Articles | Volume 25, issue 11
https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-25-4503-2025
© Author(s) 2025. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-25-4503-2025
© Author(s) 2025. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Research article
| 
13 Nov 2025
Research article |
| 13 Nov 2025
| 13 Nov 2025
The EAWS matrix, a decision support tool to determine the regional avalanche danger level (Part A): conceptual development
Norwegian Water Resources and Energy Directorate, Oslo, Norway
Frank Techel
WSL Institute for Snow and Avalanche Research SLF, Davos, Switzerland
Christoph Mitterer
Avalanche Warnings Service Tirol, Innsbruck, Austria
Related authors
Frank Techel, Karsten Müller, Christopher Marquardt, and Christoph Mitterer
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3349, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3349, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We studied how avalanche forecasters across Europe used a new tool called the EAWS Matrix to assess avalanche danger levels. Despite different approaches, many services used the Matrix in similar ways. Our findings can help to further improve the Matrix and support more consistent avalanche forecasts, leading to more reliable and credible avalanche information for people in snow-covered mountain regions.
Frank Techel, Ross S. Purves, Stephanie Mayer, Günter Schmudlach, and Kurt Winkler
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 25, 3333–3353, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-25-3333-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-25-3333-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We tested how well fully data- and model-driven avalanche forecasts compare to human-made forecasts, which also integrate added context like field observations or model output. Using data from Switzerland over three winters, we found that models – even without this extra input – performed nearly as well. While human forecasts still have a slight edge, model predictions already offer reliable support for daily avalanche forecasting.
Frank Techel, Karsten Müller, Christopher Marquardt, and Christoph Mitterer
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3349, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3349, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We studied how avalanche forecasters across Europe used a new tool called the EAWS Matrix to assess avalanche danger levels. Despite different approaches, many services used the Matrix in similar ways. Our findings can help to further improve the Matrix and support more consistent avalanche forecasts, leading to more reliable and credible avalanche information for people in snow-covered mountain regions.
Leonie Schäfer, Frank Techel, Günter Schmudlach, and Ross S. Purves
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2344, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2344, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Backcountry skiing is a popular form of recreation in Switzerland and worldwide, despite numerous avalanche accidents and fatalities that are recorded each year. There is a need for spatially explicit information on backcountry usage for effective risk estimations and avalanche forecast verification. We successfully used GPS tracks and online engagement data to model daily backcountry skiing base rates in the Swiss Alps based on a set of snow, weather, temporal and environmental variables.
Cristina Pérez-Guillén, Frank Techel, Michele Volpi, and Alec van Herwijnen
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 25, 1331–1351, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-25-1331-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-25-1331-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
This study assesses the performance and explainability of a random-forest classifier for predicting dry-snow avalanche danger levels during initial live testing. The model achieved ∼ 70 % agreement with human forecasts, performing equally well in nowcast and forecast modes, while capturing the temporal dynamics of avalanche forecasting. The explainability approach enhances the transparency of the model's decision-making process, providing a valuable tool for operational avalanche forecasting.
Christoph Mitterer, Simon Legner, Norbert Lanzanasto, Matthias Walcher, and Patrick Nairz
Abstr. Int. Cartogr. Assoc., 9, 25, https://doi.org/10.5194/ica-abs-9-25-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/ica-abs-9-25-2025, 2025
Alessandro Maissen, Frank Techel, and Michele Volpi
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 7569–7593, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-7569-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-7569-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
By harnessing AI models, this work enables processing large amounts of data, including weather conditions, snowpack characteristics, and historical avalanche data, to predict human-like avalanche forecasts in Switzerland. Our proposed model can significantly assist avalanche forecasters in their decision-making process, thereby facilitating more efficient and accurate predictions crucial for ensuring safety in Switzerland's avalanche-prone regions.
Stephanie Mayer, Frank Techel, Jürg Schweizer, and Alec van Herwijnen
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 23, 3445–3465, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-23-3445-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-23-3445-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
We present statistical models to estimate the probability for natural dry-snow avalanche release and avalanche size based on the simulated layering of the snowpack. The benefit of these models is demonstrated in comparison with benchmark models based on the amount of new snow. From the validation with data sets of quality-controlled avalanche observations and danger levels, we conclude that these models may be valuable tools to support forecasting natural dry-snow avalanche activity.
