A platform for research: civil engineering, architecture and urbanism
A platform for research: civil engineering, architecture and urbanism
Avalanche decision-making frameworks: Factors and methods used by experts
Abstract The snowy mountains of the world attract more and more backcountry recreationalists. Besides beauty and joy, traveling in avalanche terrain can involve risk of injury and even death. A correct assessment of avalanche danger and following a correct decision is crucial. This requires a thorough evaluation of a range of factors. To aid these decisions several decision-making frameworks (DMF) have been put forward. However, actual use of these frameworks and their underlying factors can be questioned. We asked 100 experts about their familiarity and usage of the DMFs and their underlying factors. We found a large discrepancy between familiarity with and actual use of the most commonly used DMFs. In contrast to most frameworks that have a probabilistic approach, experts primarily use an analytical one. We also found that experts use more factors and emphasize other factors than most DMFs do. Indeed, the factors the experts use do not match any of the DMFs well, with the agreement ranging from 56% to 73%. Factors seen as core in many frameworks, such as the combination of danger level and slope inclination, are by a large margin the least used of all the terrain factors among the experts. We found a void between the existing frameworks and how – and on what basis – experts make their decisions. Our findings raise a fundamental question: How, when and where do the transition from novice to expert occur? Future initiatives to revise or develop new decision-making frameworks should take into account what experts use.
Highlights Experts know but do not use avalanche decision-making frameworks (DMFs). Experts rely on more and other factors than DMFs do. Experts use an analytical approach, most DMFs use probabilistic approach. Avalanche problem not danger level is important for experts.
Avalanche decision-making frameworks: Factors and methods used by experts
Abstract The snowy mountains of the world attract more and more backcountry recreationalists. Besides beauty and joy, traveling in avalanche terrain can involve risk of injury and even death. A correct assessment of avalanche danger and following a correct decision is crucial. This requires a thorough evaluation of a range of factors. To aid these decisions several decision-making frameworks (DMF) have been put forward. However, actual use of these frameworks and their underlying factors can be questioned. We asked 100 experts about their familiarity and usage of the DMFs and their underlying factors. We found a large discrepancy between familiarity with and actual use of the most commonly used DMFs. In contrast to most frameworks that have a probabilistic approach, experts primarily use an analytical one. We also found that experts use more factors and emphasize other factors than most DMFs do. Indeed, the factors the experts use do not match any of the DMFs well, with the agreement ranging from 56% to 73%. Factors seen as core in many frameworks, such as the combination of danger level and slope inclination, are by a large margin the least used of all the terrain factors among the experts. We found a void between the existing frameworks and how – and on what basis – experts make their decisions. Our findings raise a fundamental question: How, when and where do the transition from novice to expert occur? Future initiatives to revise or develop new decision-making frameworks should take into account what experts use.
Highlights Experts know but do not use avalanche decision-making frameworks (DMFs). Experts rely on more and other factors than DMFs do. Experts use an analytical approach, most DMFs use probabilistic approach. Avalanche problem not danger level is important for experts.
Avalanche decision-making frameworks: Factors and methods used by experts
Landrø, Markus (author) / Hetland, Audun (author) / Engeset, Rune Verpe (author) / Pfuhl, Gerit (author)
2019-09-15
Article (Journal)
Electronic Resource
English
Frameworks for Decision‐Making in Design for the Aging
| Wiley | 2015
Misconceptions and stereotypes regarding experts providing support for risk-informed decision making
| Taylor & Francis Verlag | 2019
A Group Decision Making Model of Water Resources Management Based on Supporting Degrees of Experts
| British Library Conference Proceedings | 2013