Content uploaded by Ryan Butler
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Ryan Butler on Jan 06, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
DECISION-MAKING IN EARLY-STAGE BACKCOUNTRY USERS
Decision-Making Systems in Early-Stage Backcountry Skiers and Snowboarders
Ryan Butler
Submitted in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree
of Master of Arts from Prescott College
in Adventure Education
December 2021
Laura Maguire, PhD Mathieu Brown, PhD Denise Mitten, PhD
Graduate Mentor Second Reader Core Faculty
DECISION-MAKING IN EARLY-STAGE BACKCOUNTRY USERS ii
Abstract
This thesis study is an exploratory look at the deeper layers of influence behind
backcountry skiers and snowboarders who have five or fewer years of experience in the
backcountry. This user group is relatively new to the sport, which provides an excellent
opportunity to examine many of the influencing factors that come into play when
entering and progressing into the activity. The human factor is a system and much deeper
than heuristics and sharp end decision-making, and this is key to understanding what
affects a person when traveling in the backcountry. Through a survey and individual
interviews with this user experience group, various factors within the system of influence
and how they interact with the decision-making process were identified. The findings
show that the role of avalanche education is significant and important to this user group,
as gaining the education that these courses provide has become essentially required
experience prior to entering the backcountry. The roles of avalanche safety equipment
and of social media also proved to be influential. These factors and more impact and
inform the decision-making of an individual while they travel in avalanche terrain. To
really understand the human factor, these influences, and methods to understand need to
be considered. This study demonstrates how layered and multifaceted the human factor
can be when looking at specific user groups.
Keywords: decision-making, avalanche education, systems-thinking, backcountry
skiing and snowboarding, human factor, avalanche safety
DECISION-MAKING IN EARLY-STAGE BACKCOUNTRY USERS iii
Copyright © 2021 by Ryan Butler
All rights reserved.
No part of this thesis may be used, reproduced, stored, recorded, or transmitted in any
form or manner whatsoever without written permission from the copyright holder or his
agent(s), except in the case of brief quotations embodied in the papers of students, and in
the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles and reviews.
Requests for such permission should be addressed to:
Ryan Butler
ryan.butler@student.prescott.edu
DECISION-MAKING IN EARLY-STAGE BACKCOUNTRY USERS iv
Acknowledgements
I am grateful beyond words for the support I received throughout this project and
my graduate school career.
Thank you, Denise Mitten, my core faculty, and advisor throughout this
experience. Your wisdom, patience, insight, and encouragement has been truly
remarkable. Being a student under your advising was an absolute honor. You’re a legend,
a pioneer and inspiration to our entire field. To Laura Maguire, a true mentor, who’s
research sparked my curiosities before even thinking of this thesis research. I am so
grateful that you were willing to support this project and spend so much of your time
working with me. To Mathieu Brown, your insight and willingness to listen to my ideas
and support them has been so helpful.
Thank you to Erin, my wife, and my utmost supporter. Without your
encouragement and unwavering support, I am not sure I could have done all this. Thank
you for your patience as I took up hours of our time at the kitchen table, endlessly typing
away. Thank you to Erik and Stefan, who have encouraged and cheered me on
throughout this whole journey.
Finally, thank you to NWAC, UAC, ESAC, CIAC, and other avalanche forecast
operations as well as A3 and AIARE. You all have been responsive and supportive to me
throughout this research project. The work you do keeps our beloved community safe and
aware; something that is irreplaceable.
DECISION-MAKING IN EARLY-STAGE BACKCOUNTRY USERS v
Table of Contents
CHAPTER 1: BACKGROUND AND SIGNIFICANCE OF WORK ......................... 8
Introduction ................................................................................................................... 8
Research Questions ................................................................................................... 10
Importance of Research ............................................................................................. 11
Definitions .................................................................................................................... 14
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ..................................................................... 15
Context and Understanding of Travel in Avalanche Terrain ................................. 15
Avalanche Conditions ............................................................................................... 16
Equipment for Safe Travel ........................................................................................ 16
Avalanche Forecasting and Communications ........................................................... 18
The Tools for Hazard and Risk Mitigation ............................................................... 20
Avalanche Education .................................................................................................. 22
Avalanche Education Curriculum ............................................................................. 23
Challenges of Avalanche Education ......................................................................... 25
Decision-Making Strategy – Sharp End vs Systems Thinking ............................... 27
Heuristic Decision-Making in Avalanche Terrain .................................................... 27
Systems-Thinking and Sociotechnical Context ........................................................ 30
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGIES ............................................................................. 35
Research Design .......................................................................................................... 35
Focus Population ....................................................................................................... 35
COVID-19 ................................................................................................................. 36
Ethical Considerations and Preparation .................................................................. 36
Traumatic Experience Considerations ...................................................................... 36
Informed Consent ...................................................................................................... 37
Survey........................................................................................................................... 37
Survey Distribution ................................................................................................... 37
Interview Sample Identification ................................................................................ 38
Interview Phase ........................................................................................................... 39
Data Analysis Process ................................................................................................. 40
Researcher Bias ........................................................................................................... 43
CHAPTER 4: SURVEY RESULTS & DISCUSSION ................................................ 45
Survey Findings ........................................................................................................... 45
Demographic Results ................................................................................................ 45
Equipment ................................................................................................................. 47
Access ....................................................................................................................... 48
Avalanche Education ................................................................................................ 49
COVID-19 Pandemic ................................................................................................ 49
Interview Sample Survey Results .............................................................................. 51
Demographic Results ................................................................................................ 51
Limitations ................................................................................................................... 53
Summary ...................................................................................................................... 55
CHAPTER 5: INTERVIEW RESULTS & DISCUSSION ......................................... 56
DECISION-MAKING IN EARLY-STAGE BACKCOUNTRY USERS vi
Equipment ................................................................................................................... 56
Avalanche Education .................................................................................................. 58
Course Availability ................................................................................................... 59
Course Cost Burden .................................................................................................. 61
Avalanche Courses as Required Experience ............................................................. 61
Social Media ................................................................................................................ 62
User-Submitted Conditions Reports ......................................................................... 64
Limitations ................................................................................................................... 65
Areas for Future Research ......................................................................................... 66
Practical Application .................................................................................................. 67
Summary ...................................................................................................................... 70
CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................... 72
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................ 74
APPENDICES ................................................................................................................. 77
Appendix A: Informed Consent ................................................................................ 78
Appendix B: Survey Tool ........................................................................................... 81
Appendix C: Interview Questions ............................................................................. 84
DECISION-MAKING IN EARLY-STAGE BACKCOUNTRY USERS vii
List of Tables and Figures
Tables
Table 2.1 List of Most Frequent Transcript Codes ........................................................... 42
Table 4.1 Distribution of Survey Respondent Backcountry Travel Experience Levels in
Number of Years ....................................................................................................... 46
Table 4.2 Backcountry Terrain Access Points Reported by Survey Respondents ............ 48
Table 4.3 Interview Participation by Experience Level .................................................... 52
Table 4.4 Age Distribution of Interview and Survey Participants .................................... 53
Figures
Figure 1.1 Example Illustration of a Possible System of Influence .................................... 9
Figure 2.1 Avalanche Problem Rose ................................................................................. 19
Figure 2.2 The North American Avalanche Danger Scale and Definitions ...................... 20
Figure 2.3 United States Reported Avalanche Fatalities by Year .................................... 23
Figure 2.4 AIARE Curriculum Map .................................................................................. 24
Figure 2.5 Backcountry User Actor Map .......................................................................... 32
Figure 3.1 Methodology Flow ........................................................................................... 43
DECISION-MAKING IN EARLY-STAGE BACKCOUNTRY USERS 8
CHAPTER 1: BACKGROUND AND SIGNIFICANCE OF WORK
Introduction
The goal of this study is to identify what influences the decision-making process of
backcountry users during a typical day of skiing and snowboarding in the mountains. A
typical day means a tour, or trip into the backcountry to ski or snowboard, with normal
operations and no significant incidents or accidents occurring. Specifically, a systems
approach is used to understand influences. Throughout this research paper, this group of
skiers and snowboarders who recreate in the backcountry will be referred to as backcountry
users. In the context of the skiing and snowboarding community, backcounty users are
differentiated from those who recreate in the front-country (traditional ski resorts). The
backcountry, at its core, is defined as an area of undeveloped landscape, often remote or
difficult to access. National and state forests, national parks, and legally designated
wilderness areas falls into this category and is often the destination for backcountry
recreationists (MacLeay, 2010). In the context of backcountry skiing and snowboarding,
Tremper (2018) defines the backcountry as “areas outside ski area boundaries where no
systematic avalanche control is done” (p. 16).
A primary hazard for backcountry travel is avalanches. A conversation about
backcountry winter sports would not be complete without the inclusion of avalanche
awareness and forecasting. The snow safety and backcountry skiing and snowboarding field
place great emphasis on the study of avalanche and snow science. Increasingly included in
this is the human factor science of those recreating within this hazard area. Traditionally,
avalanche decision-making research has focused largely on accident analysis from the sharp
end, or first person in-the-moment, perspective, when actually, if the influences of human
factors are considered from a systems perspective the analysis is more multifaceted than
simply looking at just the sharp end (Maguire, 2014). As a researcher I wanted to move away
DECISION-MAKING IN EARLY-STAGE BACKCOUNTRY USERS 9
from accident analysis and focus on recreationists acting in normal circumstances. By
exploring the influences involved leading up to and during everyday recreation activities (that
is, non-accident scenarios), a deeper understanding of context can be created, which in turn
could be utilized to further inform accident analysis and prevention.
Specifically, I am trying to highlight what systemic influences exist for backcountry
users. The system in question is all the aspects that inform individual experiences when
participating in winter backcountry travel. The experience is greater than just the day of
skiing or snowboarding and encompasses how one interacts with the activity through trip
planning and gear shopping, who their influences or inspirations are, and who they
communicate with to do the activity together. On-the-trail aspects that inform the experience
could be their terrain selection for the day or the gear they use and why, and at the larger
scale would be the industry as a whole or the avalanche education providers and curriculum.
Figure 1.1 depicts an example of the elements that influence the system.
Figure 1.1
Example Illustration of a Possible System of Influence
Online trail and
conditions resources
Avalanche Education
Social Group/Ski
Partners
Equipment
Selection
Person
DECISION-MAKING IN EARLY-STAGE BACKCOUNTRY USERS 10
In the 2020-2021 winter season, for example, equipment demands were high, and the
global pandemic greatly influenced where and how people recreated, especially in the
specific backcountry skiing context. These forces influenced the choices of backcountry
users and are examples of how the broader system informs decisions at the sharp end. My
purpose in this study was to identify what the influences actually are on this system. I did not
see evidence in the literature that this investigation had been done before.
Often studies conducted on backcountry skiers or snowboarders focus on the
experienced user group. However, the population focused on for this research were early-
stage backcountry users, who have been backcountry skiing or snowboarding for five or
fewer seasons. This focus population has a very active and recent motivation for entering this
discipline of skiing and snowboarding, making it conducive for study. Targeting this group
was identified by the research team to provide a valid and insightful experience not
previously known to understand influences on decision-making.
Since the system of influence is so important to informing actions and decisions in
the backcountry, but was previously not fully known, the questions guiding the research were
broad and exploratory. Additionally, this research took place during the COVID-19
pandemic, and therefore an opportunity arose to see the impacts of that large layer of
influence. The pandemic greatly impacted daily life around the world, and this presented the
change to see how those impacts affected backcountry users during the winter of 2020-2021.
With these factors in mind, the following research questions were used to scope the research.
Research Questions
1.) What is the decision-making system of early-stage backcountry users, and how
does it influence them once in the backcountry?
2.) What, if any, impacts did the COVID-19 pandemic have on this population?
DECISION-MAKING IN EARLY-STAGE BACKCOUNTRY USERS 11
Importance of Research
Over the last few decades, there has been an increase in winter backcountry users in
an array of different travel modes including skiing, snowboarding, snowmobiling, and
snowshoeing. A good indicator of growth in backcountry skiing and snowboarding is the
sales of the equipment needed to do so safely, which have been in steadily increasing in
demand (Knowles, 2018).
Accessing backcountry skiing and snowboarding can be unlike other sports.
Hypothetically, if someone were financially able, they could walk into their local outdoor
sporting goods store and purchase everything needed for backcountry skiing. There are many
online resources that provide a list of all the essential items, such as what type of skis, boots,
and bindings, as well as the needed avalanche rescue items and miscellaneous needs like
backpacks and food. In this one hypothetical shopping trip, all gear needs are met to go into
the backcountry. Is this person prepared? Acquiring the equipment is only one piece of the
puzzle for what it means to enter hazardous terrain “responsibly” or “safely.” There is a
larger system of influences that also includes where they choose to recreate, how they find
conditions information, and who they choose to recreate with. With this in mind, this study
focuses on that larger system in terms of what creates safety in the backcountry and how do
those who participate keep themselves safe.
The COVID-19 pandemic caused many resorts to close their lifts and halt operations
towards the end of the 2019-2020 winter season. Some of the ski resort users chose to move
to backcountry travel. This caused a system reaction among the backcountry winter sports
industry, with major spikes in demand for backcountry equipment. By November 2020,
backcountry ski sales were up 81% from the 2019-2020 winter season, backcountry
snowboard sales were up 146%, and the all-important backcountry accessories category,
which includes safety gear like transceivers, shovels, and probes was up 150%, according the
DECISION-MAKING IN EARLY-STAGE BACKCOUNTRY USERS 12
Snowsports Industries America (SIA). This increase was on top of what was already very
strong and continued growth of the industry for more than a decade (Peruzzi, 2021).
With these statistics, the growth trend of backcountry users does appear that it may
continue to increase. A glimpse of the system that this study looked to identify is already
visible as well. The equipment manufacturing side of the ski and snowboard industry impacts
and influences the users in this systemic context. Large numbers of users are looking to visit
the backcountry, and gear manufacturers are facing a challenge keeping items available for
people to safely access the backcountry. This creates pressure in the system and can affect the
safety of participants.
The COVID-19 pandemic has negatively influenced equipment manufacturers
causing shortages of equipment inventory or raw materials to produce equipment resulting in
high demand and low supply. Ski resorts implemented restrictions on capacity to prevent the
spread of the pandemic, leading to accessibility issues, which resulted in skiers and
snowboarders looking for a way to recreate elsewhere (Peruzzi, 2021).
To most experts in the backcountry snow and avalanche field, there are three key
requirements before entering into the backcountry in winter—the proper gear, enough
technical skill in skiing or snowboarding, and the knowledge of snow safety (Tremper, 2018).
Entering the winter backcountry poses many hazards and risks including, most notably,
avalanches. People who enter backcountry settings to ski or snowboard are highly
encouraged by the snowsports and avalanche safety community to obtain knowledge of
avalanche terrain and avalanches to understand how best to mitigate this hazard. Avalanche
education courses are the primary tool for backcountry users to gain the knowledge needed to
be safer accessing backcountry and avalanche prone terrain. The American Avalanche
Association (A3) was formed in 1986 to provide a formal curriculum and structure for proper
avalanche education. In recent years, however, especially given the boom in interest for the
DECISION-MAKING IN EARLY-STAGE BACKCOUNTRY USERS 13
activity, providers of avalanche education courses are having a hard time keeping pace with
demand from this growing population (Meyer, 2020). Courses are dependent on qualified
instructors, location, and time availability. In the United States, the focus area of this study,
there are realistically only four to five months a year when there is enough snowpack to
produce a quality course. This creates a bottleneck of users wanting to access the information
(usually at the beginning of the season, and limited time, financial resources, and availability
to complete it in a timely manner. As a result, there is potential for ill-prepared and ill-
informed users recreating in hazardous terrain.
