This article is about:
01
Fundamentals of commission work
Avalanche commissions, regardless of the region in which they operate, are responsible for assessing the local avalanche situation. As advisory bodies, they maintain close communication with decision‑makers such as mayors or ski area operators. The basis for these assessments is that
- evaluations must be justified on the basis of facts,
- measures must be recommended according to the local hazard,
- the work of the avalanche commissions must be documented.
The task of providing local assessments clearly differentiates the work of avalanche commissions from that of the avalanche warning service (see “Avalanche Commissions vs. Avalanche Warning”). Due to this spatial distinction, assessments made by local avalanche commissions may differ from the regional hazard assessment without necessarily contradicting it. Consequently, the information published by the avalanche warning service provides a valuable foundation for the commissions’ evaluations.
In Tyrol, a workflow was developed several years ago that is based on four established work steps. This workflow is embedded in a holistic concept of risk management by the avalanche commissions and must be fully documented in each case.
Due to the importance of each step in the commission’s activities, these are addressed in detail in individual chapters:
02
From practice to theory: the conceptual risk management model
To illustrate the complexity of avalanche risk and how it is managed, the work steps mentioned above are presented once again in the form of a more detailed and structured process. In this representation, planning activities (shown in purple) and operational measures (shown in yellow) are linked together. The parallel workflows of this process include assessing the hazard, determining prevention and protection strategies, implementing protective measures, and organizing response procedures in the event of an incident.
The following diagram elaborates on and expands the fundamental activities mentioned above:
- Perceive: corresponds to the preliminary phases of establishing the context and terrain identification.
- Assess: risk assessment is divided into three sub-phases: risk identification, risk analysis, and risk evaluation (weighting).
- Act: for avalanche commissions, this phase consists of recommending the most suitable measures to decision-makers. This process necessarily requires constant communication and consultation, both within the commission and with external stakeholders (mayors, ski area operators, the public, etc.) with the goal of risk treatment.
- Control and documentation: monitoring activities and documentation are cross-cutting processes present in every phase, necessary to ensure the transparency and effectiveness of each individual step in the workflow.
With this approach, avalanche risk can be systematically assessed, as scientific findings are deliberately combined with technical and spatial-planning instruments. The aim is to reduce the likelihood of a damaging event occurring and/or lessen the severity of its impacts should it occur.
The following diagram presents a similar workflow – developed at the European level (EAWS) – for local avalanche commissions (site-specific avalanche warning service), as well as the role of the stakeholders responsible for risk management (risk owners). This process likewise begins with an assessment of the current situation, based on the systematic collection, processing, and documentation of relevant data. Using this information, a local avalanche forecast for the following days is created in order to inform the risk owners about the current and expected situation in terms of the probabilty of avalanche occurance. Builing on pre-established action plan, the protective measures recommended by the commissions are then implemented by the risk owners final step.
A fundamental distinction concerns the operational frequency: commissions operate on an almost continuous basis, monitoring the territory daily even under ordinary conditions. In contrast, the risk owner intervenes periodically or in response to significant events.
The workflow is structured according to specific responsibilities:
- The technical role of the commission: the activity of the site-specific warning service (avalanche commission) concludes when recommendations and information regarding the impact probability are conveyed to the risk owner (example scenario in the image below).
- The risk owner represents the administrative entity in charge of managing the critical situation (for example the major). It is their responsibility to decide on the course of action, transforming technical information into concrete action plans. Furthermore, the risk owner is the authority that mandates the execution of mitigation measures (such as road closures or artificial avalanche triggering), deriving them from pre-established safety protocols and plans.
03
Methological decision-making
As described above, avalanche commissions—acting as local risk managers—must constantly make decisions as part of their work. For this reason, this section concludes with an overview of several methodological approaches to general decision‑making.
The strength of commission members in this regard likely lies in the combination of practical experience, local knowledge, and the targeted application of these approaches.
Three types of decision‑making can be distinguished:
Analytical Decision-Making
Analytical decision‑making focuses primarily on the objective observation and assessment of data and facts in the field. Typical examples include creating and systematically interpreting a snow profile as part of analytical avalanche science or consulting the avalanche forecast.
Probabilistic Decision-Making
Probabilistic decision‑making is based on combining probability assessments that rely on recognizable patterns, acknowledging that complex situations—often with incomplete information—require simple mental and operational structures. The best‑known representative of this methodology is Werner Munter, who developed several reduction methods (e.g., the Professional Reduction Method, the “Bierdeckel” method).
Intuitive Decision-Making
Experts with extensive experience (such as long‑standing members of avalanche commissions) often make decisions based on intuition. Intuition is the ability to make good decisions “from the gut” without necessarily being able to explicitly articulate or explain the underlying reasoning. Intuition is linked to an internal logic formed by circumstances and past experiences. As a fundamental human competence, intuition is a central ability for processing information and responding appropriately when dealing with highly complex situations.
Literature:
This article is based on the following publications:
CAA, 2016, TECHNICAL ASPECTS OF SNOW AVALANCHE RISK MANAGEMENT: Resources and Guidelines for Avalanche Practitioners in Canada, Canadian Avalanche Association according to ISO 31000:2018.
EAWS, 2022, Site-specific avalanche warning, Definitions and Recommendations. Version 2.0, European Avalanche Warnin Services.