The Roles of Heuristics, Avalanche Forecast, and Risk Propensity in the Decision Making of Backcountry Skiers

Furman, Nathan; Shooter, Wynn; Schumann, Scott

doi:10.1080/01490400.2010.510967

Cited by 49 publications

(43 citation statements)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A key advantage of the introduction of the EADS in 1993 was seen as the provision of consistent information across the European Alps (Meister, 1995). Forecast danger level has been shown to be the part of the forecast most known and used in the Alps (Winkler and Techel, 2014;LWD Steiermark, 2015;Procter et al, 2014), influencing backcountry destinations (Techel et al, 2015b) and local decision-making by recreationists (Furman et al, 2010). Many users of avalanche forecasts are typically ac-tive within warning regions where forecasts are produced by a single regional avalanche forecast center (e.g., in VOR or TIR).…”

Section: Inconsistencies: Implications For Forecast Usersmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Spatial consistency and bias in avalanche forecasts – a case study in the European Alps

Techel

Mitterer

Ceaglio

et al. 2018

Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. In the European Alps, the public is provided with regional avalanche forecasts, issued by about 30 forecast centers throughout the winter, covering a spatially contiguous area. A key element in these forecasts is the communication of avalanche danger according to the five-level, ordinal European Avalanche Danger Scale (EADS). Consistency in the application of the avalanche danger levels by the individual forecast centers is essential to avoid misunderstandings or misinterpretations by users, particularly those utilizing bulletins issued by different forecast centers. As the quality of avalanche forecasts is difficult to verify, due to the categorical nature of the EADS, we investigated forecast goodness by focusing on spatial consistency and bias, exploring real forecast danger levels from four winter seasons (477 forecast days). We describe the operational constraints associated with the production and communication of the avalanche bulletins, and we propose a methodology to quantitatively explore spatial consistency and bias. We note that the forecast danger level agreed significantly less often when compared across national and forecast center boundaries (about 60 %) than within forecast center boundaries (about 90 %). Furthermore, several forecast centers showed significant systematic differences in terms of more frequently using lower (or higher) danger levels than their neighbors. Discrepancies seemed to be greatest when analyzing the proportion of forecasts with danger level 4 – high and 5 – very high. The size of the warning regions, the smallest geographically clearly specified areas underlying the forecast products, differed considerably between forecast centers. Region size also had a significant impact on all summary statistics and is a key parameter influencing the issued danger level, but it also limits the communication of spatial variations in the danger level. Operational constraints in the production and communication of avalanche forecasts and variation in the ways the EADS is interpreted locally may contribute to inconsistencies and may be potential sources for misinterpretation by forecast users. All these issues highlight the need to further harmonize the forecast production process and the way avalanche hazard is communicated to increase consistency and hence facilitate cross-border forecast interpretation by traveling users.

show abstract

Section: Inconsistencies: Implications For Forecast Usersmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…-At higher danger levels, the occurrence of natural avalanches can sometimes be used to verify the danger level (e.g., Elder and Armstrong, 1987;Giraud et al, 1987;Schweizer et al, 2018).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Spatial consistency and bias in avalanche forecasts – a case study in the European Alps

Techel

Mitterer

Ceaglio

et al. 2018

Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Introducing the EADS in 1993 as a European standard (Meister, 1995) improved communication of avalanche danger, and provided a basis for rule-based management strategies. The danger level is used by many users (Winkler and Techel, 2014;LWD Steiermark, 2015;Procter et al, 2014) and affects decision making during back-country tours Furman et al, 2010) and in the work of risk management authorities. Avalanche warnings provide important information for back-country tour planning as well as en route (Winkler and Techel, 2014;LWD Steiermark, 2015;Baker and McGee, 2016).…”

Section: Public Avalanche Warningsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Avalanche warning systems are used in trip and preparedness planning, and have been shown to have an influence on the decisions people make in order to reduce risk (e.g. Furman et al, 2010;Marengo et al, 2017). Mountain guides, course providers, rescue services and avalanche observers report that people actively respond to the avalanche warnings on Varsom.no, and to a large degree choose snow, terrain and time/day for travelling according to the danger level, avalanche problem and advice provided by NAWS.…”

Section: Aims Of the Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

Communicating public avalanche warnings – what works?

