenland’s cod-to-shrimp
transition: Local dimensions of climatic change. Arctic 56(3):271–282.
Hamilton, L.C., R.L. Haedrich and C.M. Duncan. 2004a. Above and below the water:
Social/ecological transformation in northwest Newfoundland. Population and Environment
25(3):195–215.
Hamilton, L.C., S. Jónsson, H. Ögmundardóttir, and I. Belkin. 2004b. Sea changes ashore: The
ocean and Iceland’s Herring Capital. Arctic 57(4):325–335.
Harvey, A. C. 1989. Forecasting, Structural Time Series Models and the Kalman Filter. Camb
ridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hantel, M. 2000. Climate sensitivity and snow cover duration in Austria. International Journal
of Climatology. 20:615–640.
Hayhoe, K., C.P. Wake, J. Bradbury, T. Huntington, L. Luo, M.D. Swartz, J. Sheffields, B.
Anderson, A. DeGaetano, D. Wolfe and E. Wood. 2006. Past and future changes in climate and
hydrological indicators in the U.S. Northeast. Climate Dynamics 28(4):381–407.
Hayoe, K., C. Wake, B. Anderson, J. Bradbury, A. DeGaetano, A. Hertel, X-Z Liang, E. Maurer,
D. Wuebbles and J. Zhu. In review. Quantifying the regional impacts of global climate change:
Evaluating AOGCM simulations of past and future trends in the temperature, precipitation, and
atmospheric circulation in the Northeast US.
Hope, D., C. Gries, D. Casagrande, C.L. Redman, N. Grimm and C. Martin. 2006. Diversity of
spatial variation in plant diversity across the Central Arizona–Phoenix ecosystem. Society and
Natural Resources 19:101–116.
Huber, P. J. 1967. The behavior of maximum likelihood estimates under non-standard
conditions. In Proceedings of the Fifth Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and
Probability, 221–233. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Huntington, T.G., G.A. Hodgkins, B.D. Keim, and R.W. Dudley. 2004. Changes in the
proportion of precipitation occurring as snow in New England (1949–2000). Journal of Climate
17(13):2626–2636.
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2001. Climate Change 2001: Impacts,
Adaptation and Vulnerability. Third Assessment Report. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Karl, T. R., C. N. Williams, Jr. and F. T. Quinlan. 1990. United States Historical Climatology
Network (HCN) Serial Temperature and Precipitation Data. ORNL/CDIAC-30, NDP-019/R1.
21
Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Department
of Energy, Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
Keim, B. D., and B. Rock. 2001. The New England Region’s Changing Climate. In Preparing
for a Changing Climate: The Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change. The
New England Regional Assessment Overview, 8–17. Durham, NH: University of New
Hampshire.
Keim, B.D., A. Wilson, C.P. Wake, and T. Huntington. 2003. Are there spurious temperature
Trends in the United States Climate Division Database? Geophysical Research Letters
30(7):10.1029/2002GL016295.
Keim, B.D., M.R. Fischer and A. Wilson. 2005. Are there spurious precipitation trends in the
United States Climate Division Database? Geophysical Research Letters 32, L04702,
doi:10.1029/2004GL021985.
Koenig, U., and B. Abegg. 1997. Impacts of climate change on winter tourism in the Swiss
Alps. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 5(1):46–58.
Koenig, U. 1999. Climate change and snow tourism in Australia. Geographica Helvetica
54(3):147–157.
Jorgenson, A. 2004. Uneven processes and environmental degradation in the world-economy.
Human Ecology Review 11:103-117.
Laternser, M. and M. Schneebeli. 2003. Long-term snow climate trends of the Swiss Alps
(1931–99). International Journal of Climatology 23(7):733–750.
McBoyle, G., and G. Wall. 1992. Great Lakes skiing and climate change. In Mountain Resort
Development, A. Gill and R. Hartman eds. Burnaby, BC: Simon Fraser University.
Mitchell, M. N. 2004. A Visual Guide to Stata Graphics. College Station, TX: Stata Press.
Mote, P. W., A. F. Hamlet, M. P. Clark, and D. P. Lettenmaier. 2005. Declining mountain
snowpack in western North America. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society
86(1):39–49.
NCDC. 2006. National Climate Data Center FTP site. ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cirs/,
accessed 30 May 2006.
NECIA. 2006. Climate Change in the U.S. Northeast: A Report of the Northeast Climate
Impacts Assessment. Cambridge, MA: Union of Concerned Scientists.
