Snow cannons have become the soundtrack of European winters, but new research suggests they may no longer be the silver bullet ski resorts hoped for.
Snowmaking goes from backup plan to survival strategy
Artificial snow – often called “snowmaking” – was once a safety net for ski areas when winters turned patchy. From the 1990s onward, resorts installed networks of snow guns, pipes and reservoirs to top up natural snow and keep key slopes open.
That backup system has now moved to the centre of the business model. As winters warm and low-altitude snowfall declines, snowmaking is marketed as a way to “guarantee” skiing and reassure both tour operators and local authorities.
In France, the share of ski runs equipped for snowmaking jumped from about 14% in 2004 to nearly 40% in 2018.
This shift signals a deeper change: snowmaking is no longer simply an insurance policy. It has become the primary adaptation strategy for winter tourism in many Alpine regions, heavily backed by public subsidies and regional development plans.
The climate risk: less snow, more often
Natural snow has always been variable, but climate change is reshaping that variability. Cold, snowy winters are becoming less frequent, and lean winters are appearing more often, especially below 2,000 metres.
Climate projections under a high warming scenario of +4°C suggest that up to 98% of European ski resorts could face a very high risk of natural snow deficits by the end of the century. That threat does not only concern lift operators.
Entire valley economies depend on ski tourism: hotels, restaurants, ski schools, rental shops, local construction firms and seasonal workers all sit on the same snow-dependent foundation.
What a 15-year study of 56 Alpine resorts reveals
A recent analysis of 56 private lift companies in the French Alps, covering 15 consecutive winters from 2004/05 to 2018/19, offers one of the clearest economic tests of large-scale snowmaking investments.
➡️ Fünf Sternzeichen haben bis Ende Oktober viel Glück und Geld
➡️ Warum Hitzewellen wie Sommer 2025 Klimaanlagen-Upgrades essenziell machen – und Rabatte zu schnappen
➡️ Oma stinkt nicht sie duscht nur gesünder als du es aushältst
Researchers focused on two core financial indicators:
- Turnover (revenue): total sales, mainly from lift passes.
- Gross operating surplus (EBE): a key measure of operating profitability.
Using econometric methods, the team isolated the specific effect of snowmaking investments from other factors that shape a resort’s performance, such as:
- Altitude and average winter temperatures
- Size of the ski area
- Proximity to big urban markets
- Year-to-year snowfall differences
The goal was to identify not just correlation but causal links between investment in snowmaking and economic outcomes.
Big spending, limited payback
The result will unsettle many investors and local councils. Across the 56 resorts, the study finds no significant impact of snowmaking investments on either revenue or operating profit over the 15-year period.
Even during the 20% worst winters for natural snow, extra snowmaking capacity did not translate into measurably better financial results.
In other words, the additional cannons, pipes and reservoirs did not reliably boost the bottom line, including in seasons that were supposed to justify those investments.
Height still beats hardware
While snowmaking under-delivered, altitude quietly did what it has always done: protect snow. During the leanest winters in the study period, high-altitude resorts enjoyed a clear comparative advantage.
They needed less artificial snow, had more runs open for longer, and attracted a larger share of skiers looking for reliable conditions. That translated into relatively stronger economic performance, even without outspending rivals on snowmaking installations.
In a warming climate, elevation remains the most reliable asset a ski resort can have.
This contrast raises a tough question for mid- and low-altitude destinations: how long can capital-intensive snowmaking mask a structural climatic disadvantage?
When snow cannons stop paying off
The French results echo a broader body of research. As early as 2003, a Canadian study warned that snowmaking becomes uneconomic beyond a certain threshold: once operating costs, energy and water usage rise too far, the extra days of skiing no longer justify the bill.
Further work in France, Switzerland and Spain has reached similar conclusions. Early waves of investment brought clear benefits – stabilising seasons, keeping core slopes open, helping lift companies through bad years. But the marginal gains have shrunk over time.
| Phase | Effect of snowmaking investments |
|---|---|
| Initial rollout | Strong positive impact on operating days and revenue in poor snow years. |
| Expansion phase | Benefits still present but gradually declining as more slopes are covered. |
| Recent years | Little to no measurable effect on profitability, especially at lower altitudes. |
This pattern suggests many resorts may have reached, or passed, the point where further snowmaking infrastructure delivers little economic return, particularly as winters warm and production windows narrow.
Public money, private risk
Snowmaking networks demand heavy upfront investment: construction of reservoirs, underground pipe systems, pumping stations, high-voltage power lines and hundreds of snow guns. In many European regions, a significant share of this is funded by public money.
For local authorities, the logic is understandable. Ski lifts anchor entire local economies, so keeping them open appears politically safer than letting them shrink. Yet if new research shows that fresh snowmaking capacity no longer improves profitability, public support deserves closer scrutiny.
When subsidies flow into assets with declining returns, communities may be locking themselves into fragile futures.
There is also a timing issue. Snowmaking equipment typically has a lifespan of 15 to 30 years. A system installed today must still make sense in the 2040s, when winters are projected to be significantly warmer and more erratic.
Beyond snow cannons: other adaptation paths
Stopping snow production tomorrow is unrealistic for most ski areas. Many rely on it to open key access runs and beginner slopes, and to meet contractual obligations with tour operators during school holidays.
The real question is where the next euro, pound or franc of investment should go. Some options gaining ground in Alpine communities include:
- Year-round tourism: developing hiking, mountain biking, trail running and wellness offers that do not rely on snow.
- Higher-quality, shorter seasons: focusing on peak weeks with reliable conditions instead of stretching thin seasons at high cost.
- Transport and energy improvements: reducing emissions from access travel and resort operations to remain attractive to climate-conscious visitors.
- Economic diversification: supporting non-tourism sectors, remote work hubs and local services to reduce dependence on ski revenues.
For some low-altitude areas, the toughest conversation will be about managed decline: accepting fewer lifts, smaller ski areas, or even a gradual shift away from downhill skiing as the main draw.
How snowmaking actually works – and why climate limits it
Snowmaking depends on more than just low temperatures. Operators watch a factor called “wet-bulb temperature”, which combines air temperature and humidity. Snow guns typically need a wet-bulb temperature below about -2°C to -3°C to produce adequate snow.
As winters warm, these cold windows become:
- Shorter – fewer hours per season suitable for production.
- Less predictable – cold spells shift and fragment, complicating planning.
- More energy-intensive – marginal conditions require more power and water per cubic metre of snow.
At the same time, public debate around water use is intensifying, especially during autumn and winter droughts. Even when technical production remains possible, social and political acceptance may erode.
Future scenarios for ski regions
Looking ahead a couple of decades, three broad scenarios emerge for Alpine resorts:
- High-altitude consolidation: skiing concentrates in the highest, coldest areas where natural and artificial snow remain viable, while marginal resorts pivot to other activities.
- Technological push: some regions double down on ever more efficient snowmaking and grooming, at the cost of rising energy use and infrastructure, with uncertain long-term payback.
- Diversified mountain economies: communities gradually rebalance away from pure ski tourism, using today’s revenues to fund a broader, more resilient economic base.
Which path a resort chooses will depend on altitude, finances, politics and community priorities. The new evidence from the French Alps suggests that treating snowmaking as a long-term guarantee for business as usual is increasingly risky.
For visitors, the shift may feel subtle at first: a shorter ski season here, more summer activities promoted there, new hiking trails where beginner slopes once stood. For the people who live and work in these valleys, the decisions being taken now about snowmaking investments will shape livelihoods far beyond the next winter.