Engeset

Pfuhl

Landrø

et al. 2018

Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Like many other mountainous countries, Norway has experienced a rapid increase in both recreational winter activities and fatalities in avalanche terrain during the past few decades: during the decade 2008–2017, 64 recreational avalanche fatalities were recorded in Norway. This is a 106 % increase from that of the previous decade. In 2013, Norway therefore launched the National Avalanche Warning Service (NAWS), which provides avalanche warnings to transport and preparedness authorities and to the public. Previous studies suggest that avalanche warnings are used extensively in trip and preparedness planning and have a relatively strong influence on the decisions people make in order to reduce risk. However, no evaluation concerning how efficiently the warnings are communicated and understood has been done to date in Norway. Avalanche warnings communicate complex natural phenomena with a variable complexity and level of uncertainty about both the future and the present. In order to manage avalanche risk successfully, it is fundamental that the warning message can be understood and translated into practice by a wide range of different user groups. Users with little or no avalanche competence may need simple information to decide when to stay away from avalanche terrain, while professional users may need advanced technical details in order to make their decisions. To evaluate how different modes of communication are understood, and how efficiently the informational content is communicated, we designed and implemented a web-based user survey. The modes of presentation were based on the Varsom.no 2017 version (Varsom.no being the national portal for natural hazard warnings in Norway). We first used a panel of 110 experts from NAWS to answer the survey, and used their answers to establish the indented message of the avalanche warning. We thereafter received responses from 264 users and compared their answers to those of the NAWS experts for the different modes of communication. We developed a method, the comprehension effectiveness score, to test the comprehension. Our empirical analyses suggest that most users find the warning service to be useful and well suited to their needs. However, the effectiveness of a warnings seems to be influenced by the competency of the user and the complexity of the scenarios. We discuss the findings and make recommendations on how to improve communication of avalanche warnings.

show abstract

“…In recent years, there has been extensive discussion of the human factor in avalanche decisionmaking. Avalanche educators have pointed to various well-known biases and heuristic traps that may lead outdoor enthusiasts to misjudge the risks when making decisions in avalanche terrain (McCammon, 2004;Furman, Shooter, & Schumann, 2010;Leiter, 2011;Marengo, Monaci, & Miceli, 2017;and others). While much emphasis has been placed on a number of heuristic traps highlighted in McCammon (2004), such as the 'expert halo', the 'role of familiarity' or the 'herd instinct', little attention has been paid to a well-known cognitive bias concerning reasoning and thinking about risk called the 'base-rate fallacy' or sometimes labelled 'base-rate neglect'.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bayesian reasoning in avalanche terrain: a theoretical investigation

Ebert

2018

Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this article, I explore a Bayesian approach to avalanche decisionmaking. I motivate this perspective by highlighting a version of the base-rate fallacy and show that a similar pattern applies to decisionmaking in avalanche-terrain. I then draw out three theoretical lessons from adopting a Bayesian approach and discuss these lessons critically. Lastly, I highlight a number of challenges for avalanche educators when incorporating the Bayesian perspective in their curriculum.

show abstract

The Roles of Heuristics, Avalanche Forecast, and Risk Propensity in the Decision Making of Backcountry Skiers

Cited by 49 publications

References 40 publications

Spatial consistency and bias in avalanche forecasts – a case study in the European Alps

Spatial consistency and bias in avalanche forecasts – a case study in the European Alps

Communicating public avalanche warnings – what works?

Bayesian reasoning in avalanche terrain: a theoretical investigation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About