Ninety percent of avalanche fatalities are from human-caused avalanches. While this
statistic includes all experience levels, inexperienced parties who are travelling in higher-
trafficked terrain can create a risk to other parties who may be knowledgeable but are
travelling within the same area (Howard, 2019). Often, the term “experienced” to describe
accident victims refers to their skiing or snowboarding ability, rather than their often-lagging
avalanche mitigation and assessment skills. Backcountry users who may be new to the
backcountry can be strong skiers or riders in a resort setting, but that technical ability also
needs to be paired with competent backcountry avalanche skills. Nearly all avalanche
victims, whether they be strong skiers or snowboarders or not, tend to overestimate their
avalanche skills (Tremper, 2018).
Finally, the importance of focusing on this specific group, backcountry users with five
or fewer seasons of experience, is to make known the reasons and motivations for entering
into this activity in the first place. Data from this study show that a vast majority of skiers and
snowboarders begin their recreational career in ski resort setting, as it provides a controlled
environment to build skills with difficulty-graded ski runs and lift access for a quick return to
the top of the mountain. It typically takes a dedicated intention and investment to transition
into the backcountry environment. However, as noted, recent events generated new forces
DECISION-MAKING IN EARLY-STAGE BACKCOUNTRY USERS 14
and influences on the decision to transition into the backcountry. Much of the existing
research looks at the more experienced user group, and accident analysis is congruent with
this as primarily experienced users are involved in avalanches (Wichelns, 2021). Rather than
looking at accidents and retracing steps to understand the decision-making process and
system that influenced them, this low-experience group is being looked at under normal
operating conditions to construct an understanding of what has influenced their process of
learning and participating.
Definitions
Backcountry is an area of undeveloped landscape, often remote or difficult to access
and unpatrolled, unmaintained, and unmarked (MacLeay, 2010).
Backcountry skiing and snowboarding mean skiing or riding outside ski area
boundaries where no systematic avalanche control is done (Tremper, 2018).
Heuristics are “rules of thumb” that simplify the brain’s decision-making process to
make it simpler and more efficient (Furman et al., 2010).
A system for the purpose of this thesis is the layers of influence on a person, from the
equipment used and why, the people they recreate with and why, the trails they access, the
education they have received, where they access information, etc. All systemic influences can
be included in this understanding of a system as well, including equipment shortage
challenges and the global pandemic.
Systems phenomenon in risk management is when accidents are a seen as a result of
multiple interacting contributory factors situated across entire work systems (Dallat et al.,
2017)
Systems-thinking in risk management is the assertion that accidents are produced by
interactions between multiple human and technical elements, as opposed to the actions of one
human, or one specific failure in isolation (Dallat et al., 2017).
DECISION-MAKING IN EARLY-STAGE BACKCOUNTRY USERS 15
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
Available research to support this study provides an excellent initial understanding of
the context in which recreationist, both experienced and not, operate during backcountry
travel. Chapter 2 includes a review of avalanche basics and the resources available to
understand them, which is foundational for backcountry travel. The avalanche education
available in the winter sports industry is a key component of knowing where most
backcountry users begin their journey and is a complex sub-system in itself. Also explained
in Chapter 2 is how avalanche education relates to the study population and why it is so
important.
As this study is focused on decision-making in backcountry recreation, Chapter 2 goes
in depth to understand the current state of decision-making in the snow and avalanche field,
including the limitations and potential for expanded understanding. The role of the human-
factor is significant in the snow and avalanche industry, and an expanded systems-thinking
understanding of a single individual in isolation, as demonstrated in this study, can greatly
improve the overall understanding of the human-factor and the decision-making process.
Context and Understanding of Travel in Avalanche Terrain
Avalanche hazards are the primary risk for those travelling into the backcountry.
What makes winter terrain challenging is that there is no way of knowing if or when an
avalanche may occur, nor which exact areas will slide and how much or how severely it will
slide. In this section I discuss the conditions in which avalanches can occur, the equipment
used for recreationists to access this terrain safely, and the forecasting resources available for
recreationists to use and understand the terrain and snowpack. A recreationist can begin to
make risk-mitigating decisions in the backcountry by possessing the proper safety equipment
(and knowing how to use it), being equipped with the knowledge and skills needed to read
DECISION-MAKING IN EARLY-STAGE BACKCOUNTRY USERS 16
terrain, snowpack, and weather, and understanding an avalanche bulletin and what to do in
the event of emergency situations.
Avalanche Conditions
In the winter when the mountains are covered in snow, any skiable slope or
mountainous area is also known as avalanche terrain. Avalanche terrain is most found where
slope angles range from 30 degrees through 50 degrees, as that is the angle in which
avalanches occur. Slope angles less than 30 degrees are not steep enough to slide except
under unusual circumstances, and steeper than 50 degrees are typically too steep to hold
snowpack (Howard, 2019). This slope angle significance also refers to slopes that may be low
angle where a trail is connected to steeper terrain higher above. A person can be travelling
over low angle terrain but could still be connected via a chute or bowl in the terrain to
steeper, avalanche-prone slopes. Equally important are runout paths from steeper slopes. An
avalanche can travel anywhere from 10 to 100 mph depending on the type, size, and
steepness of its origin, and therefore can take a while to come to a stop once it hits less steep
terrain (Coppolillo, 2020).
Equipment for Safe Travel
The backcountry in the context of skiing and snowboarding can be defined as skiing
or snowboarding outside the confines of a designated ski resort. This backcountry area often
can be accessed from resorts by exiting their perimeter into the backcountry or accessed via
trailheads and roadside recreation sites (Coppolillo, 2020). As backcountry skiing and
snowboarding require different risk considerations and travel methods than resort skiing, the
equipment may look similar but is quite specialized. The foot-retaining bindings on skis and
snowboard bindings are made to allow the heel to lift freely. Nylon fiber “skins” are attached
to the bottom of the skis which grip the snow for uphill travel. In the very early days of ski
touring, actual animal pelts were used as the hair gripped the snow in the same way, hence
DECISION-MAKING IN EARLY-STAGE BACKCOUNTRY USERS 17
the name “skins” still used today (Dierickx, 2015). With the use of touring style bindings and
skins, walking forward with skis on is now possible. A primary benefit of keeping skis on
one’s feet is the floatation they provide over snow. For backcountry travel snowboarders use
a special board called a splitboard, which separates down the middle, creating two “ski”
sides; the bindings remount to these and special skins are fitted to the bottom for walking
similar to skiers. When ready to ski or ride down, the heel gets locked back in on skis, or a
snowboard gets re-assembled for the ride down.
There are a few key pieces of gear needed when accessing backcountry and avalanche
terrain. In addition to the backcountry touring-specific bindings on skis and snowboards, an
avalanche transceiver, a shovel, and snow probe are necessary (Dierickx, 2015). A
transceiver is worn on the person, typically via a harness worn on the torso and when in use,
emits a signal constantly when set on its primary function mode labeled as either transmit or
send. When the device is switched to search mode, it is now able to read those transmission
signals from a partner’s transceiver. These signals direct the receiver via arrows and a
distance reading towards their source. If an avalanche buries a person in snow, this device
helps the other partner precisely locate them. During a rescue, after a burial is located, the
second phase is to use the snow probe, a collapsible aluminum pole with depth
measurements, to quickly penetrate the snow to identify exactly where and how deep the
person is. Once the probe strikes the buried person, it is left in place as a marker and finally
the shovel is used to dig them out (Tremper, 2018).
In recent years, avalanche airbags have gained popularity among backcountry users,
and avalanche equipment manufacturers have increased available options. These are
backpacks that contain a roughly 150-liter air bag that gets activated and inflated when a
ripcord is pulled. In the event of being caught in an avalanche, the wearer could pull the cord
and the air bag inflates around and over their head in seconds to keep the victim floating
DECISION-MAKING IN EARLY-STAGE BACKCOUNTRY USERS 18
higher in the falling snowfield. These bags rely on the physics principle of granular
convection; in granular flows, which is what dry slab avalanches are, larger particles tend to
be sorted toward the surface. In this case, the person with an inflated airbag is this larger
particle to be “floated” closer to the surface. A major caveat, though, is that in order for this
physical effect to occur, the avalanche must be moving at a high rate of speed and has to be
of large enough volume to produce this effect. There have been cases of avalanche airbags
deployed in slides and not having the intended effect. When determining whether an airbag
would have helped in an avalanche, the speed and volume of the slide are the first things
considered (Haegeli et al., 2020).
Avalanche Forecasting and Communications
In the mountainous parts of the United States where there is a climate and terrain for
backcountry skiing and snowboarding, there is often a regional provider of avalanche
forecasts. These are resources funded in part by the U.S. Forest Service that, during the
winter months, provide contextual information for snowpack data, weather patterns, and how
those pieces combine to make a forecast for what the stability and avalanche likelihood is.
During the winter months, these centers publish their assessments of the avalanche danger
level and problem, or evaluation of the snowpack characteristics that determine the type of
avalanche specific hazard, each day, so that recreators can use this information to plan their
backcountry tours in the coming days.
The avalanche problem is the first identified information that is listed in an avalanche
forecast. There are nine types of avalanches, which are classified based on the condition of
the snow itself, taking temperature, texture, location, and interaction with the rest of the
snowpack into account. The location of the avalanche problem is shown via a rose in Figure
2.1 (UAC, n.d.) that shows this information at three elevation bands: below treeline, near or
DECISION-MAKING IN EARLY-STAGE BACKCOUNTRY USERS 19
at treeline, and above treeline, as well as the orientation of the avalanche problems in North,
South, East, and West (UAC, n.d.).
Figure 2.1
Avalanche Problem Rose
Note: In this image, an avalanche problem exists on the upper two elevation bands (at treeline and
above treeline), and is occurring on NNW through NE facing slopes, or aspects. From “How to Read
the Forecast,” by Utah Avalanche Center, n.d. Reprinted with permission.
With the avalanche forecast and problem also comes a danger rating for the day on a
5-point scale from low danger through extreme danger, as seen in Figure 2.2 (UAC, n.d.).
Whereas low danger means the conditions are mostly safe, it does not mean there is no
danger of avalanche and mindful backcountry travel is still needed. On the other end of the
scale, extreme danger warns that all avalanche terrain is unstable, and no travel is
recommended. One important aspect of this scale is that it is not linear, and with each
increasing step of the danger scale, the danger elevates two-fold. The “considerable” danger
rating is right in the middle of the scale and has a consequential blend of being within the
acceptable risk of most people, and still significantly risky. Because of this, most avalanche
accidents occur when the rating is “considerable” (UAC, n.d.).
DECISION-MAKING IN EARLY-STAGE BACKCOUNTRY USERS 20
Figure 2.2
The North American Avalanche Danger Scale and Definitions
Note. From “Avalanche danger scale,” by Utah Avalanche Center, n.d. Image reprinted with
permission.
The Tools for Hazard and Risk Mitigation
The “must-have” safety equipment (transceiver, shovel, and probe) before venturing
into avalanche terrain is almost universally accepted, despite a financial burden (roughly
$400 for the trio of safety items) (Dierickx, 2015). There are often uncertainties about the
needs of this gear when the conversation turns to solo travel. The three aforementioned items
are required as they are needed to locate and rescue a partner, and vice versa. But what is the
need for a transceiver while travelling solo? On February 14, 2021, there was a solo
snowboarder touring in Colorado near Loveland Pass. There were a few other parties out that
day who, for the most part, knew of the locations of the others out, so when an avalanche
occurred, there were people out there with the knowledge and skills to start a rescue effort.
The teams searched the debris field with their transceivers but failed to find a signal.
Eventually, a victim was found who had not survived the avalanche. This solo snowboarder
was not wearing a transceiver but was wearing an airbag backpack. Greene et al. (2021) from
DECISION-MAKING IN EARLY-STAGE BACKCOUNTRY USERS 21
the Colorado Avalanche Information Center (CAIC), who reported on the accident,
emphasized the importance of entering avalanche terrain with a transceiver, shovel, and probe
even if travelling solo. This reinforces the importance of having the appropriate gear as well
as the knowledge of when to carry it and, being equipped with decision-making and
judgement skills. Before entering avalanche terrain, being properly equipped, and prepped
with the knowledge and skills to navigate complex and potentially dangerous backcountry
terrain can lead to potentially life-saving measures.
The Utah Avalanche Center, based in Salt Lake City, UT, forecasts for a region
famous for its snow quality and its avalanches. One could argue that this center in particular
stands apart from the rest based on its online presence. They are active on social media
platforms, post regular YouTube conditions and accident reporting videos, and host the Utah
Avalanche Center Podcast. In the podcast, the hosts (who are also forecasters in the field)
interview various members from the winter sports industry to discuss equipment, research,
and incidents. In many of the episodes, Drew Hardesty, the primary host and well-known
figure in the snow and avalanche community, poses a unique question: A person walks into
an outdoor gear store with $1000. They could buy the avalanche airbag or attend an entry
level AIARE level 1 avalanche education course they saw advertised on a flier on their way
into the store (Hardesty, 2019). Does either purchase make them safer from avalanches when
entering the backcountry? There is no right answer to this question, and it results in diverse
conversation based on the perspective of the interview. It does, however, show the
complexity of the factors involved in what is considered safe backcountry travel. Is there a
right or wrong combination of knowledge, skills, and gear that contributes to a safe
experience in the backcountry? The question is incredibly complex with no clear answer.
DECISION-MAKING IN EARLY-STAGE BACKCOUNTRY USERS 22
Avalanche Education
Backcountry travelers are subject to terrain and climate hazards, most notably
avalanches. People who enter these backcountry settings to ski, snowboard, or snowmobile
are highly encouraged to obtain knowledge of avalanches and avalanche terrain through a
variety of education opportunities. While there are an ever-increasing number of avalanche
education options, there is still an increase in backcountry travel participation and fatalities
due to avalanches still occur. In roughly 90% of avalanche fatalities, the avalanche is human-
triggered (i.e., triggered by the victim(s) or the victim’s party) (Howard, 2019). Educators in
these avalanche education courses have a unique set of challenges presented to them. They
need to ensure that enough information is provided for travelers to make field observations
about the terrain they through which they are travelling and hold a responsibility of teaching
these travelers the skills needed to make accurate decisions based on the observations and
knowledge they have gained through their education (McCammon, 2004).
In 2014, SIA estimated that five million people used the backcountry in the winter
months (based on equipment sales trends). This rise in winter backcountry use is mirrored by
the negative consequence of winter backcountry travel—fatalities via avalanches. The CAIC
reports show a steady increase in fatalities over the last 30 years, illustrated in Figure 2.3
(CAIC, 2021), from an annual average of 23 per year to the current average in the 30’s. Most
recently, the 2020-2021 winter season had 37 fatalities by avalanche (CAIC, 2021).