Elisabeth D. Hafner, Frank Techel, Rodrigo Caye Daudt, Jan Dirk Wegner, Konrad Schindler, and Yves Bühler
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 23, 2895–2914, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-23-2895-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-23-2895-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Oftentimes when objective measurements are not possible, human estimates are used instead. In our study, we investigate the reproducibility of human judgement for size estimates, the mappings of avalanches from oblique photographs and remotely sensed imagery. The variability that we found in those estimates is worth considering as it may influence results and should be kept in mind for several applications.
Stephanie Mayer, Alec van Herwijnen, Frank Techel, and Jürg Schweizer
The Cryosphere, 16, 4593–4615, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-16-4593-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-16-4593-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Information on snow instability is crucial for avalanche forecasting. We introduce a novel machine-learning-based method to assess snow instability from snow stratigraphy simulated with the snow cover model SNOWPACK. To develop the model, we compared observed and simulated snow profiles. Our model provides a probability of instability for every layer of a simulated snow profile, which allows detection of the weakest layer and assessment of its degree of instability with one single index.
Cristina Pérez-Guillén, Frank Techel, Martin Hendrick, Michele Volpi, Alec van Herwijnen, Tasko Olevski, Guillaume Obozinski, Fernando Pérez-Cruz, and Jürg Schweizer
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 22, 2031–2056, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-22-2031-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-22-2031-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
A fully data-driven approach to predicting the danger level for dry-snow avalanche conditions in Switzerland was developed. Two classifiers were trained using a large database of meteorological data, snow cover simulations, and danger levels. The models performed well throughout the Swiss Alps, reaching a performance similar to the current experience-based avalanche forecasts. This approach shows the potential to be a valuable supplementary decision support tool for assessing avalanche hazard.
Frank Techel, Stephanie Mayer, Cristina Pérez-Guillén, Günter Schmudlach, and Kurt Winkler
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 22, 1911–1930, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-22-1911-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-22-1911-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Can the resolution of forecasts of avalanche danger be increased by using a combination of absolute and comparative judgments? Using 5 years of Swiss avalanche forecasts, we show that, on average, sub-levels assigned to a danger level reflect the expected increase in the number of locations with poor snow stability and in the number and size of avalanches with increasing forecast sub-level.
Veronika Hutter, Frank Techel, and Ross S. Purves
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 21, 3879–3897, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-21-3879-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-21-3879-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
How is avalanche danger described in public avalanche forecasts? We analyzed 6000 textual descriptions of avalanche danger in Switzerland, taking the perspective of the forecaster. Avalanche danger was described rather consistently, although the results highlight the difficulty of communicating conditions that are neither rare nor frequent, neither small nor large. The study may help to refine the ways in which avalanche danger could be communicated to the public.
Jürg Schweizer, Christoph Mitterer, Benjamin Reuter, and Frank Techel
The Cryosphere, 15, 3293–3315, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-15-3293-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-15-3293-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Snow avalanches threaten people and infrastructure in snow-covered mountain regions. To mitigate the effects of avalanches, warnings are issued by public forecasting services. Presently, the five danger levels are described in qualitative terms. We aim to characterize the avalanche danger levels based on expert field observations of snow instability. Our findings contribute to an evidence-based description of danger levels and to improve consistency and accuracy of avalanche forecasts.
Elisabeth D. Hafner, Frank Techel, Silvan Leinss, and Yves Bühler
The Cryosphere, 15, 983–1004, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-15-983-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-15-983-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Satellites prove to be very valuable for documentation of large-scale avalanche periods. To test reliability and completeness, which has not been satisfactorily verified before, we attempt a full validation of avalanches mapped from two optical sensors and one radar sensor. Our results demonstrate the reliability of high-spatial-resolution optical data for avalanche mapping, the suitability of radar for mapping of larger avalanches and the unsuitability of medium-spatial-resolution optical data.
