End user and forecaster interpretations of the European Avalanche Danger Scale: A study of avalanche probability judgments in Scotland.

IF 3 3区 医学 Q1 MATHEMATICS, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS
Risk Analysis Pub Date : 2025-03-11 DOI:10.1111/risa.70016
Philip A Ebert, David L Miller, David A Comerford, Mark Diggins
{"title":"End user and forecaster interpretations of the European Avalanche Danger Scale: A study of avalanche probability judgments in Scotland.","authors":"Philip A Ebert, David L Miller, David A Comerford, Mark Diggins","doi":"10.1111/risa.70016","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>We investigate Scottish end users' and professional forecasters' risk perception in relation to the 5-point European Avalanche Danger Scale by eliciting numerical estimates of the probability of triggering an avalanche. Our main findings are that neither end users nor professional forecasters interpret the avalanche danger scale as intended, that is, in an exponential fashion. Second, we find that numerical interpretations by end users and professional forecasters have high variance, but are similar, in that both groups tend to overestimate the probability of triggering an avalanche and underestimate the relative risk increase. Finally, we find significant differences in the perceived probability of triggering an avalanche relative to a low or moderate avalanche danger level, and in the numerical interpretation of verbal probability terms depending on whether respondents provide their estimates using a frequency or a percentage chance format. We summarize our findings by identifying important lessons to improve avalanche risk understanding and its communication.</p>","PeriodicalId":21472,"journal":{"name":"Risk Analysis","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Risk Analysis","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.70016","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MATHEMATICS, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

We investigate Scottish end users' and professional forecasters' risk perception in relation to the 5-point European Avalanche Danger Scale by eliciting numerical estimates of the probability of triggering an avalanche. Our main findings are that neither end users nor professional forecasters interpret the avalanche danger scale as intended, that is, in an exponential fashion. Second, we find that numerical interpretations by end users and professional forecasters have high variance, but are similar, in that both groups tend to overestimate the probability of triggering an avalanche and underestimate the relative risk increase. Finally, we find significant differences in the perceived probability of triggering an avalanche relative to a low or moderate avalanche danger level, and in the numerical interpretation of verbal probability terms depending on whether respondents provide their estimates using a frequency or a percentage chance format. We summarize our findings by identifying important lessons to improve avalanche risk understanding and its communication.

最终用户和预报员对欧洲雪崩危险等级的解释:苏格兰雪崩概率判断的研究。
我们调查了苏格兰最终用户和专业预报员的风险感知与5点欧洲雪崩危险量表通过引出触发雪崩的概率的数值估计。我们的主要发现是,无论是最终用户还是专业预报员都没有按照预期的方式解释雪崩危险等级,即以指数方式解释。其次,我们发现最终用户和专业预报员的数值解释有很大的差异,但两者是相似的,因为两组人都倾向于高估引发雪崩的可能性,低估相对风险的增加。最后,我们发现,相对于低或中等雪崩危险水平,触发雪崩的感知概率存在显著差异,并且在口头概率术语的数值解释中,这取决于受访者是使用频率还是百分比机会格式提供他们的估计。我们通过确定重要的经验教训来总结我们的发现,以提高雪崩风险的理解和沟通。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Risk Analysis
Risk Analysis 数学-数学跨学科应用
CiteScore
7.50
自引率
10.50%
发文量
183
审稿时长
4.2 months
期刊介绍: Published on behalf of the Society for Risk Analysis, Risk Analysis is ranked among the top 10 journals in the ISI Journal Citation Reports under the social sciences, mathematical methods category, and provides a focal point for new developments in the field of risk analysis. This international peer-reviewed journal is committed to publishing critical empirical research and commentaries dealing with risk issues. The topics covered include: • Human health and safety risks • Microbial risks • Engineering • Mathematical modeling • Risk characterization • Risk communication • Risk management and decision-making • Risk perception, acceptability, and ethics • Laws and regulatory policy • Ecological risks.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信