DECISION-MAKING IN EARLY-STAGE BACKCOUNTRY USERS 23
Figure 2.3
United States Reported Avalanche Fatalities by Year
Note: From “Statistics and reporting,” by the Colorado Avalanche Information Center, 2021.
https://www.avalanche.state.co.us/accidents/statistics-and-reporting/. Reprinted with permission.
A growth of avalanche education has increased as a result of the rise in fatalities, as
there is a demonstrated demand to from backcountry users to be safer from hazards (Furman
et al., 2010). Avalanche education opportunities have expanded significantly to meet the rise
in popularity of the sport and subsequent demand for accessing course information. The
increase in education opportunities have likely positively impacted the fatality statistics by
keeping the population more aware of the avalanche dangers that exist when recreating in this
terrain (McCammon, 2004).
Avalanche Education Curriculum
The American Avalanche Association (A3) is the primary organization in the United
States that oversees avalanche education curriculum. There are numerous providers of
DECISION-MAKING IN EARLY-STAGE BACKCOUNTRY USERS 24
avalanche education globally. In the United States, the AIARE is a main education provider
that offers courses to deliver the tiered curriculum established by A3 for recreationists and
professionals. The AIARE curriculum in Figure 2.4 demonstrates the progression for
backcountry users to build a foundation of knowledge and skills that supports the overall goal
of avalanche education: to reduce deaths in the backcountry from avalanche-related incidents.
These courses are carried out by teams of instructors and traditionally hosted by guide
companies, outfitters, or avalanche forecast operations. Traditionally, avalanche courses
focused primarily on snow science, weather observation, and terrain analysis. In recent years,
courses also covered the human factors and decision-making and how they relate to
avalanche safety (Furman et al., 2010).
Figure 2.4
AIARE Curriculum Map
Note. From “Choosing an Avalanche Course,” by the American Institute of Avalanche Research and
Education. Image reprinted with permission.
As the AIARE level 1 course is considered the entry into their curriculum, it has the
most abundant offerings. For the 2021-2022 season, there were 379 level 1 courses offered in
the United States. In the last year alone, 2020, the Colorado Mountain School saw almost
triple the number of bookings for level 1 avalanche courses compared to the previous year,
leading to a sold-out season (Meyer, 2020). The demand for level 1 courses has hit all-time
DECISION-MAKING IN EARLY-STAGE BACKCOUNTRY USERS 25
highs. The roster of qualified instructors is not increasing at the same rate, due to the limited
volume of graduates that these higher-level courses are able to produce. This presents a bottle
neck effect for those wanting to access the entry level course as well as those wishing to
progress through the curriculum.
The level 2 course is directed towards recreationists seeking to further their
knowledge, not necessarily with the intention of the professional curriculum or a career in the
snow and avalanche field. During the 2021-2022 season AIARE hosted 38 level 2 courses
(AIARE, 2021). The professional-level track is for prospective professionals or people
currently employed within the outdoor recreation industry and would be seeking the
qualification to teach the curriculum within their own organization. In the 2021-2022 season,
there were six pro 1 courses offered, with 12 seats available in each (AIARE, 2021). The
professional-level track is also the gateway to be an AIARE instructor, which is required to
teach and grant certification of completion for the lower-level courses. If someone is on the
AIARE instructor track, their continued course work includes an instructor training course
(eight offered in 21-22), the pro level 2 course (two offered in 21-22), and finally the course
leader training (three courses offered in 21-22) (AIARE, 2021). Between each of these
courses field experience is required as well, leading to additional time needed to progress
through the curriculum.
Challenges of Avalanche Education
Avalanche educators have the challenge of disseminating the course material
appropriately, as often the in-depth topics of snow study can be confusing, even contradictory
if not presented correctly (Watters, 1997). The challenge of educators in this field is not only
to impart the information needed to make accurate observations in the field, but also to teach
the skills needed to make decisions with the information provided and observed. This
observation-based, or analytical, kind of decision-making process can overcome the often
DECISION-MAKING IN EARLY-STAGE BACKCOUNTRY USERS 26
default heuristic decision-making tendency, which is ideal as not all heuristics are
situationally appropriate (McCammon, 2004).
In McCammon’s 2004 study, the results suggested that the level of avalanche
education did not appear to make victims of avalanches more or less likely to be involved in
accidents. He found that the knowledge acquired by backcountry users was more likely to be
used as a means of travelling to their desired ski location safely, but since the priority was
still on the perceived benefits of the descent, reading terrain and mitigating hazard took a
backseat on the transition to going down. If terrain selection and hazard management was
kept intact throughout the duration of the activity and not just used get to the descent run,
potentially hazardous avalanche conditions could be avoided even further. There are plenty of
human factors to contend with when approaching the descent, for example excitement of the
run and group dynamics could outweigh the terrain evaluation practice that is taught in these
courses.
The decision-making process introduced in avalanche education programs encourages
users to observe environmental clues around them to properly assess situations and risk
factors. This knowledge-based decision-making process is a slower and a more tedious
process for the brain than heuristic shortcuts. This process can be affected by various human
factors during a situation, including (but not limited to) social setting, group dynamic, and
environmental conditions. The brain often defaults to a shortcut decision-making process
called heuristic decision-making, and it is attractive because it is quick and efficient, and
sometimes correct (McCammon, 2004). However, it is crucial for educators to provide
knowledge, decision-making practice, and awareness about when to use the knowledge-based
decision-making process or heuristic decision-making strategy to counteract heuristic traps
with negative consequence.
DECISION-MAKING IN EARLY-STAGE BACKCOUNTRY USERS 27
Decision-Making Strategy – Sharp End vs Systems Thinking
Heuristic Decision-Making in Avalanche Terrain
Heuristic decision-making strategy is thought of as “rules of thumb” that simplify the
brain’s process to make a decision and make it more efficient (Furman et al., 2010). A
heuristic is a problem-solving method that uses shortcuts to produce good-enough solutions
given a limited timeframe or deadline. Although it is not fully understood why they occur,
people are prepared to act on them in the moment. Heuristics work well when dealing with
daily decisions and routine risk such as driving a car, crossing the street, or avoiding social
embarrassment. However, heuristics are often unsuitable when in complex situations like
avalanche terrain.
There are three foundational heuristics that occur during the decision-making process:
availability, representativeness, and anchoring or adjustment. The availability heuristic is the
cognitive tendency for information that is quickly and easily accessible to be given more
weight in the decision-making process than less accessible information (Furman et al., 2010)
This can be something that was recently read or seen and is cognitively available.
Representativeness is classifying objects or instances when they are most similar in essential
properties to a parent population. Furman et al. (2010) said that the representativeness
heuristic “is the process of making generalizations from a specific to a universal and possibly
excluding other relevant data to the detriment of the decision maker” (p. 456). For example, a
person may see the PIEPS transceiver recall in 2020, and therefore see all PIEPS and Black
Diamond products as unsafe or unreliable. Or, they may have recently read about a
devastating avalanche and be more cautious than typically. The anchoring and adjustment
heuristic describes that a person roots their decision point on one basis until more information
comes available that could influence the position. Assuming someone didn’t know the state
of the whole snowpack, they may see one stable slope on the way to their destination and use
DECISION-MAKING IN EARLY-STAGE BACKCOUNTRY USERS 28
that as the anchor point of what they think the stability is elsewhere. There are many more
heuristics that occur than just what I indicated here, but these and the following are prevalent
and relevant in high risk and high consequence terrain. (Furman et al., 2010).
Avalanche terrain poses a unique hazard that puts the heuristics that are useful in
everyday life out of place and in the wrong context, and in some cases, lead to dangerously
misleading decisions. Crossing the street versus crossing an avalanche path can trigger the
same heuristic decision-making process but are two different hazards. Daily tasks are
typically less complex and occur so frequently that the heuristic processes are acceptable, as
they exist for that kind of setting. When crossing the street, the brain knows to look both
ways and can sense when it is safe to cross fairly quickly. Avalanche terrain is incredibly
complex, and never the same, so when crossing it one must pay attention to a host of different
factors. If the brain takes a heuristic shortcut, something in the situational assessment could
get missed and a dangerous scenario can easily occur. When a rule of thumb gives an
inaccurate perception of a present hazard, one can fall into a heuristic trap (McCammon,
2004).
McCammon (2004) identified six heuristics that take place most commonly in
avalanche scenarios and organized them into the acronym FACETS: familiarity, acceptance,
consistency, the expert halo, tracks/scarcity, and social facilitation. These heuristics are
recognized as being used in daily decision-making processes and, because they are so
commonly used and relied on, backcountry users are largely unaware of their influence.
There are many heuristics that occur in the decision-making process, but McCammon (2004)
provided the following explanations of these specific heuristics in the context of avalanche
terrain:
The familiarity heuristic suggests that skiers will ski slopes that they are already
familiar with.
DECISION-MAKING IN EARLY-STAGE BACKCOUNTRY USERS 29
The acceptance heuristic says that some will attempt to impress others for
acceptance—most typically by skiing impressive, potentially hazardous terrain.
The consistency heuristic suggests that skiers will ski the terrain they originally
planned to ski.
The expert halo heuristic says that skiers will defer their judgment to the formal or
informal leader of the group and rely on that person to make decisions.
The tracks or scarcity heuristic argues that skiers will ski terrain that is highly
coveted, features fresh snow, or is untracked.
The social facilitation heuristic says that skiers will attempt to ski more hazardous
terrain when other groups or individuals are present. (pp. 1-6)
There are traps, however, that come with these heuristics. For example, a backcountry
skier’s decision-making could rely on the familiarity heuristic, and they may think, “I’ve
skied this before and everything was fine; it should be fine this time too.” This of course does
not guarantee that the slope is stable on this particular outing as snowpack conditions change
daily based on weather patterns and human usage. It is in this type of situation that the
heuristic decision strategy has negative consequences associated with it. An interesting
comparison in avalanche incidents and heuristic traps is the role of experience and avalanche
education. McCammon (2004) found that parties with advanced avalanche education and
experience tended to base a lot of their decision-making on familiarity and social facilitation
cues. Parties with basic avalanche education show an overall decreased potential to slip into
heuristic traps leading speculation that the first step into avalanche education tends to shift
focus primarily on conditions rather than social cues. Parties with lesser or a basic awareness
of avalanche safety appeared sensitive to the expert halo and acceptance heuristic. Parties
with little to no experience succumb to these two as well, as familiarity comes with more
DECISION-MAKING IN EARLY-STAGE BACKCOUNTRY USERS 30
experience (McCammon, 2004). If a backcountry user falls into one or more heuristic traps
throughout the day, they could easily find themselves in unstable and unsafe terrain while
failing to see the signs that would indicate it as such. In a group setting, a leader could
succumb to a heuristic trap and therefore lead a group (who sees them in the expert halo) into
a potentially dangerous situation.
Systems-Thinking and Sociotechnical Context
The conversation about avalanche accident prevention usually comes with lots of
accident analysis and usage data to reinforce its importance. Backcountry users are not going
into the backcountry with the intention of making poor decisions or doing the “wrong thing.”
Context of a situation is key to understanding a decision-making process and understanding
what about that situation made decisions make sense at the time. Understanding context and
revealing the sensemaking efforts by backcountry users is central to refining development
and deployment of prevention strategies (Maguire, 2014). The point of accident analysis is
not to identify where people went wrong; rather, it should be to understand why their
assessments of the situation and their actions seemed right at the time (Dekker, 2000).
A majority of avalanche accident analysis and review is largely focused currently on
what is referred to as “the sharp end” decision-making. This refers to the first-hand
experience of the user and what is happening in front of them. Heuristic decision-making
strategies are often the scapegoat during accident analysis, without much consideration given
to context of the greater system of influence (Dallat et al., 2017). The human factor influence
in high-risk high-consequence activity is significantly more layered and complex than what
can be captured in heuristic decision-making strategy.
In safety science and risk management fields, accidents are acknowledged as a
systems phenomenon, or the result of multiple interacting factors across various systems. This
systems-thinking explanation of accident causation is underpinned by the assertion that
DECISION-MAKING IN EARLY-STAGE BACKCOUNTRY USERS 31
accidents are produced not only by the actions of one human or isolated incident (the sharp
end), rather they are produced by the interactions between multiple human and technical
elements (Dallat et al., 2017). In the avalanche arena, the skier, partners, and immediate
decision-making by both the individual and the group is the sharp end of this scenario.
Looking upwards towards a system in place, influencing factors above the sharp end could be
the USFS (government agency) avalanche forecasting operation, equipment manufacturers,
and avalanche education providers. Beyond that could be organizational budgets, safety
regulations for avalanche transceivers, raw material manufacturing, and small business
operations. If an avalanche forecasting center faced government mandated budget cuts,
causing decreased work availability or layoffs, would the integrity of the forecast be
sacrificed? If machinery at an equipment manufacturing facility suffered from quality
problems, would the functionality or reliability of a product be affected? These levels of a
system are dynamic, as each level has a person or member involved; another individual or
member that has their own decision-making process and influence. This multi layered group
of influencers is shown in the actor map in Figure 2.5.
DECISION-MAKING IN EARLY-STAGE BACKCOUNTRY USERS 32
Figure 2.5
Backcountry User Actor Map
Backcountry Ski and Snowboard Actor Map
To identify human and non-human actors that influence backcountry ski and snowboard usage
Equipment
Regulatory
Bodies
Government
Avalanche
Forecasting
Centers
Avalanche
Education
Providers
Note. Adapted from “Systems-based accident analysis methods: A comparison of Accimap, HFACS,
and STAMP,” by P. Salmon et al., 2012, Safety science, 50(4), p. 5. Copyright 2012 by Elsevier Ltd.
To begin to evaluate and understand accidents in avalanche terrain, adopting a
systems-thinking approach is an underrepresented practice. Avalanche incident assessment
should move beyond the sharp end and understand that decision-making is more complex
than heuristic traps and cognitive biases. A primary limitation of accident reviews and
causation assessments is that they are reactive, examining accidents that have already
Safety
Standards
Small
businesses
Raw material
sourcing
Timely
shipment
Manufacturing
timelines
Online
retailers
International standards
for transceivers
EU Declaration of
Conformity (transceiver
frequency standard)
U.S. Forest
Service
National
Park Service
BLM
Trailhead
accessibility
Road
maintenance
Non-profit
operations
Forecasters
Adequate
staffing
Outreach
Government
Funding
Conditions
communications
Community
Membership
Education
Instructor roster
management
Curriculum
management
Course
accessibility
Staffing
Student
management
ISO/DIN (ski
binding standards)
Marketing &
Outreach
Insurance
American Avalanche
Association
Marketing
Board of
Directors
Risk
Management
Plan
Incident
reporting
Course
sites
Commercial
permitting
Staffing (through
all stages of
production)
DECISION-MAKING IN EARLY-STAGE BACKCOUNTRY USERS 33
happened. Through the process there is an understanding of causation gained, but the fact
remains that this is reactive assessment. Accidents cannot be predicted, but the context of
situations in which they occur could provide valuable insight in accident mitigation (Dallat et
al., 2017).
