Header

UZH-Logo

Maintenance Infos

Spatial consistency and bias in avalanche forecasts – a case study in the European Alps


Techel, Frank; Mitterer, Christoph; Ceaglio, Elisabetta; Coléou, Cécile; Morin, Samuel; Rastelli, Francesca; Purves, Ross S (2018). Spatial consistency and bias in avalanche forecasts – a case study in the European Alps. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 18(10):2697-2716.

Abstract

In the European Alps, the public is provided with regional avalanche forecasts, issued by about 30 forecast centers throughout the winter, covering a spatially contiguous area. A key element in these forecasts is the communication of avalanche danger according to the five-level, ordinal European Avalanche Danger Scale (EADS). Consistency in the application of the avalanche danger levels by the individual forecast centers is essential to avoid misunderstandings or misinterpretations by users, particularly those utilizing bulletins issued by different forecast centers. As the quality of avalanche forecasts is difficult to verify, due to the categorical nature of the EADS, we investigated forecast goodness by focusing on spatial consistency and bias, exploring real forecast danger levels from four winter seasons (477 forecast days). We describe the operational constraints associated with the production and communication of the avalanche bulletins, and we propose a methodology to quantitatively explore spatial consistency and bias. We note that the forecast danger level agreed significantly less often when compared across national and forecast center boundaries (about 60<span class="thinspace"></span>%) than within forecast center boundaries (about 90<span class="thinspace"></span>%). Furthermore, several forecast centers showed significant systematic differences in terms of more frequently using lower (or higher) danger levels than their neighbors. Discrepancies seemed to be greatest when analyzing the proportion of forecasts with danger level 4 – high and 5 – very high. The size of the warning regions, the smallest geographically clearly specified areas underlying the forecast products, differed considerably between forecast centers. Region size also had a significant impact on all summary statistics and is a key parameter influencing the issued danger level, but it also limits the communication of spatial variations in the danger level. Operational constraints in the production and communication of avalanche forecasts and variation in the ways the EADS is interpreted locally may contribute to inconsistencies and may be potential sources for misinterpretation by forecast users. All these issues highlight the need to further harmonize the forecast production process and the way avalanche hazard is communicated to increase consistency and hence facilitate cross-border forecast interpretation by traveling users.

Abstract

In the European Alps, the public is provided with regional avalanche forecasts, issued by about 30 forecast centers throughout the winter, covering a spatially contiguous area. A key element in these forecasts is the communication of avalanche danger according to the five-level, ordinal European Avalanche Danger Scale (EADS). Consistency in the application of the avalanche danger levels by the individual forecast centers is essential to avoid misunderstandings or misinterpretations by users, particularly those utilizing bulletins issued by different forecast centers. As the quality of avalanche forecasts is difficult to verify, due to the categorical nature of the EADS, we investigated forecast goodness by focusing on spatial consistency and bias, exploring real forecast danger levels from four winter seasons (477 forecast days). We describe the operational constraints associated with the production and communication of the avalanche bulletins, and we propose a methodology to quantitatively explore spatial consistency and bias. We note that the forecast danger level agreed significantly less often when compared across national and forecast center boundaries (about 60<span class="thinspace"></span>%) than within forecast center boundaries (about 90<span class="thinspace"></span>%). Furthermore, several forecast centers showed significant systematic differences in terms of more frequently using lower (or higher) danger levels than their neighbors. Discrepancies seemed to be greatest when analyzing the proportion of forecasts with danger level 4 – high and 5 – very high. The size of the warning regions, the smallest geographically clearly specified areas underlying the forecast products, differed considerably between forecast centers. Region size also had a significant impact on all summary statistics and is a key parameter influencing the issued danger level, but it also limits the communication of spatial variations in the danger level. Operational constraints in the production and communication of avalanche forecasts and variation in the ways the EADS is interpreted locally may contribute to inconsistencies and may be potential sources for misinterpretation by forecast users. All these issues highlight the need to further harmonize the forecast production process and the way avalanche hazard is communicated to increase consistency and hence facilitate cross-border forecast interpretation by traveling users.

Statistics

Citations

Altmetrics

Downloads

18 downloads since deposited on 31 Oct 2018
18 downloads since 12 months
Detailed statistics

Additional indexing

Item Type:Journal Article, refereed, original work
Communities & Collections:07 Faculty of Science > Institute of Geography
Dewey Decimal Classification:910 Geography & travel
Uncontrolled Keywords:General Earth and Planetary Sciences
Language:English
Date:23 October 2018
Deposited On:31 Oct 2018 11:06
Last Modified:31 Oct 2018 11:49
Publisher:Copernicus Publications
ISSN:1561-8633
OA Status:Gold
Free access at:Publisher DOI. An embargo period may apply.
Publisher DOI:https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-18-2697-2018

Download

Download PDF  'Spatial consistency and bias in avalanche forecasts – a case study in the European Alps'.
Preview
Content: Published Version
Language: English
Filetype: PDF
Size: 8MB
View at publisher
Licence: Creative Commons: Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)