22
NELSAP. 2006. New England Lost Ski Areas Project. http://www.nelsap.org/, accessed 4
August 2006.
NERA (New England Regional Assessment Group). 2001. Preparing for a Changing Climate:
The Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change. Durham, NH: University of
New Hampshire.
New England Ski Guide. 2006. http://www.newenglandski.com, accessed 4 August 2006.
New England Ski Museum. 2006. http://www.skimuseum.org/, accessed 4 August 2006.
Nolin, A.W. and C. Daly. 2006. Mapping “at risk” snow in the Pacific Northwest. Journal of
Hydrometeorology 7(5):1164–1171.
OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). 2007. Climate Change in
the European Alps: Adapting Winter Tourism and Natural Hazards Management.
http://www.oecd.org/document/45/0,2340,en_2649_34361_37819437_1_1_1_1,00.html
accessed 6 Jauary 2007.
Palm, B. 2001. Skiing with Climate Change: An Analysis of Climate Change and the
Consequences for the Ski Industry of New Hampshire and Vermont. Masters Thesis, Oxford
University.
Rasker, R. 2006. An exploration into the economic impact of industrial development versus
conservation on Western public land. Society and Natural Resources 19:191–207.
Royall, R. M. 1986. Model robust confidence intervals using maximum likelihood estimators.
International Statistical Review 54:221–226.
Rudel, T. 1999. Critical regions, ecosystem management, and human ecosystem research.
Society and Natural Resources 12:257–260.
Scherrer, S.C., C. Appenzeller C and M. Laternser. 2004. Trends in Swiss Alpine snow days:
The role of local- and large-scale climate variability. Geophysical Research Letters 31(13)
doi:10.1029/2004GL020255
Scott, D, D., Dawson, J, Jones, B. forthcoming. Climate change vulnerability of the Northeast
US winter tourism sector. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies to Global Change.
Scott, D., and G. McBoyle. 2006. Climate change adaptation in the ski industry. Mitigation and
Adaptation Strategies for Global Change http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11027-006-9071-4
23
Scott, D., G. McBoyle, and B. Mills. 2003. Climate change and the skiing industry in Southern
Ontario. Climate Research 23(2):171–181.
Scott, D., G. McBoyle, G. Mills, and A. Minogue. 2006a. Climate change and the sustainability
of ski-based tourism in eastern North America: A reassessment. Journal of Sustainable Tourism
14(4):376–398.
Scott, D., G. McBoyle, and A. Minogue. 2006b. Climate change and Quebec’s ski industry.
Global Environmental Change doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.05.004
Ski NH. 2006a. http://winter.skinh.com, accessed 4 August 2006.
Ski NH. 2006b. http://www.skinh.com/businessresultsrelease.cfm, accessed 4 August 2006.
Stata Corporation. 2005a. Stata Time-Series Reference Manual, release 9. College Station, TX:
Stata Press.
Stata Corporation. 2005b. User’s Guide, release 9. College Station, TX: Stata Press.
Tufte, E.R. 1990. Envisioning Information. Cheshire CT: Graphics Press.
Tufte, E.R. 1997. Visual Explanations: Images and Quantities, Evidence and Narrative.
Cheshire CT: Graphics Press.
Tufte, E.R. 2001. The Visual Display of Quantitative Information. Cheshire CT: Graphics
Press.
White, H. 1980. A heteroskedasticity-consistent covariance matrix estimator and a direct test for
heteroskedasticity. Econometrica 48:817–830.
White, H. 1982. Maximum likelihood estimation of misspecified models. Econometrica
50:1–25.
World Tourism Organization. 2003. Climate Change and Tourism: Proceedings of the First
International Conference on Climate Change and Toursim. Djerba, Tunisia, 9–11 April.
Madrid, Spain: World Tourism Organization.
York, R., E. Rosa, and T. Dietz. 2003. Footprints on the earth: The environmental consequences
of modernity. American Sociological Review 68:279-300.
Zahran, S., S.D. Brody, H. Grover and A. Vedlitz. 2006. Climate change, vulnerability and
policy support. Society and Natural Resources 19:771–789.
24
Zwiers, F. W. and A. J. Weaver. 2000. The causes of 20th century warming. Science 290(15
December):2081–2083.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We are grateful to Amy Bassett (Marketing Director, Cannon Mountain) and Greg Goddard
(General Manager, Gunstock Mountain Resort), who generously provided the attendance data
that made this work possible. James Hamilton gave helpful suggestions on an earlier draft;
Cameron Wake and Daniel Scott shared their own work in progress.
25