The insights provided might help shift the often-outdated view related to human error.
This “old view” implies that human error is the direct cause of accidents, and to explain the
failure one must seek failure; someone’s inaccurate assessments, wrong decisions, and poor
judgements. This perspective, however, limits the learning from the accident by putting
blame solely on the victim, and not exploring the ways in which the accident manifested. The
required perspective shows that human error is part of a system that was in place. Instead of
finding where people went wrong, it is more informative to look for the assessments and
actions that took place leading up to the accident and how they made sense at the time based
on the circumstances around them (Dekker, 2000).
The new view of human error in these fields is easy to relate in the avalanche field.
Complex and dynamic systems in which people operate are not safe, and that is a given when
it comes to travelling avalanche terrain. There are many other pressures that influence the
role of safety such as socioeconomic pressures, personal scheduling, individual risk tolerance,
and prior education (Dekker, 2000). Pressures and complexities are also systemic, and not
necessarily exclusively on the shoulders of the person on the trail. The skier on the ground is
navigating the safety of the situation in front of them, and they are also subject to the system
around them and that played a role in them getting to the trail in the first place.
The primary aim of this study was to understand the deeper system in place around
early-stage backcountry users. Previous research in the snow and avalanche field focused
primarily on the human factor being sharp end decision-making process and heuristic
involvement. The human factor is in fact much more layered than this, and it is something
DECISION-MAKING IN EARLY-STAGE BACKCOUNTRY USERS 34
that other industries outside of the outdoor and avalanche communities are putting more
effort into understanding. There are so many factors that fall into place for a person to find
themselves in the backcountry. People may enter the backcountry with proper equipment and
some level of avalanche education, but the influences and decision-making processes begin
long before they step into their bindings.
DECISION-MAKING IN EARLY-STAGE BACKCOUNTRY USERS 35
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGIES
To examine the decision-making system and understand its influence on the early-
stage backcountry user population, I implemented an exploratory study. In this chapter, I
present the conceptual framework for this research is as well as the resulting research design,
survey design and implementation, and an assessment of the methods used to collect and
analyze data. Additionally, I describe the participant population, including participant
selection methods. Finally, I provide an evaluation of ethical issues and research bias
associated with the investigation and survey implementation.
Research Design
The project is descriptive research, that involved collection of both qualitative and
quantitative data to understand the population studied. This research was carried out in two
phases. The first phase consisted of distributing a survey to the backcountry ski and
snowboard community with the purpose of reaching a sample of users that had five or fewer
years of experience in backcountry touring. The second phase was an interview with a
smaller sample identified from the survey.
Focus Population
The focus population for the study is early-stage backcountry skiers and snowboarders
with less than five years of backcounty experience. While this group of recreationalists is
new to the backcountry, many have engaged in the sport of skiing and snowboarding
previously—some for many years. The reasoning for this early-stage experience window
specifically was to gain insight into how people get into the sport, and what influences keep
them going. This is not to say that later-stage or more experienced backcountry users do not
have influences and experiences worth researching. The scoping of this project, however, is
focused specifically on the early-stage population. Experience levels during the phases of the
study were self-reported by the respondents. The interview sample was a population that was
DECISION-MAKING IN EARLY-STAGE BACKCOUNTRY USERS 36
identified from qualified responses on the survey. It was 10 participants in size who met the
criteria for experience level and participation agreement.
COVID-19
This research was conducted in the second year of the COVID-19 pandemic. COVID-
19 likely influenced the backcountry skiing and snowboarding community and had the
potential to influence the data of this early-stage user sample. COVID-19 provided a unique
opportunity to study the effects of the pandemic on this user group and see what influence it
may have had in their decision-making process. While there was no specific hypothesis with
this research—it was more inductive in practice—there was a curiosity to see if the pandemic
played a role in the overall backcountry usage or influenced this user group.
Ethical Considerations and Preparation
This research project was prepared in following the standards of the Prescott College
Institutional Review Board (IRB). In the Spring of 2021, my research proposal was submitted
to the Prescott College IRB committee with approval on April 3, 2021. As this study was
exploratory about the general experience and practices of backcountry users, it was not
intended to prompt participants to divulge accidents or traumatic experiences. For the
interview part of this research, accommodations and plans were in place in the event
accidents or traumatic experiences came up in the normal course of the interview.
Traumatic Experience Considerations
A primary ethical consideration for this project was that difficult personal experiences
with avalanches could come up in conversation. While it was not the goal of the research to
hear avalanche stories and assessment them, it was possible in speaking with backcountry
users that the topic could have come up and could trigger emotions. Since this was an
exploratory study, participants were not excluded or chosen around their experience with
avalanches specifically. The interviews were focused on backcountry skiing and
DECISION-MAKING IN EARLY-STAGE BACKCOUNTRY USERS 37
snowboarding, but as avalanches are an inherent hazard to the activity, the potential for direct
experience with them to come up in conversation was possible. As a researcher it was
important to identify in the participation materials that it was not the intention to bring up
potentially uncomfortable experiences, including being involved in an avalanche.
Informed Consent
An informed consent was prepared for both the survey distribution and the interview
participants. The survey’s first page served as the informed consent page, acknowledging
that, if the participant were to select “Yes, I agree [to participate]” and proceed, they were
consenting to participation. For the interviews, a more in-depth informed consent was
prepared and emailed to the selected sample during interview recruiting, as well as attached
in an email when interview scheduling was confirmed. Before initiating questions in the
interview, the informed consent was reviewed and final consent was obtained, if it had not
been already obtained via signed consent form.
Survey
The survey tool (as seen in Appendix B) was created and hosted online, so that
distribution could be through a link shared with eligible populations. I wrote the survey to get
an understanding of where this population was at in regard to their general experience level,
motivations for going into the backcountry, gear used, education completed (if any), and
where they access the backcountry from, such as trailheads or ski resort trails. I wanted the
questions to be a mix of open forms and selections and be short enough to retain the attention
and interest of the participant while still able to acquire useable and relevant data.
Survey Distribution
The survey was distributed electronically primarily through U.S.-based avalanche
forecast centers that sent the link to their distribution list and via social media. Additionally,
it was distributed through personal networks of the research team and via The Avalanche
DECISION-MAKING IN EARLY-STAGE BACKCOUNTRY USERS 38
Review publication website. Through these distribution channels, the survey was opened by
400 unique people. The survey was opened and distributed on April 5, 2021, and although
there was no set closure date, it was informally closed on August 1, 2021, as the last response
was submitted on July 1 and no further submissions had come through at an interval that the
research team felt was appropriate to close after. At the time of the survey closure, 132
responses were collected, with 96 of those responses from people in the target sample
population of early-stage backcountry users.
The questions in the survey inquired about the personal process of backcountry users.
They focused on how long they have been in the sport, both at resorts and backcountry, the
equipment they use, and the education, if any, they have participated in. This survey was
successful in gaining a baseline of data from the larger population about common practices,
motivations, and trends, and to identify a sample for the second phase of the research project
consisting of interviews with a smaller sample population.
Interview Sample Identification
The sample size for the second phase was 10 people, who consented to second phase
participation at the end of their survey response. The sample size target was established by
the size and scope of the project, as well as what would be a large enough size to be able to
make broader statements about this user experience group through the results. This sample
was identified by sorting the entirety of the survey results on a spreadsheet by length of
experience and by their consent to second phase participation. The consent was a two-fold
process, requiring respondents to answer yes and subsequently to input their email address to
schedule the interview if selected. There were cases of respondents selecting “yes,” but then
not inputting an email address and therefore they were excluded from the sample. A random
number generator was used to identify at least two members of each self-reported experience
level: 1 year or less, 2 years, 3 years, 4 years, and 5 years. This sample population was then
DECISION-MAKING IN EARLY-STAGE BACKCOUNTRY USERS 39
invited to schedule an interview slot. Interviews took place via a private Zoom meeting. The
scheduling window for the interviews was May through July of 2021.
There were three sample selection rounds that took place to reach the final number of
interviews needed. The first round produced a sample of 10 participants, of which only three
responded for interviews. A second-round sample of 10 was identified next, with the previous
round candidates being excluded from the qualified population now. This second phase
resulted in three interviews being scheduled. To reach the 10 interviews needed, a final email
was sent out, this time to all remaining qualified participants, which proved successful in
identifying the final four interview participants. Due to the response rate of interview
invitations, the random sampling method that I started with was no longer applicable. By
reaching out to all remaining qualified interview prospects, the process was not random, and
the sample included all the qualified (willing to participate) survey respondents in the
interview process.
Interview Phase
The interviews were scheduled to take a maximum of 90 minutes and were conducted
via a private Zoom video meeting with just the researcher and participant. However, on
average, the interviews lasted about 35 minutes of time to complete. These Zoom calls were
recorded for transcription and data accuracy and kept only with the research team. Interview
questions were focused around three main themes: experience, equipment, and trip planning.
Following the cognitive task analysis methodology, the questions were open-ended with the
intent to have the participants freely and openly describe their experience with the topic of
the question. For example, rather than asking, “Do you perform a transceiver check prior to
being on trail?” the question is asked as, “Tell me about your transceiver check process,” and,
“Why do you do it that way?” Ensuring the participants are not led into a specific answer can
reveal key dynamics and critical elements of the task analysis through their free thought
DECISION-MAKING IN EARLY-STAGE BACKCOUNTRY USERS 40
response (Crandall et al., 2006). A complete list of interview questions can be found in
Appendix C.
After the completion of the interview, the recorded file was transcripted into a
document for data analysis. The transcription was left unedited, with the exception of filler
words being removed, like “uh” and “um.”
Once a first pass of analysis on the transcription was completed, there was a follow up
with the participant done asynchronously in a secure shared document to go over the
researcher’s notes and ensure data accuracy. The notes and coding are done directly on the
transcript file, so the participant can reference the entire transcript and accompanying notes.
This process ensures that the responses are recorded and used as the participant intended.
This allowed space for any corrections or requests for omissions of data by the interviewee.
Data Analysis Process
Once data collection was complete, the analysis process began. Each recorded
interview was transcribed and moved into a document on a Google Document. A first pass of
coding was performed. A code is a label assigned to a piece of data, in this case an interview
transcript, that captures the essence, summary, or significance in relation to the study
objectives (Saldaña, 2013). The process used in this first pass was a combination of
simultaneous coding, initial coding, and values coding. Simultaneous coding is simply that
one piece of data may hold multiple significant codes and meanings. Initial coding occurs
while reading through the transcript and coding what happens to come up, rather than
preassigning codes before reading through the data. Initial codes can be adjusted or reworded
in the second pass of analysis. Values coding is applied when data reflect the participant’s
beliefs and worldviews and represents their perspective. Values coding also supports
identifying codes as they come up rather than predetermining a list of codes to use (Saldaña,
2013).
DECISION-MAKING IN EARLY-STAGE BACKCOUNTRY USERS 41
Once the first pass of coding was completed, all codes used for each interview were
added to an analysis tool. In this case, the analysis tool was a spreadsheet where the x axis
listed the interview subjects, and the y axis listed all codes used. In this format I was able to
see how often certain codes came up, and any themes that arose. In this tool, codes are also
consolidated and aggregated as well to manage duplicate coding. In some cases, a code was
used that holds the same meaning, such as “internal” and “intrinsic,” to identify a motive of
the participant.
The next step of the analysis process was another pass of coding through the interview
transcripts. This process looked for themes and common threads that came up during the first
pass of coding. The analysis tool initially had a long list of all codes used, and through the
second pass coding process, it became more refined. Codes were combined by theme, and in
some cases divided out with a sub-theme. For example, while a “economic/financial” code
came up throughout many transcripts, it was used around separate topics. In the analysis tool,
the code was separated into two lines, with a descriptor identifying the theme it was used on,
such as “gear” or “avalanche courses.” The process overall followed the pattern coding
method that Saldaña (2013) identified as “codes that identify an emergent theme,
configuration, or explanation” (p. 210). Table 2.1 lists the ten most frequent codes that came
up among the ten interviews.
DECISION-MAKING IN EARLY-STAGE BACKCOUNTRY USERS 42
Table 2.1
List of Most Frequent Transcript Codes
Code
Description
Frequency
Access
Grew up skiing/accessed sport early in life
90%
Time as a resource
Time expense for avalanche education courses
80%
Economic/Financial
Cost burden for equipment
70%
Social
The activity provides a social benefit or social
interaction is a motivator
70%
Reads conditions outside
of trip planning
Reads the avalanche bulletin regularly through the
winter, not just when planning a trip
60%
Course as prerequisite (to
others)
Social groups or ski partners required to have taken an
avalanche education course to go into the backcountry
with them
60%
BCA Tracker 2
Most used avalanche transceiver
60%
Multiple options for tour
When trip planning, leaving multiple options open for
the day to adapt on conditions variables
60%
Mentorship
Accessed the backcountry through the help from a
mentor
50%
Social media – User
generated reports
Utilizing user-generated content for conditions
reporting
50%
In conjunction with the coding workflow, explanatory summaries were written at the
end of each transcript. This practice of writing explanatory summaries was done to pull out
any significant or interesting points of data that perhaps would not have come out through
codes. Each interviewee was unique with a very different lived experience, so restricting their
input to just codes would have been limiting. The summaries were useful as some
participants had either entered the sport in a unique way, gained experience and education
atypically, or in one case had even been involved in an avalanche in the season prior to this
study. All these intricacies among these backcountry users are indicators of the uniqueness of
the system of influence in each person’s experience.
DECISION-MAKING IN EARLY-STAGE BACKCOUNTRY USERS 43
Figure 3.1
Methodology Flow
Researcher Bias
It is without question that my own bias was present during my research process, and it
was a key influence to be aware of throughout the process. A bracketing method is used to
mitigate potential negative effects of preconceptions related to the research (Newman &
Tufford, 2010). I used bracketing during this process in which my personal beliefs and
preconceptions were deliberately left aside as to not influence how I saw the data. During the
survey phase and sample selection of the study, I found myself looking through the results
and identifying candidates that I found interesting. Although the survey did not collect
demographic information, email addresses can sometimes reveal the name and assumed
gender of the participant. I am aware of and keen to change the representation in this sport
and found myself hoping for or wanting to choose a diverse sample group. If the random
Data
gathering
•Survey responses
•Interview
Data Analysis
-First Pass
•Coding
•Input codes into analysis tool
•Reflection
Data Analysis
-Second Pass
•Coding
•Consolidate codes in analysis tool
•Reflection
Conclusions
•Summarize survey findings
•Consolidate examples
•Consolidate themes and findings
DECISION-MAKING IN EARLY-STAGE BACKCOUNTRY USERS 44
number generator chose a traditionally men’s name, I could notice the traditionally woman’s
name adjacent to it and wish it was that one. It was important to me for the integrity of the
research that the sample did not succumb to my bias. As the researcher I need to (a) not
assume the gender or demographic of the sample selection, and (b) understand that my own
judgements of who would be “best” candidates for the interview selection has the potential to
weaken the relevance and accuracy of the sample.
