Avalanche size estimation and avalanche outline determination by experts: reliability and implications for practice

Abstract

Consistent estimates of avalanche size are crucial for communicating not only among avalanche practitioners but also between avalanche forecasters and the public, for instance in public avalanche forecasts. Moreover, applications such as risk management and numerical avalanche simulations rely on accurately mapped outlines of past avalanche events. Since there is not a widely applicable and objective way to measure avalanche size or to determine the outlines of an avalanche, we need to rely on human estimations. Therefore, knowing about the reliability of avalanche size estimates and avalanche outlines is essential as errors will impact applications relying on this kind of data. In the first of three user studies, we investigate the reliability in avalanche size estimates by comparing estimates for 10 avalanches made by 170 avalanche professionals working in Europe or North America. In the other two studies, both completed as pilot studies, we explore reliability in the mappings of six avalanches from oblique photographs from 10 participants and the mappings of avalanches visible on 2.9 km2 of remotely sensed imagery in four different spatial resolutions from 5 participants. We observed an average agreement of 66 % in the most frequently given avalanche size, while agreement with the avalanche size considered “correct” was 74 %. Moreover, European avalanche practitioners rated avalanches significantly larger for 8 out of 10 avalanches, compared to North Americans. Assuming that participants are equally competent in the estimation of avalanche size, we calculated a score describing the factor required to obtain the observed agreement rate between any two size estimates. This factor was 0.72 in our dataset. It can be regarded as the certainty related to a size estimate by an individual and thus provides an indication of the reliability of a label. For the outlines mapped from oblique photographs, we noted a mean overlapping proportion of 52 % for any two avalanche mappings and 60 % compared to a reference mapping. The outlines mapped from remotely sensed imagery had a mean overlapping proportion of 46 % (image resolution of 2 m) to 68 % (25 cm) between any two mappings and 64 % (2 m) to 80 % (25 cm) when compared to the reference. The presented findings demonstrate that the reliability of size estimates and of mapped avalanche outlines is limited. As these data are often used as reference data or even ground truth to validate further applications, the identified limitations and uncertainties may influence results and should be considered.