Avalanche decision-making falls into two general categories; probabilistic approaches and analytical approaches. Analytical approaches have traditionally been considered applicable to experts only, ...as they require assessing risk factors precisely and understanding their relevance in each situation. In this study we question this assumption. We asked 1, 220 amateur backcountry recreationalists how relevant they rated and how precisely they could assess 11 avalanche risk factors. We investigated how their avalanche education and experience with avalanche incidents influenced their judgment of precision and relevance, and if avalanches become more predictable with more knowledge. Most recreationalists considered avalanches as predictable. These five factors were judged as highly relevant: signs of instability, distinguishing avalanche terrain from non-avalanche terrain, slope inclination, terrain traps, and distribution of weak layers. Relevance was independent of avalanche education and experience of incidents for all factors but danger level. Amateur recreationalists rated the relevance of the factors like that of experts. Rating of precision increased with more avalanche education, in particularly for these factors: distribution of the weak layers, terrain traps, avalanche size, recognizing avalanche terrain and stopping at safe spots. We recommend adopting an analytical approach for amateur backcountry recreationalists and discuss implications for avalanche forecasting and education.
Snow avalanches are a complex phenomenon and correctly assessing avalanche danger is crucial in order to avoid accidents. To aid the decision-making process, different decision-making frameworks ...(DMFs) have been developed. However, each DMF assesses different factors. We identified 44 factors included in the ten most commonly used DMFs, supplemented by nine factors regarded as important by avalanche professionals, resulting in 53 factors. We classify and describe each factor's possible strengths, weaknesses and limitations. Many factors are shared by the DMFs, but there are differences when it comes to type of factor and emphasis. The number of factors used by the different DMFs varies from 11 to 31. 81 out of 100 experts who participated in our survey use >33 factors in their decision-making, and regard other factors as more important than the ones emphasised in most DMFs. We discuss the usage of the factors and provide recommendations. Our classification and description of the factors contribute to a better understanding of why the developers of the different DMFs have included them in their frameworks. This is fundamental for a better understanding of expert use or lack of use of DMFs, and why some DMFs or single factors are preferred to others.
The popularity of recreational activities in avalanche terrain has increased dramatically in recent years. Venturing into such terrain also increases the personal risk of injury or death. Whereas the ...majority of recreationists travel in groups, existing research on the human dimension of avalanche safety has primarily focused on individual decision making. This empirical study aims to fill this gap by investigating aspects of group formation, leadership and decision making among winter recreationists with respect to their ability to make safe decisions when traveling in avalanche terrain. We used a qualitative research design and conducted 29 semi-structured group interviews with backcountry skiers and off-piste skiers in Switzerland during the winter of 2013. Our results show that while the majority of the reported behaviors and strategies are effective at reducing avalanche risk (e.g., traveling in well-established groups or deciding on the basis of well-known avalanche safety rules), others are highly problematic (e.g., traveling in emergent groups or trivializing decisions concerning avalanche danger). The identified behavioral patterns offer valuable insight for the development of effective avalanche safety messages to address weaknesses in group dynamics.
Since most recreationists travel in groups when visiting avalanche terrain, group dynamics are a crucial component of avalanche safety, and a better understanding of group behaviors is imperative for safe traveling. We urge avalanche safety educators to put more emphasis on the role of group formation, leadership and decision making for avalanche safety. While strategies known to improve group performance should be encouraged, educators should also highlight the risks associated with the more problematic behaviors explicitly. We propose the development of a group checklist to facilitate the group formation process.
Objective Avalanches are the primary hazard for winter backcountry recreationists and cause numerous deaths and injuries annually. Although recreationists usually travel in groups, there is little ...empirical knowledge on group-related risk factors. This study aims to explore the relative risk of avalanche accidents with respect to group size and to discuss underlying reasons for different risk levels. Methods We compared backcountry usage data in regions in Switzerland and Italy with avalanche accident data in these regions. Results We found higher avalanche risk for groups of 4 or more people and lower risk for people traveling alone and in groups of 2. The relative risk of group size 4, 5, and 6 was higher compared with the reference group size of 2 in the Swiss and Italian dataset. The relative risk for people traveling alone was not significantly different compared with the reference group size of 2 in the Italian dataset but was lower in the Swiss dataset. Conclusions These findings are in accordance with avalanche safety recommendations regarding the higher risk of large groups but not regarding lower risks of people traveling alone in avalanche terrain, which is not recommended and requires great caution. Further studies on backcountry usage are necessary to improve our understanding of human behavior and risk factors. New techniques (eg, video monitoring) may be useful for acquiring reliable data on backcountry usage.
In Japan, snow control facilities began to be built after 1963, which was a disastrous year of heavy snow. Fifty years have since passed and it appears that snow control facilities have enormously ...increased in size. This fact requires an investigation of both the literature and data obtained from existing facilities; furthermore, a future guide must be proposed. In Japan, the first good study on how to construct snow control facilities was published in 1968. Since then, technology has evolved and a rule that snow control facilities should be built alongside highways, based on the notion that years in which the maximum snow depth is reached occur every 30 years, has become generally accepted. A close examination of existing structures indicates, however, that snow control facilities suddenly increased in size after the successive occurrence of heavy snow years in the early 1980s. Furthermore, the foundations of such facilities have also increased in size over time. An appropriate guide to establishing such facilities that can ensure safety and at the same time harmony with the mountainous landscape is warranted.
Located in Gokayama, Toyama Prefecture, Japan, Taira is a village with precipitous terrain and heavy snowfall, thus causing snow damage to occur frequently. In order to protect the village from ...disasters caused by avalanches, avalanche prevention forests (APF) has been maintained and managed since 1600s. However, due to the decline and aging of the rural population in mountainous areas in recent years, APF maintenance has become an important issue. Thus, this study aims to provide basic data for searching maintenance methods for APF, by clarifying the distribution, forest stand, management, and those changes. As a result, the distribution of APF changed after 1940s. To be specific, the APF distributed on the steep slopes behind each village has been preserved, while the conventional functions have been taken over. However, there has been still increasing the number of planted forests, scatter, and grass in the APF, which made the distribution of conventional APF decreased. In terms of the forestry laws, lots of parts of APF were designated according to the Protection Forest System of Forest Act step by step, which provides legal protection for part of APF. In short, it’s important to integrate sustainable maintenance solutions from multiple perspectives (disaster prevention, ecosystems, and landscapes, etc.) and to adjust measures according to different conditions of conventional APF and the part being protected by law.
PDF