Because I had a curiosity of wondering if the COVID-19 pandemic influenced the
recent ski population, I also was curious to find results that could fit the narrative that the
pandemic influenced backcountry usage. I felt that the pandemic influenced my own skiing
community and I had wanted to identify influences in the research. This is understood as a
confirmation bias and can severely weaken the validity of results and argument the study is
trying to make (Cherry, 2020). In keeping with the goal of random sampling (despite the final
step not being random and in fact including all available participants), I learned to trust the
research and found that the identified sample can fit that curiosity, which is appropriate to the
scientific method.
DECISION-MAKING IN EARLY-STAGE BACKCOUNTRY USERS 45
CHAPTER 4: SURVEY RESULTS & DISCUSSION
The first phase of this study was a survey with the intent to identify general themes
and trends within the active backcountry skiing and snowboarding community, which would
help inform the later interview phase. Several valuable insights were provided from the
survey results, including learning what the main equipment respondents used was, and seeing
how the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic presented itself. The importance of avalanche
education was reinforced by survey respondents and ensured to the research team the
importance of discussing it further during the interview phase.
Survey Findings
Demographic Results
The survey tool inquired about age and experience of respondents. For this research,
experience level of respondents was my primary point of interest. I focused on those with five
or fewer seasons of backcountry use. Of the 139 survey responses, 96 responses met the
criteria for inclusion in this study, and all subsequent data reflects the qualified group. The
disqualified responses indicated they had been backcountry skiing or snowboarding for more
than five seasons. Of the respondents, 27 were first year backcountry users, 20 had two
seasons of experience, 17 had three seasons of experience, 9 had four seasons, and 23 had
five years of backcountry experience. This distribution of experience levels among survey
respondents is illustrated in Table 4.1.
DECISION-MAKING IN EARLY-STAGE BACKCOUNTRY USERS 46
Table 4.1
Distribution of Survey Respondent Backcountry Travel Experience Levels in Number of Years
The age range of survey respondents ranged from 19-64 years old, the mean aged was
26 years old, and the standard deviation is 9.26 years. The most common age was 32 years
old. Thirty percent of all respondents were over the age of 40, which is paralleled in the
interview population. Seventy percent of all respondents with less than 1 year of backcountry
experience were between 30 and 64 years old.
Fifty percent of the respondents in the one season of experience category indicated
that they have 10 or more years of experience skiing or snowboarding in general, meaning
within resorts. When asked the follow-up question of what made them want to start
backcountry skiing or snowboarding, some of this group indicated that they wanted to
explore and try a new aspect of skiing. The other reasoning among people in this group to
begin backcountry skiing and snowboarding was to avoid crowds that have been increasing at
the resorts and find quieter space and runs that are less busy.
28%
21%
18%
9%
24%
>1 year 2 years 3 years 4 years 5 years
DECISION-MAKING IN EARLY-STAGE BACKCOUNTRY USERS 47
Equipment
The survey posed a question about what equipment the participant brings with them
into the backcountry. The intent of the question was focused on safety and avalanche rescue
equipment. All 96 survey respondents indicated that they bring a transceiver, shovel, and
probe with them. This reinforces the fact that these three items are essentially required to
possess before venturing into the backcountry and avalanche terrain. These pieces of
equipment are a significant financial barrier to own and, as discussed, are useful mostly if
involved in an avalanche.
Additionally, avalanche airbags were listed as an option to select among the other
snow safety items to bring into the backcountry. Of the 96 survey respondents, 18 (19%)
responded that they carry an avalanche airbag. Airbags add from $500-$1500 in their
equipment investment.
Close to half of the participant population, 46 (48%) carry a personal locator device
with them when they go backcountry skiing or snowboarding. These devices are different
than avalanche transceivers and should not be considered the same tool. The avalanche tool is
often referred to as a beacon, but due to the increasing availability of personal locator
beacons, the term avalanche transceiver is used to help differentiate the two devices. Personal
locator beacons have GPS capabilities, as well as satellite communication to mobile phones,
computers, or emergency responders for use in the event of emergency or communication
need. Avalanche transceivers utilize radio frequencies to communicate and locate only other
avalanche transceivers (Coppolillo, 2020). Additionally, five (5%) respondents indicated they
bring two-way radios with them. Most backcountry areas there is not cellular signal, and it is
common to find oneself out of voice distance from a partner(s). Therefore, simple two-way
radios that usually work up to about 1 mile if there is not a large geological feature in the way
work well for keeping in touch.
DECISION-MAKING IN EARLY-STAGE BACKCOUNTRY USERS 48
Access
Accessing the backcountry is often quite varied depending on the location, from
specific trailheads, or just small parking areas in a forest. Typically, ski resorts are
surrounded by forest and backcountry terrain, so access points are sometimes shared utilizing
the same parking area. Table 4.2 shows the distribution of where the participant sample
accesses backcountry terrain. The question allowed for multiple answers per respondent, as
people access different areas from different starting points. Access via ski resort terrain
means leaving the boundary of a ski resort into a known backcountry area—often this is at
the top of a ski lift. The participant makes a choice to ski the runs or leave the groomed area.
Some resorts regulate access with a gate system and signage at certain access points.
Responses in the “other” category indicated access via roadside pull offs or off forest roads.
Table 4.2
Backcountry Terrain Access Points Reported by Survey Respondents
90
34 37
4
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Trailheads Ski Resort Parking Lot Ski Resort Terrain Other
Number of Responses
Where the Survey Respondents Accessed the Backcountry
DECISION-MAKING IN EARLY-STAGE BACKCOUNTRY USERS 49
Avalanche Education
The survey posed a question allowing respondents to select, with multiple responses
allowed, their highest level of completed avalanche education, which included formal and
informal sources such as online resources or mentors. Eight (8%) respondents indicated that
their highest level of education was informal education from online sources. Eight
respondents (8%) indicated that single-day courses or seminars, such as a single-day
avalanche rescue course, was their highest level. Seventy-three (75%) out of the 96
respondents indicated that they participated in a formal multi-day avalanche education
course, 66 (69%) of which were at least a recreation level 1 or higher. Within the 66 who
have completed a recreation 1 course or higher, three people (5%) completed a recreation
level 2, and four (6%) have taken professional-level courses. Further questioning of this
subject was continued with the interview sample, discussed later.
COVID-19 Pandemic
While designing this research study during the COVID-19 pandemic, there was an
opportunity to understand some of the impact it may have had on the backcountry
community. When asked if the pandemic had influenced or impacted their ski season, 60% of
survey respondents responded “yes,” 57 total. The follow-up question asked for details, if
any, and responses included varied reasons. A common reason was trying to avoid crowds at
the resorts, which had different motivators and reasons behind it. Social distancing, a
preventive measure to curb the spread of the pandemic, was one sub-reason for avoiding
resorts. Outside of being on the descent run, lift lines and lodges are traditionally heavily
trafficked and avoiding close distances to others can be difficult. The secondary reason to
avoid ski resorts was the result of the measures the resorts themselves were taking to slow the
spread of the pandemic. Some relied on a reservation system, to control the volume of people
on the grounds and keep crowding down. This deterred 30 (31%) respondents as there was
DECISION-MAKING IN EARLY-STAGE BACKCOUNTRY USERS 50
generally less opportunity to ski at the resort. Finally, with the increase in recreational time
during the pandemic in 2020, if resorts did not require reservations, there were actually more
people there, leading to significantly larger crowding in lift lines and around the lodges.
Seven (7%) survey respondents who indicated the pandemic influenced their ski
season mentioned they were more cautious or went skiing or riding less frequently altogether,
meaning neither the resort nor the backcountry, so as to not put any unnecessary strain on the
healthcare system. The average age of this group is 36, showing that this concern was more
widespread than to just the older population who could be more susceptible to the pandemic.
While a smaller result relatively, this is still an important finding identified. Hospitals in a
participant’s area had the chance of being at capacity with their COVID-19 patients, so
decreasing high-risk activity and a potential to need a bed in a hospital was seen a more
appropriate action and supported a community-based mindset. Additionally, forest services,
who typically manage first response duties in the backcountry (based on location), were
facing resource limitations. In the event of a rescue being needed, the system in place was
already strained, and the impact of needing a rescue is something that seemed avoidable to
these respondents.
Fifteen (16%) respondents who indicated that the pandemic impacted their season
indicated that they skied/snowboarded more during a pandemic season, either at the resort
and in the backcountry. Respondents indicated that they relied on their close social circles in
this time of stress and uncertainty. A group of ski partners meeting at the resort or trailhead
each weekend was a way for these participants to engage in an activity with their close
network, while still being outside to reduce the spread of COVID-19. Three (3%) respondents
reported they toured alone on lower angle and less hazardous terrain in order to avoid contact
and COVID-19. Backcountry touring alone is discouraged, and though much of the travel
through hazardous terrain is spaced far enough out to feel alone, a skiing partner is there as a
DECISION-MAKING IN EARLY-STAGE BACKCOUNTRY USERS 51
lifeline in the event of a burial. A partner is the one who can perform an immediate rescue in
the event of an avalanche burial.
The first-year experience group is the largest group represented with 27 (28%) people.
This group had their first season during the pandemic, but only 13 (48%) of them indicated
that COVID-19 influenced their season. Despite industry-wide gear shortages and backorders
and very full avalanche education courses, this group still managed to have their first
backcountry season. The reasons mentioned for entering the backcountry for the first time in
the 2020 season were varied. Three (11%) mentioned a financially motivated decision,
reporting they did not want to purchase a season pass at a resort. One member of this sample
used this as a financial opportunity, and “chose not to buy ski passes this year and invest in
touring set ups.” Ten (37%) respondents in this respondent group referred to the crowds at
resorts as their reason for entering the backcountry, as it was an alternative that provided the
fulfillment of skiing and snowboarding, but with more social distance opportunity present
than what exists at the resorts. One participant said, “I need to ski, and if that meant I needed
to finally learn backcountry skills then that's what I did.”
Interview Sample Survey Results
Demographic Results
As was with the survey, the demographic information was obtained during the data
collection process. The interview sample was similar to the survey sample in experience
diversity. Of the 10 interviewees, three (30%) were in their first year of backcountry travel,
three (30%) in their second, three (30%) in their third year, none (0%) in a fourth year, and
one (10%) in their fifth year of experience. The interview sample was primarily based in
California, eight (80%) participants. One (10%) interviewee was based in Utah and one
(10%) in Colorado. This could have been a result of the initial survey distribution, which
DECISION-MAKING IN EARLY-STAGE BACKCOUNTRY USERS 52
likely had a wider spread in California through the help of California-based avalanche centers
and social media distribution.
Table 4.3
Interview Participation by Experience Level
The age distribution of interview participants followed leptokurtic distribution with a
positive skew, with the majority of participants in the 30-39 age group. The minimum age for
participation was 18 years old, but as there were not any participants below 20 so the
presentation in the data in Table 4.4 starts the progression with the 20-29 age group.
1 year, 3
2 years, 3
3 years, 4
4 years, 0
5 years, 1
DECISION-MAKING IN EARLY-STAGE BACKCOUNTRY USERS 53
Table 4.4
Age Distribution of Interview and Survey Participants
Limitations
The nature of the study was such that a selection bias had potential to manifest. A
selection bias occurs when the sampling method does not accurately reflect the study
population (Mare & Winship, 1992). The survey was primarily distributed by avalanche
centers via mailing lists and social media. Due to the distribution methods, only those who
have access to those channels would be able to see it and choose to follow through to
respond. The responding sample could be the more motivated and attentive population within
the greater backcountry ski and snowboard community.
Another limitation of this study is the population I chose to study (winter backcountry
users with 5 or fewer years of experience), which is based on experience and years of
backcountry skiing and snowboarding. The backcountry skiing and snowboarding community
is large, and with a new wave of interest each year, it is becoming quite experienced.
Equipment manufacturers and avalanche education providers have observed the steady
02
6
1 1 0
1
21
46
16
7
4
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
18-20 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69
Number of Participants
Age Range
Interview Participants Survey Participants
DECISION-MAKING IN EARLY-STAGE BACKCOUNTRY USERS 54
increase and predict the growth will not be slowing down any time soon. The influences of
life and the sport itself may continue to impact backcountry users and does not stop after 5
seasons of skiing. Statistically, experienced skiers are the ones typically involved in
avalanches, so there is certainly opportunity and value in conducting this kind of study with
that participation group (Furman et al., 2010).
A large pillar of this study was the experience levels of the participants, so the survey
respondents self-reporting their experience is a limitation as well. There are biases present
with self-reported data, and in this study data validation wasn’t completed except with the 10
interview participants. In surveys that may have sensitive questions, a social desirability bias
is present when participants falsely choose an answer that may make their response more
socially favorable. Many, if not all, of the questions in the survey tool used in this study could
have succumbed to self-reporting bias (Van de Mortel, 2008).
Another limitation of the study was the nature of the study itself. Understanding
systems-thinking in this context can be difficult. My own interpretation of the subject in
relation to the data is just that, my own interpretation. Additionally, my interpretation of the
subject at the time of study has the potential to be different or change with time and further
research.
An interesting observation was the low number of survey participants who have four
years of backcountry experience. As seen in Table 4.1 & Table 4.4, it is a significantly
smaller group compared to the other user experience groups represented. That representation
poses a question for future study, exploring what systemic influences could occur after three
years that would either reinforce the decline in participation or show that it may have been a
factor resulting from the survey’s distribution.
DECISION-MAKING IN EARLY-STAGE BACKCOUNTRY USERS 55
Summary
The survey phase of this study produced successful results in line with the goal of the
research tool, in that a baseline understanding of what the influencing factors to this
community were. The information provided showed that the early-stage backcountry ski and
snowboard community is focused on, and places a high importance, on avalanche education.
Eighty-nine percent of survey participants have taken an avalanche education course, which
includes single-day and multi-day courses. Eight percent the survey sample have utilized
online resources or mentorship for their initial learning, which in many cases is more
accessible than a formal class. Only a small group, less than 3%, have not participated in any
avalanche education.
The timing of this research study allowed the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic to
be included in its questioning, to explore the influence of the pandemic on the backcountry
ski community. Results show that it was a major influence in the greater decision-making
system, causing many respondents to enter the sport for the first time, or some to do it more
or less frequently than they had done during a previous winter season.
DECISION-MAKING IN EARLY-STAGE BACKCOUNTRY USERS 56
CHAPTER 5: INTERVIEW RESULTS & DISCUSSION
In the second phase of the study, I conducted interviews with the sample of 10
backcountry users to gain further insight about the factors that influence their decisions
before, during, and after backcountry activity. The three categories of conversation topics
were equipment, experience and education, and trip-planning processes. Some questions
during the interviews did not produce notable results, but overall, there are important findings
that occurred in each of these categories.
Equipment
Of the 10 people interviewed, six (60%) of them used the same transceiver—a
Backcountry Access (BCA) Tracker 2. This specific transceiver was readily available, and at
a competitive price point on average of $275. BCA had also offered this transceiver in a
package, paired with a shovel and probe for a bundled discount. Equipment bundles provide
economic relief for the high cost of acquiring all the necessary equipment. BCA markets the
Tracker 2 as the best-selling avalanche transceiver in North America
(Backcountryaccess.com, n.d.). Equipment prices were a factor for 70% of interview
participants, and opportunities for discounts or bundle prices helped to ease the cost barrier.
