Advertisement

Natural Hazards

, 52:185 | Cite as

Amateur decision-making in avalanche terrain with and without a decision aid: a stated choice survey

  • Pascal HaegeliEmail author
  • Wolfgang Haider
  • Margo Longland
  • Ben Beardmore
Original Paper

Abstract

Avalanches pose a serious threat to recreational backcountry travelers in mountainous terrain. This study explores how the three main amateur user groups of avalanche terrain in western Canada (backcountry skiers, out-of-bound skiers, and snowmobile riders) balance recreational goals with safety concerns when choosing backcountry destinations under varying avalanche conditions. Using a discrete choice experiment (DCE), a stated preference technique, the study first examines the strengths and weaknesses in the decision process of the three amateur groups by comparing their responses with the choice patterns of professional mountain guides. The results show that the decision-making strategies employed by the respective amateur groups vary considerably in their level of complexity and the degree to which avalanche safety considerations are incorporated. Second, we examine the effects of a decision aid that preprocesses the most crucial pieces of avalanche hazard information on the decision preferences of the amateur groups in the DCE. The results show that a relatively simple decision aid can influence the decision-making process considerably and steer users towards more avalanche hazard sensitive behaviour.

Keywords

Decision-making Avalanche safety Decision aid Discrete choice experiment Choice complexity Backcountry skiing Out-of-bounds skiing Snowmobile riding 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The initial study on amateur decision preferences was supported by the ADFAR project of the Canadian Avalanche Association, which was funded by the Government of Canada through the Search and Rescue New Initiative Fund (SAR-NIF). The subsequent survey on professional decision-making was financed jointly by HeliCat Canada, the Canadian Avalanche Association and the Backcountry Lodges of British Columbia Association. Additional in-kind support was provided by Kicking Horse Mountain Resort, Zacs Tracs and Glacier National Park. The first author of this paper was supported by a postdoctoral fellowship from the Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada for part of this research. The authors would also like to express their thanks to Don Anderson for his advice on the statistical design of the discrete choice experiment and Paulus Mau, Grant Statham, Wayne Tucker, Matt Gunn, Lisa Ochowycz and Shannon Dixon for their contributions to this research. We also thank the two anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments.