Cited articles
Ashton, R. H.: A review and analysis of research on the test–retest reliability of professional judgment, Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 13, 277–294, https://doi.org/10.1002/1099-0771(200007/09)13:3<277::AID-BDM350>3.0.CO;2-B, 2000. a
Bartelt, P., Feistl, T., Bühler, Y., and Buser, O.: Overcoming the stauchwall: Viscoelastic stress redistribution and the start of full-depth gliding snow avalanches, Geophys. Res. Lett., 39, https://doi.org/10.1029/2012GL052479, 2012. a
Binder, M. and Mitterer, C.: Initializing snow cover simulations with observed snow profiles, in: Proceedings International Snow Science Workshop 2023, Bend, Oregon, 108–114 pp., https://arc.lib.montana.edu/snow-science/item.php?id=2861 (last access: 7 November 2025), 2023. a
Clark, T.: Exploring the link between the Conceptual Model of Avalanche Hazard and the North American Public Avalanche Danger Scale, Master's thesis, Simon Fraser University, 115 p., https://summit.sfu.ca/item/18786 (last access: 7 November 2025), 2019. a
Dennis, A. and Moore, M.: Evolution of public avalanche information: the North American experience with avalanche danger rating levels, in: Proceedings of the 1996 International Snow Science Workshop, Banff, Canada, 60–66, https://arc.lib.montana.edu/snow-science/item.php?id=1405 (last access: 7 November 2025), 1996. a
Dietrich, F. and Spiekermann, K.: Jury theorems, in: The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by: Zalta, E. N. and Nodelman, U., Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, Spring 2023 edn., ISSN 1095-5054, 2023. a
Duijm, N. J.: Recommendations on the use and design of risk matrices, Safety Science, 76, 21–31, 2015. a
EAWS: The revised EAWS-Matrix, presented at EAWS General Assembly, Davos, June 2022, https://www.avalanches.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/eaws_matrix_poster_v1.pdf (last access: 12 February 2024), 2022a. a
EAWS: Fatalities statistics, https://www.avalanches.org/fatalities/fatalities-statistics/, last access: 9 November 2023a. a
EAWS: Standards: European Avalanche Danger Scale, Tech. rep., European Avalanche Warning Services (EAWS), https://www.avalanches.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/European_Avalanche_Danger_Scale-EAWS.pdf, last access: 5 July 2023b. a
EAWS: Standards: Information pyramid, https://www.avalanches.org/standards/information-pyramid/, last access: 13 November 2023c. a
Elder, K. and Armstrong, B.: A quantitative approach for verifying avalanche hazard ratings, in: Symposium at Davos 1986 on Avalanche Formation, Movement and Effects, Vol. 162 of International Association of Hydrological Sciences Publication, 593–603, 1987. a
Furman, N., Shooter, W., and Schumann, S.: The roles of heuristics, avalanche forecast, and risk propensity in the decision making of backcountry skiers, Leisure Sciences, 32, 453–469, https://doi.org/10.1080/01490400.2010.510967, 2010. a
Giraud, G.: MEPRA: an expert system for avalanche risk forecasting, in: Proccedings International Snow Science Workshop ISSW 1992, Breckenridge, CO, USA, 97–106, 583–591, https://arc.lib.montana.edu/snow-science/item.php?id=1242 (last access: 7 November 2025), 1992. a
Giraud, G., Lafeuille, J., and Pahaut, E.: Evaluation de la qualité de la prevision du risque d'avalanche, in: Avalanche Formation, Movement and Effects, Proceedings of the Davos Symposium, September 1986, Int. Ass. Hydrol. Sci. Vol. 162, 1987. a
Hafner, E. D., Techel, F., Daudt, R. C., Wegner, J. D., Schindler, K., and Bühler, Y.: Avalanche size estimation and avalanche outline determination by experts: reliability and implications for practice, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 23, 2895–2914, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-23-2895-2023, 2023. a
