Supporting Sound Decisions: A Professional Perspective on Recreational Avalanche Accident Prevention in Canada

Relative to recreationists, avalanche professionals in Canada have a high success rate for managing avalanche hazard and making sound decisions in avalanche terrain. This success invites the question: What can be learned from these successes relative to avalanche education, decision support and accident prevention for backcountry recreationists? I surveyed Canadian avalanche professionals using a mail-in questionnaire on core knowledge and skills for sound avalanche decision making, key areas of education that can improve avalanche decision making, effective methods to communicate avalanche hazard, and the potential of a recreational decision support framework to improve decisionmaking and result in fewer recreational avalanche accidents and fatalities. The avalanche practitioners in this study identified human factors and choice of terrain as the primary causes of recreational avalanche accidents and recommended that recreational education targeted in these two areas would effectively reduce avalanche accidents. Three meta-themes emerged to support sound decisions by recreationists: training and education, hazard communication and decision support. In this paper, I examine the results of this survey within the context of theories of adult learning and decision science. I offer an analysis of why it is important to look at avalanche accident prevention from a human sciences research perspective and propose a systemic approach to supporting sound recreational decision-making. Based upon these survey results, I advocate strong support for the implementation of a recreational decision support framework in Canada, although there were several complexities identified by survey respondents. It is clear that the integration of expertise from a wide range of disciplines will be required to design and implement an effective and integrated framework that will support sound decisions and reduce the number of avalanche accidents and fatalities in Canada. Introduction In the ten-year period of 1994 to 2003, avalanche accidents in Canada killed an average of 15 people annually and injured 75 (Public Avalanche Safety Program Review, 2003. p. 2). Since 1970, 336 people were killed in Canada by avalanches (CAA, 2003a, ¶ 3). Recently, in the winter of 2002/2003, 29 people died in avalanches while pursuing backcountry recreation in Canada – the highest annual backcountry avalanche fatality rate in Canadian history. Since winter backcountry use is increasing significantly in Canada, there is an urgent need for effective prevention methods to support sound backcountry recreational decisions and to protect lives. Further, statistics from 1998 to 2003 show 82% of these fatalities occurred among recreational backcountry users while 18% occurred within commercial groups (Public Avalanche Safety Program Review, 2003. p. 7). This suggests a significant difference in avalanche fatality rates between avalanche practitioners and recreationists. In this paper, I use the word “commercial” to refer to situations when a trained avalanche practitioner or guide is ultimately responsible for the decision making on behalf of the safety of a group. I define avalanche “practitioner” as a person working in an active decision-making capacity in avalanche terrain, for example, national park public safety specialists, avalanches forecasters, ski area snow safety supervisors and backcountry ski guides. I differentiate this from “professional” who is an avalanche practitioner and also a professional member of the Canadian Avalanche Association (CAA). I use the word “recreationist” to refer to a member of the general public who pursues winter backcountry activities as an unpaid recreational pursuit. Researchers in the snow avalanche field have focused extensively on understanding the physical properties of snow avalanches, for example: snow science, avalanche release dynamics, weather and terrain factors (e.g., Collbeck, 1987; Fohn, 1989; Jamieson, 1995; LaChappelle, 1980; McClung, 1987; McClung & Schaerer, 1993). Initiatives in public safety avalanche prevention and education have been designed around these complex physical factors. However, due to the limited understanding of human factors and decision processes in avalanche terrain, these initiatives have yet to address key human components and therefore may be lacking in their effectiveness as shown in Figure 1a. Avalanche practitioners and researchers are now recognizing the significant role human factors play in avalanche accidents. “Since most avalanche accidents result from human errors, no description of avalanche forecasting is complete unless the reearch human component is addressed” (McClung, 2002. p.1). In order to provide solutions that will effectively reduce the number of avalanche accidents and fatalities, a complete understanding of all contributing factors is required. It is not sufficient to understand the physical properties of snow avalanches; we need to understand humans and the factors that affect their decision-making in avalanche terrain. This approach offers balance and perspective to all sides of the avalanche triangle (Figure 1b). Although a human ability to make sound decisions is supported by low accident rates within the community of Canadian avalanche practitioners, the statistics from avalanche accidents in Canada show winter backcountry recreationists are less successful in making sound decisions when traveling in avalanche terrain. Sound decision making in avalanche terrain is a challenging process since the dynamics of these decisions are complicated and uncertain. Information about probabilities is imprecise, the presence of time pressures and risk is often high, and the consequences of a poor choice are large. Since avalanche practitioners in Canada have a relatively high success rate for managing avalanche hazard and making sound decisions, I suggest that the perspectives of these experts offer a great deal of wisdom towards deriving effective solutions to the problem of recreational involvement in snow avalanches. In this paper, I report the results of a survey of avalanche professionals and practitioners in Western Canada. The objectives of my research were to capture the theoretical knowledge and experienced insight of Canadian avalanche professionals and to use this knowledge and insight to derive effective tools and solutions for improving the decisionmaking practices of winter backcountry recreationists. Methods and Approach This is a social sciences study where I take an inductive, “grounded theory” approach (Creswell, 1998; Merriam, 2002; Palys, 2003) that emphasizes the generation of theory grounded in the data. “Action research” provides the foundation to this research (Glanz, 1998; Kemmis & McTaggert, 1988; Stringer, 1999), and is a collaborative, scientific approach to human problem solving and strategic action that has two intended outcomes: to improve practice and to generate additional knowledge and understanding in the area of inquiry. To examine recreational avalanche accident prevention from an avalanche experts’ perspective, I surveyed Canadian avalanche practitioners in five topic areas: recreational avalanche accident factors, education, hazard communication, decision support and accident prevention. Respondents were asked to judge what they believed to be the: • primary factors in recreational avalanche accidents, • core knowledge and skills for sound avalanche decision making, • key areas of education that can improve avalanche decision making, • effective methods to communicate avalanche hazard, • potential of a decision support framework to improve decision-making and result in fewer avalanche accidents and fatalities. 1a. A conceptual perspective of avalanche phenomena, 2003 Snowpack Terrain Avalanche Phenomena Humans 1b. An integral perspective of avalanche phenomena Humans Snowpack Terrain Avalanche Phenomena Figure 1. A conceptual and integral perspective of avalanche phenomena in Canada. In the fall of 2003, the survey was sent by electronic mail to all professional members of the Canadian Avalanche Association (CAA; n=284). As well, it was given, in person, to a group of experienced helicopter ski guides attending a pre-season training session. In total, I received 79 completed surveys. 72 surveys were from Canadian avalanche professionals representing 26% of the total CAA professional population at the time the survey was administered. The remaining 7 surveys were from industry practitioners. Respondents represented a cross section of avalanche industry expertise and held a high level of industry experience (Figures 2a and b). The survey included both quantitative and qualitative questions. Quantitative questions involved ranking factors in the five topic areas using two methods: a five step Likert type scale (1 = To a very great extent to 5 = Not at all) and, ranking in order of importance (1 = most important to 5 = least important). To gain a comprehensive perspective for each quantitative question, I also asked respondents to include any additional factors they felt were important. A qualitative question culminated each of the study topics. e.g. “Do you have any additional comments regarding decision support methods/ tools for recreational backcountry travelers?” These qualitative data were analyzed using meta-theme analysis, a procedure that captures the meaning in phrases and singular statements (Kirby and McKenna, 1989; VanManen, 1990). These meta-themes are shown in italics throughout this paper.