The other transceiver used by two (20%) participants was the PIEPS DSP Sport, fell
into controversy and subsequent voluntary recall in the 2020-21 season. The participants who
were using the PIEPS transceiver mentioned the controversy and recall of it, followed by
their lack of trust in the transceiver and the manufacturer itself. In October 2020, some
professional skiers were filming for a ski movie when one of them was caught in an
avalanche. The team was unable to locate a transceiver signal, and fortunately were able to
see where they were caught and had performed a rescue and was able to recover the person
still alive. Upon assessment, they noticed that the PIEPS DSP transceiver the caught skier
was wearing was in the “off” position, which effectively makes the device useless. Through
DECISION-MAKING IN EARLY-STAGE BACKCOUNTRY USERS 57
informal testing, they were able to see that the switch that moves from “off” to “send” and
“search” was able to be moved with a little force, certainly less than what is involved in an
avalanche. These transceivers have locking mechanisms on the switches so accidental
shifting cannot occur but, on this model, the design was allegedly allowing it. Soon after this
story went viral, additional first-hand accounts were surfacing, and some with more tragic
endings. Eventually the manufacturer addressed the issue and opened a voluntary recall for
this item, with the solution being a new case for the transceiver that better protects the switch
from accidental movement between modes (Franklin, 2021). The ski community at large was
concerned over the handling of the issue, and the interview participants who were affected by
this potentially malfunctioning equipment reflected those opinions. One of the participants
who owned this transceiver said that they planned to buy a new transceiver of a different
brand based on distrust of the manufacturer and the device. Participant A using the PIEPS
transceiver shared their feelings on the subject:
“I feel that on my end, as a backcountry user I've fulfilled my obligation of, you
know, taking the time to research beacons [transceiver] and spending the money and
then getting educated on how to use the beacon [transceiver]. But, you know, I spent a
lot of money on that beacon with the expectation that it was going to be safe and
effective too, to later find out that that's not the case.”
Reputation of transceivers is prone to word of mouth spread, or social proof bias
(Barysevich, n.d.). When shopping for a transceiver, putting more weight on the
recommendation of a ski partner eases the decision-making process, as one is more likely to
trust the experience of that person. A simple way to decide is to look at the decisions other
people have made. Outdoor instructors, such as avalanche course instructors, often have
access to discounted gear. These “pro-deals” are benefits offered by equipment brands that
exist to help market outdoor equipment via the social proof bias of students. This bias implies
DECISION-MAKING IN EARLY-STAGE BACKCOUNTRY USERS 58
trust in other people, especially those who is believed to know more (Barysevich, n.d.). When
choosing which safety and rescue equipment to buy, it can be easy to trust whatever a person
has seen their instructor use. However, how did the instructor choose their equipment? It
could be their own social proof bias, or simply which product had the better discount; a trait
shared by this group of early-stage users interviewed. Through avalanche education courses
but also throughout daily life, system members are taught to trust the other actors within the
system, as illustrated in Figure 2.5.
It can be assumed that the BCA Tracker 2 popularity is attributed to word of mouth
and social proof, in additional to financial position. Additionally, the PIEPS controversy
illustrates the negative effect of word of mouth spread as the lack of trust in an equipment
provider whose products are used in a life-or-death scenario can have a ripple effect
throughout the community. The subject of trust in a gear manufacturer was unprompted, but
three (30%) of the participants made a mention of how important that trust is to them.
Avalanche Education
Overall, participants perceived that acquiring avalanche education prior to entering
the backcountry and avalanche terrain is crucial. This is a signal that the system of boosting
avalanche education is in fact working. Avalanche education providers have marketed and
pushed the importance of receiving this education since their inception (A3 founded in 1986).
Many backcountry users put acquiring avalanche education in their decision-making process
when building up to enter the sport. It could be that a culture of safety is becoming a priority
in social and recreational settings. Personal wellbeing and responsible interaction are
certainly on the forefront of the mind because of the COVID-19 pandemic, and it would
make sense that the increased priority of safety carries over into recreational activity. In
avalanche terrain, sound decision-making strategy, terrain management, and hazard
DECISION-MAKING IN EARLY-STAGE BACKCOUNTRY USERS 59
mitigation are the primary tools for safety. Rescue equipment, such as transceivers, shovels,
and probes, are a last “safety net” to keeping someone alive.
In total, seven (70%) of the participants indicated the importance of getting a formal
avalanche education prior to entering the backcountry. This importance and perceived formal
avalanche education requirement presented both externally within social groups and
internally for one’s own confidence and competence to enter avalanche terrain. Four (57%)
members of this group of seven indicated that acquiring formal avalanche education was
required for themselves to enter the backcountry. This means they put an importance on
getting the training and education before feeling competent enough in that skillset to enter
avalanche terrain. Once they have their own experience, it seems like the importance of
having training then spread to how they select partners to go into the backcountry with. Of
the 10 backcountry users interviewed, six (60%) of them indicated that for a new partner to
go skiing with them as an individual, or for them to enter the backcountry with their
established group, the completion of an avalanche education course is required. Participant E
said, “I would say the majority of us are pretty much like, ‘Yeah, if you want to travel with
us, you should have your AIARE [one]’.” Typically, this is the three-day, level 1 course that
was being referenced.
Course Availability
Participants reported challenges in finding available courses in which they could
participate in. As discussed in the literature review, the volume of avalanche courses
available decreases with each progressing level. There is a bottleneck effect created, where
participants who want to progress through the curriculum to either become more
knowledgeable for themselves or to become instructors are faced with a progressive issue of
lack of space in courses. Competitiveness for the limited seats and availability for courses,
even just the entry-level level 1 course, is a major issue, especially as interest has increased
DECISION-MAKING IN EARLY-STAGE BACKCOUNTRY USERS 60
over the years. In the last year alone, 2020, the Colorado Mountain School saw almost triple
the number of bookings for a level 1 avalanche course compared to the previous year, leading
to a sold-out season. The courses sold out quickly, which is key for course providers (Meyer,
2020). Having a recreation level 1 course on the calendar is almost certain to be profitable.
There are economic motivators to providing as many courses as possible that have effects
throughout the system as well. Scheduling as many courses as possible attempts to address
the demand but puts strain on the resources needed to run them. Instructor availability is an
issue when the pool of instructors is limited and the calendar is full.
There are 317 qualified instructors in the AIARE network. The 2020-2021 season had
1235 level 1 courses taught, and with expected geographical limitations and availability of
those instructors balancing their personal lives and the other courses they teach, the stretching
of resources is visible (S. MacGregor, AIARE, personal communication, August 30, 2021).
The curriculum design itself prohibits the instructor roster to grow at the same rate as the
demand needed to for courses. The level one course may have 10,000+ openings for the
season, but the second step in the curriculum for prospective instructors is a course with only
72 seats over six course dates. Between each step of the curriculum progression has
additional experience prerequisites, therefore making the process to become a qualified
instructor years long. While the curriculum delivers competent and reliable instructors, the
simple rate of incoming vs the demand for new users to get into a course are incompatible.
Of the 10 participants interviewed, three (30%) indicated that competitiveness in
available seats of an avalanche course was an influence on their experience. Additionally, a
strong majority, 80%, indicated the influence of timing with these courses as being a
determining factor if they can participate or not. These courses need to take place in or near
mountainous and avalanche terrain, so travelling to a course is common. When trying to
progress through the curriculum as a prospective instructor, travelling for a course is
DECISION-MAKING IN EARLY-STAGE BACKCOUNTRY USERS 61
mandatory, unless one lives in or within short distance of one of the select mountain areas
these occur in such as Jackson, WY and other resort towns in Colorado and Utah. One
interview participant indicated that their course was split up over multiple weeks, occurring
on one day per weekend. They indicated a large benefit of this was planning convenience, as
they lived near where the course occurred, but also that the information delivered was
retained significantly better than if it had been condensed into a three-day course.
Course Cost Burden
The costs of these courses what reported by participants as a major factor in accessing
avalanche education. The average cost of the entry-level level 1 course is $530, which does
not include travel and the accommodations often required to be in a location to participate.
The cost of professional-track courses increases significantly at $1360, which again only
occur six times per season in a unique location for each so travel and accommodation are
significantly more likely to be spent. A prospective professional-track student would spend
approximately $3,390 to progress into a course instructor role, and an additional $1300 to be
the highest level, a course leader. Granted, the attendees who are working through this track
are dedicated professionals working in the professional snow and avalanche field who may
view the cost demands differently (AIARE, n.d.).
Avalanche Courses as Required Experience
A strong majority of the interviewees, and backcountry users in general, place such a
high importance on accessing avalanche education prior to the entering the backcountry it has
made a level 1 [course] a fourth must-have item, along with the transceiver, shovel, and
probe. With such a strong majority of backcountry users placing a high importance on
accessing avalanche education prior to entering the backcountry, there seems to be a fourth
must-have item to get before going skiing: transceiver, shovel, probe, and a level 1 [course].
DECISION-MAKING IN EARLY-STAGE BACKCOUNTRY USERS 62
Unfortunately, the sheer volume of people trying to participate in these courses has created
significant access issues.
The growth of the backcountry skiing community is progressing more quickly than
course availability. Instructors are busy non-stop through the season, the demand for
scheduling staff remains high throughout the off-season as organizations prepare their winter
calendars. At a glance, it would seem the solution is easy; offer more courses in more areas.
However, when looking at the statistics of available instructors and how costly and time-
intensive it is to become an instructor, and the bottleneck that exists when trying to progress
through the curriculum, the picture is much less optimistic.
Acquiring the knowledge and skills through a recreation level 1 course at a minimum
is crucial before heading out into complex backcountry terrain. Those new to the sport
understand this, as do experienced backcountry users. Providing this training to all those who
need it is a great challenge facing the avalanche education industry. Over the last decade,
providers of avalanche education courses have established themselves as a critical piece of
the requirements to enter the backcountry. However, with the trending rise in backcountry
users, there is not a structure in place to provide the opportunity for everyone to access the
education. The significant challenge concluding from this study is that avalanche education is
critically important, and there is potential for a shift in the delivery and access of this
information, so that all backcountry users who need it can obtain it.
Social Media
The role that social media plays in accessing avalanche information or snowpack
conditions appears to have become increasingly popular. Three (30%) of the interviewees
called out they specifically utilize their local avalanche center’s Instagram page for updates
on backcountry conditions. Avalanche centers provide valuable information to their forecast
regions in new and exciting ways outside of the once daily avalanche bulletin. For example,
DECISION-MAKING IN EARLY-STAGE BACKCOUNTRY USERS 63
the Utah Avalanche Center throughout the winter season frequently posts rich content on
their Instagram and had 67,500 followers on their Instagram page as of August 30, 2021
(Utah Avalanche Center, n.d.). All major avalanche forecast centers in the United States
utilize at least an Instagram page to share content and avalanche reports (Avalanche.org,
n.d.). This has become a very useful tool for backcountry users to reference conditions and
snowpack information prior to departing on their tour. By posting on-the-ground conditions
reports with the observation team talking through the snowpack—what to look for, and what
is expected to happen—avalanche centers can provide invaluable insight into a particular
area, aspect, or elevation that can support or supplement the posted avalanche bulletin. On
average, Americans are spending 30 minutes a day scrolling through Instagram (G., 2021). If
an avalanche center is posting a one-minute video towards the end of the day showing a snow
study pit and conditions report, those prepping for backcountry travel the following day can
see accurate information about where they intend to travel. Catching many backcountry users
where they are —on social media— is a fantastic way to keep backcountry users engaged in
what is happening in their snowpack if they are not already actively referencing the daily
avalanche report. Interviewee G said, “I follow [Eastern Sierra Avalanche Center] on
Instagram too. So even on days I'm not skiing, I'm sort of in the know with the snowpack and
conditions.” Four (40%) interview participants indicated that they do not actively follow the
daily avalanche bulletin when not actively planning for a trip in the coming days. If the
important snowpack information was shared more widely across different platforms, the
backcountry user community would have much more opportunity to stay up to date on the
status of their local snowpack and therefore keeping up to date with the avalanche problems
to look out for.
DECISION-MAKING IN EARLY-STAGE BACKCOUNTRY USERS 64
User-Submitted Conditions Reports
User generated conditions reports and observations, meaning posts on blogs,
backcountry travel forums, and avalanche center hosted user reports is a primary source of
information for backcountry users. Half (50%) of the interview participants utilize user-
generated information when planning for their trip, or just to keep tabs on a particular area
and condition. Forums and social media posts, such as Facebook and Instagram, are the
primary hosts for this kind of information. Avalanche centers typically forecast about a large
area, covering multiple zones, elevations, and aspects, which while helpful can still pose an
element of unknown in the trip planning process. The Mt. Hood region, for example, is the
southernmost forecast area from the Northwest Avalanche Center. The forecast area is almost
completely circular, wrapping clear around Mt. Hood itself along with the foothills adjacent.
This zone receives a daily forecast that indicates the conditions hazards based on slope
direction and elevation band, but the cascade volcanoes pose a unique climate and snowpack.
The volcanoes rise in prominence, some with 5,000 more feet above the surrounding
mountains, so the snowpack is complex and different at each elevation band and are affected
on all directional faces around the mountain. It is possible that the avalanche forecast bulletin
shows only part of the story that is present, based on where someone’s ski tour is planned
(NWAC, n.d.). By utilizing user-generated reports, typically from some of the more high-
trafficked areas, users can get a clearer picture of what the snowpack is doing in these more
concentrated areas and provide much more context to assist in their trip planning process.
Reliability with user-generated content can pose issues, especially when relying too
heavily on it for trip planning decisions. Most often, conditions reports include photos and a
summary of the snowpack, all of which is positive information and useful for planning. There
exists a possible downside to accessing this kind of information, as heuristic traps can initiate
from accessing this type of data. In addition to McCammon’s FACETS (2004), which can
DECISION-MAKING IN EARLY-STAGE BACKCOUNTRY USERS 65
occur both during the trip plan and while out on the trail, user-generated content can also
pose confirmation bias on the skier, or the tendency to interpret new information as affirming
to their existing belief (Noor, 2020). For example, a skier could be considering travelling to a
specific zone, but the forecast is not as optimistic or as safe as they could have liked. By
looking at past data, even as recently as a day or two prior, that skier could interpret the trip
report as the area being safe or stable. A day or two in varying weather can drastically change
the snowpack and stability, and it is not uncommon for slopes to swing low danger to high
danger or vice versa within a day or two. A user-generated report can easily be technically
outdated, and really is only good for historical reference.
Limitations
Identifying the interview sample became challenging. Through the sample selection
process, the final sample became a result of willing participants from the entire qualified
field, as opposed to the result of the first or second round of sampling. Ideally, the interview
sample would have been evenly split representatives from each experience group—from less
than one year of experience through five years of experience. There could have been potential
to gain more insight into the differences throughout each year of experience if the pool had
been more evenly split, but that is merely speculation.