Herla, F., Haegeli, P., and Mair, P.: A data exploration tool for averaging and accessing large data sets of snow stratigraphy profiles useful for avalanche forecasting, The Cryosphere, 16, 3149–3162, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-16-3149-2022, 2022. a
Herla, F., Binder, M., Lanzanasto, N., Perfller, M., Widforss, A., Reisecker, M., Müller, K., and Mitterer, C.: Synthesizing regional snowpack stability and avalanche problems in the operational AWSOME framework, in: Proceedings, International Snow Science Workshop, Tromsø, Norway, 272–277, https://arc.lib.montana.edu/snow-science/objects/ISSW2024_P1.33.pdf (last access: 7 November 2025), 2024. a
Hutter, V., Techel, F., and Purves, R. S.: How is avalanche danger described in textual descriptions in avalanche forecasts in Switzerland? Consistency between forecasters and avalanche danger, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 21, 3879–3897, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-21-3879-2021, 2021. a, b, c, d, e, f
LaChapelle, E.: The fundamental process in conventional avalanche forecasting, J. Glaciol., 26, 75–84, https://doi.org/10.3189/S0022143000010601, 1980. a
Lazar, B., Trautmann, S., Cooperstein, M., Greene, E., and Birkeland, K.: North American avalanche danger scale: Do backcountry forecasters apply it consistently?, in: Proceedings International Snow Science Workshop, 2–7 October 2016, Breckenridge, CO, 457–465, https://arc.lib.montana.edu/snow-science/objects/ISSW16_O20.01.pdf (last access: 7 November 2025), 2016. a, b
Mayer, S., van Herwijnen, A., Techel, F., and Schweizer, J.: A random forest model to assess snow instability from simulated snow stratigraphy, The Cryosphere, 16, 4593–4615, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-16-4593-2022, 2022. a
McClung, D.: The elements of applied avalanche forecasting part I: The human issues, Nat. Hazards, 26, 111–129, 2002. a
McClung, D. and Schaerer, P.: The Avalanche Handbook, 3rd edn., The Mountaineers, Seattle, WA, ISBN 13:978-0-89886-809-8, 2006. a
Mitterer, C. and Mitterer, L.: 25 Jahre Europäische Lawinengefahrenstufenskala, Bergundsteigen, 67–76, https://assets.bergundsteigen.com/2021/08/67-7625-jahre-europaeische-lawinengefahrenstufenskala.pdf (last access: 7 November 2025), 2018. a
Morgan, A., Haegeli, P., Finn, H., and Mair, P.: A user perspective on the avalanche danger scale – insights from North America, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 23, 1719–1742, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-23-1719-2023, 2023. a
Morgan, M. G.: Characterizing, analyzing, and communicating uncertainty, Cambridge University Press, https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316882665.009, 209–243, 2017. a, b
Müller, K., Mitterer, C., Engeset, R., Ekker, R., and Kosberg, S.: Combining the conceptual model of avalanche hazard with the Bavarian matrix, in: Proceedings International Snow Science Workshop, 2–7 October 2016, Breckenridge, CO, USA, 472–479, https://arc.lib.montana.edu/snow-science/objects/ISSW16_O20.03.pdf (last access: 7 November 2025), 2016. a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h
Müller, K., Techel, F., Mitterer, C., Feistl, T., Sofia, S., Roux, N., Palmgren, P., Bellido, G., and Bertranda, L.: The EAWS Matrix, a look-up table for regional avalanche danger level assessments, and its underlying concept, in: Proceedings International Snow Science Workshop, 8–13 October, Bend, OR, https://arc.lib.montana.edu/snow-science/objects/ISSW2023_O5.05.pdf (last access: 7 November 2025), 2023. a
Murphy, A. H.: What is a good forecast? An essay on the nature of goodness in weather forecasting, Weather Forecast., 8, 281–293, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0434(1993)008<0281:WIAGFA>2.0.CO;2, 1993. a, b
