Item: PRACTITIONERS' INTERPRETATION OF AVALANCHE PROBLEM TYPE AND DISTRIBUTION WITHIN THE CONCEPTUAL MODEL OF AVALANCHE HAZARD
-
-
Title: PRACTITIONERS' INTERPRETATION OF AVALANCHE PROBLEM TYPE AND DISTRIBUTION WITHIN THE CONCEPTUAL MODEL OF AVALANCHE HAZARD
Proceedings: Proceedings, International Snow Science Workshop, Whistler, BC, Canada, 2026
Authors:
- Aaron C. Barnett [ Washington State Department of Transportation, USA ]
- Andrew Forsman [ Stevens Pass Ski Resort, WA, USA ]
- Eeva Latosuo [ Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC, Canada ]
- Ryan Minton [ Washington State Department of Transportation, USA ]
Date: 2026-09-28
Abstract: The Conceptual Model of Avalanche Hazard (CMAH) was created to be a systematic, consistent workflow for avalanche hazard and risk assessment. It is a cornerstone decision aid for information exchange between many practitioners. The US lacks a centralized organizational structure for avalanche risk management. As a result, there is a wide variety of parallel operational practices, and it is unknown how many practitioners use CMAH daily. It is also unknown how individual professionals interpret the various components of CMAH in their assessments. We created a survey to investigate how avalanche practitioners engage with CMAH in their daily workflow. We also asked how they interpret the avalanche problem type and distribution steps of CMAH. The survey was distributed to practitioners in the US through personal and professional networks. This analysis is based on 100 survey responses. Of our survey participants, a large majority are at least "very" familiar with CMAH and use it as part of their daily workflow. Interquartile ranges were calculated to gauge consensus amongst practitioners for how frequently an avalanche type has a given distribution. Consensus shifts appear to depend on distribution category and avalanche type. For example, there is good consensus amongst respondents that wind slabs often have a specific distribution. Meanwhile, there is poor consensus on how frequently wind slabs have a widespread distribution. Non-parametric statistical tests were used to identify significant differences between practitioners from different climates and different professions. No results reached statistical significance after correction. Several results suggest items that warrant further study such as differences between Maritime and Continental practitioners. Effective use of structured decision-making workflows depends on consistent interpretation across user groups. Consensus regarding the frequency which practitioners believe different avalanche types have a discrete distribution varies from poor to good on an item-by-item basis. It is worthwhile to seek out ways to improve consensus. Decreasing variability in how practitioners consider avalanche problem type and distribution would improve hazard and risk assessment. We hope that our findings help spur conversations about the nuances of differing interpretations amongst practitioners.
Object ID: ISSW2026_O10.6.pdf
DOI: https://doi.org/10.15788/1790098500
Language of Article: English
Presenter(s): Aaron Barnett
Keywords: Conceptual Model of Avalanche Hazard, Decision Aid, Avalanche Forecasting, Expert Interpretation, Avalanche Type, Distribution
Page Number(s): 1879 - 1885
-