A consideration throughout the interview phase was the process of delivering the
interview itself. Inconsistencies of question delivery or order of questioning varied based on
the quality of the interaction with the participant. Some interviews started out differently than
expected with either distractions or time delays, and therefore the cadence of the interview
felt rushed and/or awkward. Learning to manage that perception during interviews was a
valuable lesson on researching in this way. I do not feel that the quality of the interview was
impacted, I learned to learned to maintain consistency and remove personal feelings
throughout the process. A feature of semi-structured interviews such as these can be
DECISION-MAKING IN EARLY-STAGE BACKCOUNTRY USERS 66
irregularity, and while not necessarily a limitation it can create variance. Participation in the
study was voluntary, so interviewees were making time in their personal schedules to speak
with me. This had potential to create distractions based on setting or time restraints with other
commitments.
Interviews taking place through digital platform can impact a feeling of connection
and can sometimes feel inauthentic. The quality of conversation could benefit from being in-
person. Technological interruptions occurred and I felt that they interrupted the pace and
rhythm of the conversation. These interruptions could have impacted the delivery of valuable
insight from the participant. As the researcher, I had to ensure my own internet connection
was reliable enough to carry out the interviews to avoid issues.
Areas for Future Research
Areas of future research were revealed through this study. The limitations and scope
of the study was concise to this experience group of five or fewer seasons of backcountry use.
However, avalanche accident statistics suggest that it is actually the more experienced user
group that are involved in accidents more frequently (CAIC, 2021). The research framework
used here with this experienced population has the potential to yield an additional complexity
of human factor influences. Future research opportunities exist in trying to understand what
changes through experience that makes a person more prone to avalanche incidents. The term
“experienced” may even hold different meaning after some time. Experienced skiers and
snowboarders may be technically proficient in their sport but have the potential to
overestimate their avalanche specific skillset like navigating terrain, mitigating hazards, and
keeping cognitive biases in check. The urgency of avalanche education is heavy with the
skiers and snowboarders new to the backcountry and the question would be if that urgency to
keep up with education remains throughout the more experienced years.
DECISION-MAKING IN EARLY-STAGE BACKCOUNTRY USERS 67
Tremper (2018) reported that as of 2013, 92% of avalanche fatalities were men, while
8% were women (p. 19). My personal observation in 2021 sees an increase of women in the
sport, and these statistics could be due for an update but are likely still swayed towards men
being the primary victim of avalanches. Tremper (2018) continues by saying “it seems to be a
man-thing, like talking about grizzly bears or hunting or starting a fire in the woods. We puff
up our chests, tell our lies, and would literally rather die than admit our ineptitude” (p.19).
The bottleneck of avalanche education access may require research to identify a
solution. Maintaining the quality and integrity of the information delivered in these courses is
paramount, so how best can the annual influx of new backcountry users access it reliably.
Virtual education options are plentiful as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic; however, the
effectiveness remains questionable. Learning via all-online methods limits the effectiveness
of avalanche safety courses. Practical application, such as field experience, is needed to fully
grasp concepts in real-world settings. Outdoor settings present stimuli and data that the brain
must make sense of in order to act on. The rich learning that occurs from the blending of
classroom and field learning sets the brain up for success in accessing the decision-making
process when in future backcountry settings (Roberts, 2003). As avalanche education requires
days in the field as well as in a classroom setting, perhaps a balance of virtual lessons and in-
person field work is an option. The problem is not only how effective are hybrid models, but
also the fact that it still requires an instructor present for two of the three days in the case of a
recreation 1 course. Therefore, addressing the rate of new instructors versus the rate of course
demand is an additional opportunity for future research.
Practical Application
The insights that this study provided poses opportunities for application in the snow
and avalanche fields. There is specialized equipment required to participate in backcountry
skiing and snowboarding to access the terrain and stay safe from the avalanche hazard. Since
DECISION-MAKING IN EARLY-STAGE BACKCOUNTRY USERS 68
trust is a key piece of equipment purchasing methods among new backcountry users, there is
opportunity for professionals to choose what equipment they use with intention. Social proof
perpetuates avalanche course students typically buy what equipment they have seen experts
using. Rather than purchasing based on best price or availability, professionals should
prioritize reliable and proven solid equipment, especially with rescue items like transceivers.
The cost and time barriers for avalanche courses identified by research participants
have solutions that can be easily implemented. Payment plans for courses was even proposed
by an interview participant. The participant said they would be more likely to take the course
by spreading the high upfront cost over a more manageable period of time.
Additionally, providing flexible avalanche course dates for the recreation level 1
course could open the door for those who have difficulty access a course based on time.
Interview participant H shared that they worked hospitality in a mountain resort town, and
therefore taking a Friday-Sunday off work to take a course was nearly impossible as that is
the busiest time for tourists and guests visiting town. One can assume that there are more
people who work in these type of resort towns who enjoy getting out into the backcountry but
are in similar positions and not able to take a weekend off for an avalanche course. As the
bulk of the avalanche education courses currently scheduled occur on weekends, this may
also open opportunity to create midweek courses when additional instructors are available.
Decision-making relies on context of a given situation. The problem with context in
the backcountry is that it is complex; it is messy. Conditions are always changing, and the
same trail will not be the same or have the same hazards day to day. Avalanche analysis and
learning assumes rational human behavior and rational systems, but systems are inherently
messy as well (M. Brown, personal communication, December 31, 2021). The new view of
analysis by Dekker (2000) takes this into account and can be applied in the avalanche
education curriculum. Situational context has many factors at play influencing the decision-
DECISION-MAKING IN EARLY-STAGE BACKCOUNTRY USERS 69
making process. Curriculum can be improved be lessening the assumption of rationality.
Examples of system being messy are unexpected changes in equipment, snow condition,
deteriorating weather, transportation issues before a tour, and more. If curriculum stressed
and trained for the unexpected, backcountry users could be more conditioned for evolving
situations.
Avalanche centers should be aiming to implement content rich social media channels
if they do not already. Providing as much accessible insight of the conditions of the local
snowpack is invaluable. In additional to posting content, some avalanche centers, such as
CAIC also host a mobile app (Friends of the Colorado Avalanche Information Center, 2015).
The mobile apps make it easy to access the conditions report and host the ability for a user to
post observations and reports. Since avalanche bulletins are posted around the same time each
day, these apps could send a notification when published so the mobile user is alerted to a
bulletin and could be more likely to read it daily. Creating a reliable app requires financial
and personnel resources, an understandable barrier for the avalanche centers not currently
providing one. The benefits of providing conditions information through a variety of
platforms is again, invaluable.
User-generated content has limitations and reliability concerns. Avalanche center
websites that host observation reports work to collect data in a manner that delivers
consistency and adds reliability. Their reports have specific fields for the observer to fill out
such as location and method of travel, what the avalanche danger that day was for where they
went, how they accessed the route, and what the avalanche problems present were. This is
key framework that should be kept in mind for all venues of conditions submission. Open
forum posting can leave out valuable information, and if someone is posting a report
somewhere other than an avalanche center website, the observation structure listed on the
avalanche center website should be used as a template.
DECISION-MAKING IN EARLY-STAGE BACKCOUNTRY USERS 70
Summary
The research goal to explore and uncover systemic influences on early-stage
backcountry users relied heavily on the interview phase to speak directly with this user group.
The interview phase of the research study was successful in that regard by identifying some
key influences into the decision-making system behind them. Primarily, the importance of
avalanche education has been known, and the interviewees in this study confirmed it to be
perceived by users as a prerequisite to entering the backcountry. This finding shines a light
onto the various access issues that exist when trying to enroll in these courses, namely
financial, the time expense, and course locations. The COVID-19 pandemic has opened the
door to electronic learning venues, which can reduce the barrier to entry into the area of
avalanche education. However, I would assume that the avalanche education industry prefers
that the information delivered in these courses requires an in-person presence. Therefore, the
industry is faced with a challenge of providing access to this information in an effective
manor, while trying to make it accessible, and available to the increasing population of
backcountry users.
Additionally, the importance of social media is significant. Content delivery via social
media platforms and access to the posted content is easier now than ever, and the avalanche
centers that are utilizing this as a tool to deliver up to date avalanche condition information
are making positive impacts to their forecast population. Avalanche centers should put an
emphasis on expanding this reach via their social media outlets. The confidence in user-
submitted conditions reports can vary, as reputation and name recognition are important to
trusting the information. If avalanche centers can produce regular content from a variety of
locations, such as safe locations and higher risk zones, the trip planning process for the
recreation population can be much more informed.
DECISION-MAKING IN EARLY-STAGE BACKCOUNTRY USERS 71
This method of prospective analysis provides richer data compared to what would be
found with just a sharp end retrospective analysis. There were deeper elements found that are
actively influential within backcountry users that may not have surfaced from a retrospective
analysis. The importance of understanding the systemic context of how a backcountry user
gets to the trail in the first place is key to understanding decision-making. If there was an
avalanche incident with a fatality, there is no reliable way to retrace the steps back far enough
to see that hypothetically that victim tried to get into an avalanche education course, but the
cost was too high, or the courses were all full. It would be unknown how the person planned
that day out and what factors were taken into consideration in their trip planning. If the
backcountry community were to put more emphasis on understanding these influences and
their interaction with the sharp end, accident analysis would be able to see and understand the
systemic influences involved. To understand backcountry users, one must understand how
and why they operate in the way they do.
DECISION-MAKING IN EARLY-STAGE BACKCOUNTRY USERS 72
CONCLUSION
This research study began as an exploratory investigation into the system involved in
the decision-making process of early-stage backcountry users. The idea was to apply a
systems-thinking approach to understand this user group from a perspective not as commonly
seen to this depth in this industry. The sample group studied was selected because of their
recent motivations for entering the backcountry and provided valuable insight into the current
barriers and influences involved in backcountry skiing and snowboarding. Barriers such as
the equipment and time costs to participate or the availability of getting into an avalanche
education course play significant roles in how this group interacts with the sport. Three main
categories of interest were identified for researching: experience, equipment, and trip
planning process. These were selected as they provide insight into the persons lived
experience and entrance into the activity and provided insight to what methods and influences
they used to choose the gear they have and what goes into their normal operating status in the
backcountry.
The timing of this study and the occurrence of the COVID-19 pandemic was
coincidental but offered a unique opportunity to see how such a significant occurrence
influences the system. Out of all survey participants, 60% indicated that the pandemic
influenced their ski season in the 2020-2021 winter season. The pandemic impacted
everyone, also influencing how people recreated. Ski resorts adapted to the challenge by
keeping a reservation system that limited capacity, and spiking demand for the every-growing
ski population. In many cases, the backcountry was the next place to look for this recreation
satisfaction. Equipment availability and education course availability became sparse as a
result. The likelihood of unprepared individuals heading into high-risk high-consequence
terrain could be significantly increased as a result.
DECISION-MAKING IN EARLY-STAGE BACKCOUNTRY USERS 73
The avalanche education providers faced a very busy season, which has continued
into the 2021-22 winter season as demand for their courses stayed high. The industry is
facing a challenge, as the curriculum and availability bottlenecks significantly. Instructor and
professional tracks rely on the fewer courses and seats available, in addition to experience
required. With the rate of new and incoming qualified instructors fixed (based on current
course availability), the increase of entry-level courses is fixed as well and not increasing at
the same rate that new backcountry skiers are requiring it. 80% of the population interviewed
indicated that having completed an avalanche education course is required to go out with
either their ski group or for their own personal permission. There is no doubting the value and
quality of the avalanche education curriculum, but there is certainly a challenge of keeping up
delivering the number of seats demanded.
The research questions to start this study guided the entire process, and the
exploration of the system was successful. This target group provided excellent insight and
conversation as to what their process is and what is affecting them directly. The influences
identified are likely not limited to this experience group and could be considered applicable
to the entire range of users in this sport.
It is safe to say, however, that human factors involved in backcountry skiing and
snowboarding are diverse and complex. By having an increased awareness of the systems at
play in normal operation, a greater understanding of all backcountry events can occur and
lead to better accident analysis, and better safety systems. Addressing barriers within the
industry is likely to lead to a user group that is better prepared, informed, and comfortable
navigating the complex backcountry.
DECISION-MAKING IN EARLY-STAGE BACKCOUNTRY USERS 74
References
American Institute of Avalanche Research and Education (AIARE). (n.d.). Choosing an
avalanche course. AIARE. https://avtraining.org/choosing-an-avalanche-course/
Avalanche.org. (n.d.). U.S. avalanche centers. Avalanche.org. https://avalanche.org/us-
avalanche-centers/
Backcountryaccess.com. (n.d.). BCA tracker 2 avalanche transceiver. Backcountry Access.
https://backcountryaccess.com/en-us/p/bca-tracker2-avalanche-transceiver
Barysevich, A. (n.d.). The psychology of social proof and why it makes word-of-mouth
marketing so effective. Convince and Convert.com.
https://www.convinceandconvert.com/word-of-mouth/social-proof/
Colorado Avalanche Information Center (CAIC). (2021). Statistics and reporting. CAIC.
Retrieved December 24th, 2021 from
https://www.avalanche.state.co.us/accidents/statistics-and-reporting/
Friends of the Colorado Avalanche Center. (2015). CAIC (Version 3.0.3) [Mobile App]. App
Store. https://apps.apple.com/us/app/caic/id956986311
Coppolillo, R. (2020). How to start backcountry skiing: Advice from an ifmga guide. 57
Hours. https://57hours.com/blog/backcountry-skiing-for-beginners/
Dallat, C., Goode, N., & Salmon, P. (2017). Identifying risks and emergent risks across
sociotechnical systems: The NETworked hazard analysis and risk management system
(NET-HARMS). Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 19(4), 456-482.
Davis, C., Drake, B., Ginde, A., Jekich, B., Nacht, J., & Nichols, A. (2016). Avalanche
fatalities in the united states: A change in demographics. Wilderness & Environmental
Medicine, 27, 46-52.
Dekker, S. W. (2000). The field guide to human error. Cranfield University Press.
Dierickx, K. (2015, November 15). Getting started with backcountry ski gear. Outdoor
Project. https://www.outdoorproject.com/gear/getting-started-backcountry-ski-gear
Franklin, M. (2021, April 13). Breaking down the new peips transceiver recall. Wild Snow.
https://www.wildsnow.com/29338/black-diamond-pieps-transceiver-recall-2021/
Furman, N., Shooter, W., & Schumann, S. (2010). The roles of heuristics, avalanche forecast,
and risk propensity in the decision making of backcountry skiers. Leisure
Sciences, 32(5), 453–469.
G. D. (2021, August 5). How much time do people spend on social media in 2021? Tech Jury.
https://techjury.net/blog/time-spent-on-social-media/#gref
Greene, E., Konigsberg, J., & Zarter, R. (2021). 2021/02/14 – Colorado – near mount
trelease, north of Loveland Pass. Colorado Avalanche Information Center.
https://avalanche.state.co.us/caic/acc/acc_report.php?acc_id=783&accfm=inv
DECISION-MAKING IN EARLY-STAGE BACKCOUNTRY USERS 75
Haegeli, P., Rupf, R., & Karlen, B. (2020). Do avalanche airbags lead to riskier choices
among backcountry and out-of-bounds skiers? Journal of Outdoor Recreation and
Tourism, 32, 100270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jort.2019.100270
Hardesty, D. (2017-present). Utah Avalanche Center Podcast [Audio podcast].
https://utahavalanchecenter.org/
Howard, J. (2019). Avalanches, explained. National Geographic.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/avalanches
List of cognitive biases. (2021, April 24). In Wikipedia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases
Knowles, N. (2018). Human powered snowsports trends and economic impacts. Winter
Wildlands Alliance. https://winterwildlands.org/wwa/wp-
content/uploads/2018/08/2018-Trends-and-Impact-Report.pdf
MacLeay, A. (2010). Backcountry vs. frontcountry: what’s the difference? Where is the line?
