Communicating public avalanche warnings – what works?

Abstract

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 provide 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 are taking in order to reduce risk. However, no evaluation, concerning how efficiently the warnings are communicated and understood, has been done to date. 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. Less avalanche-competent users 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 hazards warnings in Norway). We first asked a panel of experts from NAWS to answer the survey, and used their answers to establish the indented comprehension of the avalanche warning. We thereafter recruited over 200 recreational users, and compared their answers to those of the experts for the different modes of communication. Our empirical analyses suggest that most users find the warning service to be useful and well suited for 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.

How is avalanche danger described in public avalanche forecasts? Analyzing textual descriptions of avalanche forecasts in Switzerland

“…In contrast to the relatively small number of other studies which have concerned themselves with the communication of avalanche danger through forecasts (e.g. Burkeljca, 2013;Engeset et al, 2018;St. Clair, 2019;Finn, 2020), our starting point was to explore exclusively how forecasters interpret (RQ1) and consistently use this text to convey avalanche hazard (RQ2).…”

“…in Europe: five danger levels (EAWS, 2018), five avalanche problems (EAWS, 2021), compare also with the example shown in Fig. 1b), the degree of detail and the use of text and graphics varies considerably between forecast products (Burkeljca, 2013;Engeset et al, 2018;Techel et al, 2018). Important information such as the likely triggers required to release an avalanche, the frequency with which such triggering locations will be found in a region, the specifics of the likely locations of these triggering spots, and the expected avalanche sizes are all communicated in the danger description.…”

“…To express the complexity of the avalanche situation, forecasts often describe expected conditions systematically, using a hierarchical information pyramid communicating the current regional danger level, the most avalanche-prone locations (aspects and elevation range, also called the core zone), the dominant avalanche problem, and a danger description (Fig. 1a and b; Engeset et al, 2018;SLF, 2020). Although the communication of the danger level, the corresponding core zone and the dominant avalanche problems are often standardized using common terms or symbols (e.g.…”

“…Even though this information defines the avalanche danger level, its communication is much less standardized and in most European avalanche forecasts (with some exceptions, e.g. in Norway information regarding these values is provided in tabular format (Engeset et al, 2018)) it is communicated as part of a written danger description (cf. Fig.…”

Impact of information presentation on interpretability of spatial hazard information: Lessons from a study in avalanche safety

“…Winkler and Techel (2014) examined the results from the same two surveys mentioned previously to shed light on how the complete revision of the Swiss avalanche bulletin in 2014 affected users' perceived quality and usability of the product. Similarly, Engeset et al (2018) conducted an online survey to better understand the effectiveness of the Norwegian avalanche bulletin. This study explicitly asked participants about their preferences for different forms of information presentation (text, symbols, or pictures) and empirically assessed users' comprehension of two hazard situations as a function of the type and amount of information presented.…”