References

  1. Adamowicz W, Boxall PC, Williams M, Louviere JJ (1998) Stated preference approaches for measuring passive use values: choice experiments and contingent valuation. Am J Agric Econ 80(1):64–75. doi: 10.2307/3180269 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adams L (2005) A systems approach to human factors and expert decision-making within the Canadian avalanche phenomena. MALT Thesis. Royal Roads University, Victoria, BC, 284 ppGoogle Scholar
  3. Ajzen I, Brown TC, Rosenthal LH (1996) Information bias in contingent valuation: effects of personal relevance, quality of information, and motivational orientation. J Environ Econ Manag 30:43–57. doi: 10.1006/jeem.1996.0004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arentze T, Borgers A, Timmermans H, DelMistro R (2003) Transport stated choice responses: effects of task complexity, presentation format and literacy. Transp Res Part E-Logist Transp Rev 39(3):229–244. doi: 10.1016/S1366-5545(02)00047-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Arnberger A, Haider W (2007) Would you displace? It depends! A multivariate visual approach to intended displacement from an urban forest trail. J Leis Res 39(2):245–265Google Scholar
  6. Atkins D (2000) Human factors in avalanche accidents. In: International snow science workshop, Big Sky, MT, pp 46–51Google Scholar
  7. Atkins D, McCammon I (2004) Differences between avalanche experts and novices. In: International snow science workshop, Jackson Hole, WY Sept, pp 19–24Google Scholar
  8. Ben-Akiva ME, Lerman SR (1985) Discrete choice analysis: theory and application to travel demand. MIT Press, Cambridge MA, p 390Google Scholar
  9. Bergstrom JC, Stoll JR (1990) An analysis of information overload with implications for survey design research. Leis Sci 12(3):265–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bolognesi R (2000) NivoTest: a pocket tool for avalanche risk assessing. In: International snow science workshop, Big Sky, MT, pp 554–557Google Scholar
  11. Boxall PC, Adamowicz WL (2002) Understanding heterogeneous preferences in random utility models: a latent class approach. Environ Resour Econ 23(4):421–446. doi: 10.1023/A:1021351721619 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bhudak Consultants Ltd (2003) Public avalanche safety program review—prepared for British Columbia Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor GeneralGoogle Scholar
  13. Campbell C, Bakermans L, Jamieson B, Stethem C (2007) Current and future snow avalanche threats and mitigation measures in Canada. Canadian Avalanche Centre, Revelstoke, BCGoogle Scholar
  14. Canadian Avalanche Association (CAA) (2002) Observation guidelines and recording standards for weather, snowpack, and avalanches. Canadian Avalanche Centre, Revelstoke BC, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  15. Corso PS, Hammitt JK, Graham JD (2001) Valuing mortality-risk reduction: using visual aids to improve the validity of contingent valuation. J Risk Uncertain 23(2):165–184. doi: 10.1023/A:1011184119153 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Czerlinski J, Gigerenzer G, Goldstein DG (1999) How good are simple heuristics? In: Gigerenzer G, Todd PM, Group AR (eds) Simple heuristics that make us smart. Oxford University Press, New York, NY, pp 97–118Google Scholar
  17. Dash N, Gladwin H (2007) Evacuation decision making and behavioral responses: individual and household. Nat Hazards Rev 8(3):69–77. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)1527-6988(2007)8:3(69) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. de Palma A, Myers GM, Papageorgiou YY (1994) Rational choice under an imperfect ability to choose. Am Econ Rev 84(3):419–440Google Scholar
  19. DeShazo JR, Fermo G (2002) Designing choice sets for stated preference methods: the effects of complexity on choice consistency. J Environ Econ Manag 44(1):123–143. doi: 10.1006/jeem.2001.1199 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Engler M, Mersch J (2000) SnowCard: Lawinen—Risiko—Check. Verlag Martin Engler, Sulzberg, Germany, p 32Google Scholar
  21. Gigerenzer G, Todd PM, ABC Research Group (1999) Simple heuristics that make us smart. Oxford University Press, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  22. Gladwin CH, Gladwin H, Peacock WG (2001) Modeling hurricane evacuation decisions with ethnographic methods. Int J Mass Emerg Disasters 19(1):117–143Google Scholar
  23. Grijalva TC, Berrens RP, Bohara AK, Shaw WD (2002) Testing the validity of contingent behavior trip responses. Am J Agric Econ 84(2):401–414. doi: 10.1111/1467-8276.00306 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Haener MK, Boxall PC, Adamowicz WL (2001) Modeling recreation site choice: do hypothetical choices reflect actual behavior? Am J Agric Econ 83(3):629–642. doi: 10.1111/0002-9092.00183 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Haque E, Etkin D (2007) People and community as constituent parts of hazards: the significance of societal dimensions in hazards analysis. Nat Hazards 41(2):271–282. doi: 10.1007/s11069-006-9035-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Heiner RA (1983) The origin of predictable behavior. Am Econ Rev 73(4):560–595Google Scholar
  27. Hensher DA (2006) How do respondents process stated choice experiments? Attribute consideration under varying information load. J Appl Econ 21(6):861–878. doi: 10.1002/jae.877 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hensher DA, Rose JM, Greene WH (2005) Applied choice analysis—a primer. Cambridge University Press, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  29. Hoehn JP, Randall A (2002) The effect of resource quality information on resource injury perceptions and contingent values. Resour Energy Econ 24(1–2):13–31. doi: 10.1016/S0928-7655(01)00051-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Jamieson JB, Stethem CJ (2002) Snow avalanche hazards and management in Canada: challenges and progress. Nat Hazards 26(1):35–53. doi: 10.1023/A:1015212626232 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Jamieson B, Campbell C, Jones A (2008) Spatial and temporal scale effects in Canadian avalanche bulletins. Cold Reg Sci Technol 51(2–3):204–213. doi: 10.1016/j.coldregions.2007.03.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Klein G (1998) Sources of power: how people make decisions. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  33. Klein G (2002) The fiction of optimization. In: Gigerenzer G, Selten R (eds) Bounded rationality—the adaptive toolbox. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 103–122Google Scholar
