A method to harness global crowd-sourced data to understand travel behavior in avalanche terrain.

Abstract:

To date, most studies of the human dimensions of decision making in avalanche terrain has focused on two areas - post-accident analysis using accident reports/interviews and, the development of tools as decision forcing aids. We present an alternate method using crowd-sourced citizen science, for understanding decision-making in avalanche terrain. Our project combines real-time GPS tracking via a smartphone application, with internet based surveys of winter backcountry users as a method to describe and quantify travel practices in concert with group decision-making dynamics, and demographic data of participants during excursions. Effectively, we use the recorded GPS track taken within the landscape as an expression of the decision making processes and terrain usage by the group.

Preliminary data analysis shows that individual experience levels, gender, avalanche hazard, and group composition all influence the ways in which people travel in avalanche terrain. Our results provide the first analysis of coupled real-time GPS tracking of the crowd while moving in avalanche terrain combined with psychographic and demographic correlates. This research will lead to an improved understanding of real-time decision making in avalanche terrain. In this paper we will specifically focus on the presentation of the methods used to solicit, and then harness the crowd to obtain data in a unique and innovative application of citizen science where the movements within the terrain are the desired output data (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Example GPS tracks sourced from backcountry winter users in the Teton Pass area (Wyoming), from the 2014-15 winter season, where tracks in red represent those recorded as self-assessed experts (as per our survey), and where tracks in blue represent those recorded as self-assessed intermediates. All tracks shown were obtained under similar avalanche conditions. Statistical analysis of terrain metrics showed that the experts used steeper terrain than the intermediate users under similar avalanche conditions, demonstrating different terrain choice and use as a function of experience rather than hazard level.