Trailspace.com. https://www.trailspace.com/blog/2010/07/06/backcountry-versus-
frontcountry.html
Maguire, L. (2014). The human behind the factor: A brief look at how context informs
practice in recreational backcountry users.
Mare, R. D., & Winship, C. (1992). Models for sample selection bias. Annual review of
sociology, 18(1), 327-350.
McCammon, I. (2004). Heuristic traps in recreational avalanche accidents: evidence and
implications. Avalanche News, 68, 1–10.
Meyer, J. (2020, November 30). Backcountry skiing reaching “record” levels, nearly tripling
signups for avalanche awareness class. The Know, The Denver Post. https://theknow-
old.denverpost.com/2020/11/30/colorado-backcountry-skiing-avalanche-safety-
classes/249678/
Newman, P. & Tufford, L. (2010). Bracketing in qualitative research. Qualitative Social
Network, 11, 80-96.
Noor, I. (2020, June 10). Confirmation bias. Simply Psychology.
https://www.simplypsychology.org/confirmation-bias.html
Northwest Avalanche Center (NWAC). (n.d.). General avalanche information. Northwest
Avalanche Center (NWAC). https://nwac.us/avalanche-forecast/#/mt-hood
Perruzi, M. (2021, January 22). The backcountry ski sales boom is upon us. Outside
Magazine. https://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-gear/snow-sports-
gear/backcountry-ski-sales-boom-2021/
Roberts, T. G. (2003). An Interpretation of Dewey's Experiential Learning Theory.
Saldaña, J. (2013). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. SAGE Publications.
DECISION-MAKING IN EARLY-STAGE BACKCOUNTRY USERS 76
Salmon, P. M., Cornelissen, M., & Trotter, M. J. (2012). Systems-based accident analysis
methods: A comparison of accimap, HFACS, and STAMP. Safety science, 50(4),
1158-1170.
Tremper, B. (2018). Staying alive in avalanche terrain. Mountaineers books.
Utah Avalanche Center [@utavy]. (n.d.). Home [Instagram account]. Instagram. Retrieved
August 30, 2021.
Utah Avalanche Center (UAC). (n.d.). Avalanche danger scale.
https://utahavalanchecenter.org/avalanche-danger-scale
Utah Avalanche Center (UAC). (n.d.). Reading the forecast.
https://utahavalanchecenter.org/forecast/tutorial
Van de Mortel, T. F. (2008). Faking it: social desirability response bias in self-report
research. Australian Journal of Advanced Nursing, 25(4), 40-48.
Watters, R. (1997). Teaching avalanche safety courses: instructional techniques and field
exercises. Ronwatters.com
Wichelns, R. (2021). Why expert skiers are the ones getting caught in backcountry accidents.
5280.com. https://www.5280.com/2021/02/why-expert-skiers-are-the-ones-getting-
caught-in-backcountry-accidents/
DECISION-MAKING IN EARLY-STAGE BACKCOUNTRY USERS 77
Appendices
DECISION-MAKING IN EARLY-STAGE BACKCOUNTRY USERS 78
Appendix A: Informed Consent
Informed Consent
You are being invited to take part in a research study. The information in this form is
provided to help you decide whether or not to take part. Ryan Butler will be available to
answer your questions and provide additional information by email or call. If you decide to
take part in the study, you will be asked to electronically sign this consent form.
Research Title: Understanding the Decision-Making System Behind Backcountry Skiers
Researchers: Ryan Butler, Pursuing MA from Prescott College and
Dr. Denise Mitten, Core faculty, Prescott College
Laura Maguire, Research Mentor
Research Purpose: The purpose of this study is to take a deeper examination of the layered
system of influence behind the decision-making process in early-stage backcountry
recreationists who have been using the backcountry for 5 or fewer seasons. A person's day in
the mountains has a lot of factors at play within their decision-making, and this study hopes
to show what those factors are.
Research Goals:
• To inform the snow safety community of the complexities that influence
recreationists.
• To provide a deeper meaning of what human factors are.
• To identify potential barriers within the activity.
Participation: Roughly 30 participants will be participating in the survey portion of the
research, and of that population ten will be identified as candidates for the interview portion.
Your participation is voluntary, and you can cease your involvement at any time.
Survey and Interview Description:
The first phase of research is a survey distributed widely to the snow and avalanche
community. This survey is to establish a framework of themes that come up, as well as
identify potential candidates for the second phase of the study, the interviews. Potential
candidates will voluntarily include a contact email to their survey submission, indicating they
permit being contacted for the interview stage.
The interview process will be conducted in a single session with a few themes for
conversation; experience, gear/equipment, and trip preparation. These interviews are centered
around open-ended questions used to gain insight into your process. For example, instead of
asking what model transceiver you have and moving on, the question will be why did you
choose that transceiver.
Interviews will be given a 90-minute timeframe and can be finished in less time if the
questions are addressed. There will be a 15 minute follow up with interview participants via
Zoom or shared document to go over your interview and ensure data accuracy. Interviews
DECISION-MAKING IN EARLY-STAGE BACKCOUNTRY USERS 79
will be recorded and conducted via my private Zoom account and the meeting is password
protected. As the participant, you may request copies of the file of the conversation. Files will
be confidential and only accessed by the research team, Ryan Butler Denise Mitten, and
Laura Maguire.
The recording and associated written materials will be destroyed if you decide to
withdraw from this research before the summary report is published. Without your
permission, neither the video recording nor your name will be used in published research
materials. Interviews can be ended at any moment at your request.
Confidentiality:
All the online interviews will be recorded and stored on a password-protected computer.
The recordings may be used for references for further study. You will not be identified in any
reports or publications resulting from the study unless you give permission.
Your participation in this study is voluntary. You may decide to not begin or to stop the study
at
any time before the report is completed.
Risks and Benefits
Risks: There may be emotional risks of remembering traumatic times in the outdoors. If you
want to stop the interview at any time, please tell Ryan Butler and he will stop the interview.
You can elect to continue later or not. You can allow the use of material in the interview so
far or not.
Benefits: Participation in this study can help to further understand the decision-making
process and open new avenues for research and risk management within this field.
Costs: There is no cost to participate other than a few hours of your time.
Contact information:
Researcher: Ryan Butler, ryan.butler@student.prescott.edu, 484-336-5588
Principal Investigator: Dr. Denise Mitten, dmitten@prescott.edu, 231-598-7477
Institutional Review Board (IRB): irb-board@prescott.edu, 877-350-2100 (ext. 2240)
Consent:
Do you choose to participate in this study? (A 'No' selection will end your participation with
no consequence): Y/N
Do you understand that your participation is voluntary, and you can withdraw your
participation at any time?: Y/N
Do you understand that you can have access to your recorded interview files?: Y/N
Do you understand that your personal information will not be identified in the research
paper?: Y/N
DECISION-MAKING IN EARLY-STAGE BACKCOUNTRY USERS 80
Do you wish to receive a copy of the final research paper?: Y/N
Signature:
Date:
DECISION-MAKING IN EARLY-STAGE BACKCOUNTRY USERS 81
Appendix B: Survey Tool
Background and Introduction Page
Hello!
Thank you for taking the time to read through this survey. My name is Ryan, and I am
conducting a research project for the completion of my master's in adventure education
through Prescott College.
The goal of this study is to learn from early-stage backcountry skiers and snowboarders who
have been using the backcountry for 5 or fewer seasons. I hope to identify the system that
influences and informs users prior to even getting to the trailhead. This study will hopefully
inform and provide insight to our industry about the systemic influences of a ski tour.
This survey will take 10 minutes to complete. Participation is voluntary and all data will be
treated confidentially. You can quit the survey at any time, without any consequences. The
data will only be used for scientific research, and we will only present data in an aggregated
form such that no individual can be identified.
At the end of the survey, you are invited to share your email if you are interested in
participating in the second phase of this study. The second phase includes an up to 90-minute
interview with you to learn about your experience. Providing your contact information is
entirely optional and also does not guarantee that you will be contacted for the second phase.
Identifying information is kept confidential and is used only for the purpose of initiating the
second phase.
Please complete this survey only once. You must be 18 or older to participate. We ask that
you carefully read the following consent statement before you proceed.
Any questions may be directed to ryan.butler@student.prescott.edu.
Ryan Butler, Master's candidate, Prescott College
Laura Maguire, PhD, Research Mentor
Denise Mitten, PhD, Core Faculty, Prescott College
Informed Consent Page
Thank you for participating in this survey!
This survey will take 10 minutes to complete. Participation is voluntary and all data will be
treated confidentially. You can quit the survey at any time, without any consequences and no
data will be saved. The data will only be used for academic research, and we will only
present data in an aggregated form such that no individual can be identified.
By continuing through the survey, you understand and consent and agree that:
-You are over the age of 18.
DECISION-MAKING IN EARLY-STAGE BACKCOUNTRY USERS 82
-This survey is voluntary, and participation can end at any time by leaving the survey.
-Your submission will be confidential and used for only academic research.
-No identifying information will be presented with your submission.
-Email collection at the end of the survey is voluntary and not required for submission.
By marking “Yes, I agree” and continuing through the survey, I also give allowance to use
my answers for academic research in line with the rules of the Institutional Review Board of
Prescott College. A complete informed consent can be found Here.
If you do not agree to participate, please close out of the survey now.
Survey Questions
1. What is the year of your birth?
a. Dropdown menu with list of years
2. How many years have you been skiing/riding? Inbounds & backcountry.
a. >1 year
b. 1-3 years
c. 3-6 years
d. 6-10 years
e. 10+ years
f.
3. How would you rate your skiing/riding abilities? According to the Skier Type
Graph
a. I
b. II
c. III
d. IV
e. V
4. How long have you been backcountry touring?
a. >1 year
b. 1-3 years
c. 4-5 years
5. What is the highest level of avalanche training that you have participated in?
a. None
b. Online courses, informal learning from friends
c. Awareness courses and seminars
d. Single-day courses or seminars, Avy Rescue
e. Recreation Level 1
f. Recreation Level 2
g. Professional level courses
6. Do you feel that the COVID-19 pandemic has influenced your skiing/riding this
2020-2021 season?
a. Yes
b. No
c. n/a
7. If yes, how so?
a. Open type field response, optional
DECISION-MAKING IN EARLY-STAGE BACKCOUNTRY USERS 83
8. What equipment do you carry with you into the backcountry? Select all that
apply.
a. Backpack with food and water
b. Transceiver
c. Shovel
d. Probe
e. Airbag
f. Helmet
g. Personal locator transceiver (spot, inReach, etc.)
h. Other
9. If you said Other, can you please elaborate?
a. Open type field response, optional
10. Where do you typically access backcountry terrain? Select all that apply.
a. Trailheads
b. Ski area parking lot
c. Ski resort terrain
d. Other
11. If you said Other, can you please elaborate?
a. Open type field response, optional
12. Are you open to further conversation about your overall backcountry experience
in phase two of the study?
a. yes/no
13. If yes, can you please share your email address?
a. Open type field for entry, optional
DECISION-MAKING IN EARLY-STAGE BACKCOUNTRY USERS 84
Appendix C: Interview Questions
To be read aloud once recording started:
To start, I would like to at least mention that I am not an expert in the avalanche field, nor in
the decision-making field. This idea for this study came from curiosities in my own
recreational career and academic interests.
The goals for this interview are exploratory, as each person's unique lived experience is all
part of the system I've referenced as "systems-thinking decision making".
I have a fixed list of questions to learn about your experiences, and our conversation may not
take the full allotted 90 minutes. Some of the questions may have repetitive answers. I'll do
my best to keep up with your answers to make sure we don't go over the same thing twice, but
often the questions are to bring up a particular subject.
After our interview is complete, I'll touch base in a week or so with a transcript and notes to
ensure data accuracy and allow opportunity for any clarifications or exclusion requests. This
can be done either via another quick Zoom chat or done asynchronously via a private shared
Google document.
I've emailed you a copy of the informed consent for your reference, and please let me know if
you'd like that resent. I will go through a few confirming questions here as part of the
informed consent process.
Do you choose to participate in this study? (A 'No' selection will end your participation with
no consequence): Y/N
Do you understand that your participation is voluntary, and you can withdraw your
participation at any time?: Y/N
Do you understand that you can have access to your recorded interview files?: Y/N
Do you understand that your personal information will not be identified in the research
paper?: Y/N
Do you wish to receive a copy of the final research paper?: Y/N
Do you have any questions before we begin?
QUESTIONS:
Experience:
Tell me about your skiing experience?
• How long
• Where'd you learn?
• Who taught you?
• What are/were your inspirations or aspirations?
• When did you start backcountry skiing?
• What made you want to do that?
DECISION-MAKING IN EARLY-STAGE BACKCOUNTRY USERS 85
Tell me about your avalanche awareness or education?
• What course providers have you used and why?
• Do you want to take more courses?
• Do you have any barriers with taking more/any?
Tell me about your frequented areas of touring?
• How'd you hear about this place(s)?
Gear:
Tell me about your transceiver, shovel, and probe?
What influenced your decision to choose those?
What skis and bindings do you use?
What influenced your decision to choose those?
Trip Planning:
Do you reference an avalanche forecast?
• If yes, where do you get your avalanche forecast from?
• Can you describe how you use the avalanche forecasts?
• How long do you typically spend with the forecast?
• If no, do you reference any other information about avalanche conditions?
Do you follow mountain weather when not touring?
• If yes, how? Describe your process
• If yes, where do you source that information from?
Do you ski with a partner(s)?
• How did you meet that person?
• Why do you like to ski with them?
• How do you choose a ski partner(s)?
o Do they have avy experience?
• Can you describe an experience where you felt you and your partners had good
alignment with your partners while touring?
• Can you describe an experience where you felt you and your partners had poor
alignment while touring?
How do you choose where to tour on a given day?
• How far in advance do you choose?
• Do you and a partner(s) plan together?
• Do you hold a single option, or keep a few options available?
• If you are touring somewhere new, does your process change?
o If so, describe how.
I'd like to ask you about a day out specifically. Think about the last time you went touring.
Do you recall it?
• If yes, was it a typical day for you? Why/why not?
Walk me through when you arrived through when you left the parking lot.
• Is that a typical routine for you?
• Does it ever change?
o If so, when and How so?
o Are you ever rushed to get onto the trail?
• Tell me about your transceiver check process.
o Does it ever change?
o If yes, how so?
Tell me about when you stepped into your skis?
• What happened next?
DECISION-MAKING IN EARLY-STAGE BACKCOUNTRY USERS 86
• Is that a typical routine for you?
o If so, can you think of a time when it was different? How come?
Does the route plan originally set ever change while you're out?
• What prompts those changes?
• How does that conversation or change happen?
• What factors are included in the conversation?
What does the conclusion of your tour look like?
• Do you debrief the day at all?
• Tell me about your process of leaving the trail back to the car.