  34. Larcher M (1999) Stop or go: Entscheidungsstrategie für Tourengeher. Berg Steigen 99(4):18–23Google Scholar
  35. Lindell MK, Lu J-C, Prater CS (2005) Household decision making an evacuation in response to hurricane Lili. Nat Hazards Rev 6(4):171–179. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)1527-6988(2005)6:4(171) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. List JA, Gallet CA (2001) What experimental protocol influence disparities between actual and hypothetical stated values? Environ Resour Econ 20(3):241–254. doi: 10.1023/A:1012791822804 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Loomis JB (1993) An investigation into the reliability of intended visitation behavior. Environ Resour Econ 3(2):183–191. doi: 10.1007/BF00338784 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Louviere JJ, Hensher DA, Swait JD (2000) Stated choice methods: analysis and application. Cambridge University Press, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  39. Mazzotta MJ, Opaluch JJ (1995) Decision making when choices are complex: a test of Heiner’s hypothesis. Land Econ 71(4):500–515. doi: 10.2307/3146714 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. McCammon I (2000) The role of training in recreational avalanche accidents in the United States. In: International snow science workshop, Big Sky, MT, 2–6 Oct, pp 37–45Google Scholar
  41. McCammon I (2001) Decision making for wilderness leaders: strategies, traps and teaching methods. In: Wilderness risk manager’s conference, Lake Geneva, WI, pp 16–29Google Scholar
  42. McCammon I (2002) Evidence of heuristic traps in recreational avalanche accidents. In: International snow science workshop, Penticton, BC, 30 Sept –4 OctGoogle Scholar
  43. McCammon I, Haegeli P (2007) An evaluation of rule-based decision tools for travel in avalanche terrain. Cold Reg Sci Technol 47(1–2):193–206. doi: 10.1016/j.coldregions.2006.08.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. McClung DM (2002a) The elements of applied avalanche forecasting—Part I: the human issues. Nat Hazards 25:111–129. doi: 10.1023/A:1015665432221 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. McClung DM (2002b) The elements of applied avalanche forecasting—Part II: the physical issues and rules of applied avalanche forecasting. Nat Hazards 25:131–146. doi: 10.1023/A:1015604600361 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. McClung DM, Schaerer PA (2006) The Avalanche handbook. The Mountaineers, Seattle, WA, p 347Google Scholar
  47. McFadden D (1974) Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behaviour. In: Zarembka P (ed) Frontiers in econometrics. Academic Press, New York, NY, pp 105–142Google Scholar
  48. Mozumder P, Raheem N, Talberth J, Berrens RP (2008) Investigating intended evacuation from wildfires in the wildland–urban interface: application of a bivariate probit model. For Policy Econ 10:415–423Google Scholar
  49. Munter W (1997) 3 × 3 Lawinen: Entscheiden in kritischen Situationen. Agentur Pohl & Schellhammer, Garmisch Partenkirchen, Germany, p 220Google Scholar
  50. Payne JW, Bettman JR, Johnson EJ (1988) Adaptive strategy selection in decision-making. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 14(3):534–552. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.14.3.534 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Pfeiffer N, Foley JM (2006) Skill and knowledge mastery of students in level I avalanche courses. In: International snow science workshop, Telluride, CO, 1–6 OctoberGoogle Scholar
  52. Rasid H, Haider W, Hunt LM (2000) Post-flood assessment of emergency evacuation policies in the Red River basin, Southern Manitoba. Can Geogr 44(4):369–387Google Scholar
  53. Semeniuk CA, Haider W, Beardmore B, Rothley KD (2009) A multi-attribute trade-off approach for advancing the management of marine wildlife tourism: a quantitative assessment of heterogeneous visitor preferences. Aquat Conserv: Mar Freshw Ecosyst 19(2):194–208. doi: 10.1002/aqc.990 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Simon HA (1955) Behavioral model of rational choice. Q J Econ 69(1):99–118. doi: 10.2307/1884852 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Slovic P (2000) The perception of risk. Earthscan, London, p 473Google Scholar
  56. Spash CL (2002) Informing and forming preferences in environmental valuation: coral reef biodiversity. J Econ Psychol 23:665–687. doi: 10.1016/S0167-4870(02)00123-X CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Statham G, McMahon B, Tomm I (2006) The avalanche terrain exposure scale. International Snow Science Workshop, Telluride, CO, 1–6 October, pp 491–497Google Scholar
  58. Train K (2003) Discrete choice methods with simulation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  59. Tsuge T, Kishimoto A, Takeuchi K (2005) A choice experiment approach to the valuation of mortality. J Risk Uncertain 31(1):73–95. doi: 10.1007/s11166-005-2931-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Weber EU, Milliman RE (1997) Perceived risk attitudes: relating risk perception to risky choice. Manag Sci 43(2):123–144. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.43.2.123 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Weber EU, Blais AR, Betz NE (2002) A domain-specific risk-attitude scale: measuring risk perceptions and risk behaviors. J Behav Decis Making 15(4):263–290. doi: 10.1002/bdm.414 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Whitehead JC (2005) Environmental risk and averting behavior: predictive validity of jointly estimated revealed and stated behavior data. Environ Resour Econ 32(4):301–316. doi: 10.1007/s10640-005-4679-5 Google Scholar
  63. Whitehead JC, Edwards B, Van Willigen M, Maiolo JR, Kenneth W, Smith KT (2000) Heading for higher ground: factors affecting real and hypothetical hurricane evacuation behavior. Environ Hazards 2(3):133–142. doi: 10.1016/S1464-2867(01)00013-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pascal Haegeli
    • 1
    Email author
  • Wolfgang Haider
    • 1
  • Margo Longland
    • 1
  • Ben Beardmore
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Resource and Environmental ManagementSimon Fraser UniversityBurnabyCanada

Personalised recommendations