Ogden, C. K. and Richards, I. A.: The Meaning of Meaning: A Study of the Influence of Language upon Thought and of the Science of Symbolism, Vol. 29, Harcourt, Brace, ISBN O-15-658446-8, https://pure.mpg.de/rest/items/item_2366948_3/component/file_2366947/content (last access: 7 November 2025), 1925. a
Pérez-Guillén, C., Techel, F., Hendrick, M., Volpi, M., van Herwijnen, A., Olevski, T., Obozinski, G., Pérez-Cruz, F., and Schweizer, J.: Data-driven automated predictions of the avalanche danger level for dry-snow conditions in Switzerland, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 22, 2031–2056, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-22-2031-2022, 2022. a
Reuter, B. and Schweizer, J.: Describing snow instability by failure initiation, crack propagation, and slab tensile support, Geophys. Res. Lett., 45, 7019–7027, https://doi.org/10.1029/2018GL078069, 2018. a, b, c
Roiser, J. P. and Sahakian, B. J.: Hot and cold cognition in depression, CNS Spectrums, 18, 139–149, https://doi.org/10.1017/S1092852913000072, 2013. a
Rowe, G. and Wright, G.: Expert Opinions in Forecasting: The Role of the Delphi Technique, Springer US, Boston, MA, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-306-47630-3_7, 125–144, 2001. a
Schweizer, J. and Camponovo, C.: The skier's zone of influence in triggering slab avalanches, Ann. Glaciol., 32, 314–320, https://doi.org/10.3189/172756401781819300, 2001. a
Schweizer, J. and Föhn, P.: Avalanche forecasting – an expert system approach, J. Glaciol., 42, 318–332, https://doi.org/10.3189/S0022143000004172, 1996. a
Schweizer, J., Kronholm, K., Jamieson, J. B., and Birkeland, K. W.: Review of spatial variability of snowpack properties and its importance for avalanche formation, Cold Reg. Sci. Technol., 51, 253–272, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coldregions.2007.04.009, 2008. a
Schweizer, J., Mitterer, C., Reuter, B., and Techel, F.: Avalanche danger level characteristics from field observations of snow instability, The Cryosphere, 15, 3293–3315, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-15-3293-2021, 2021. a, b
Schweizer, J., Mitterer, C., Techel, F., Stoffel, A., and Reuter, B.: On the relation between avalanche occurrence and avalanche danger level, The Cryosphere, 14, 737–750, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-14-737-2020, 2020b. a
SLF: Schnee und Lawinen in den Schweizer Alpen. Winter 1951/52, Eidg. Institut für Schnee- und Lawinenforschung Weissfluhjoch Davos, 231 pages (Nr. 15), https://www.research-collection.ethz.ch/bitstreams/9fdcf12c-7bae-4b66-9679-98fbf429ac16/download (last access: 7 November 2025), 1953. a
SLF: Interpretationshilfe zum Lawinenbulletin des Eidgenössischen Institutes für Schnee- und Lawinenforschung Weissfluhjoch, Davos, in: Mitteilung des Eidgenössischen Institutes für Schnee- und Lawinenforschung, Vol. 49, p. 24, Eidgenössischen Institutes für Schnee- und Lawinenforschung, https://www.slf.ch/fileadmin/user_upload/SLF/Lawinenbulletin_Schneesituation/Wissen_zum_Lawinenbulletin/Interpretationshilfe/Interpretationshilfe_DE.pdf (last access: 7 November 2025), 1993. a
Statham, G., Haegeli, P., Birkeland, K., Greene, E., Israelson, C., Tremper, B., Stethem, C., McMahon, B., White, B., and Kelly, J.: The North American public avalanche danger scale, in: Proceedings International Snow Science Workshop, 17–22 Oct, Lake Tahoe, CA, 117–123, https://arc.lib.montana.edu/snow-science/item/353 (last access: 7 November 2025), 2010. a
Stewart, T. R.: Improving reliability in judgemental forecasting, in: Principles of Forecasting: A Handbook for Researchers and Practitioners, Springer Science + Business Media, LLC, 81–106, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-306-47630-3_5, 2001. a, b
Stewart, T. and Lusk, C.: Seven components of judgmental forecasting skill: implications for research and the improvement of forecasts, Journal of Forecasting, 13, 579–599, 1994. a
Techel, F., Zweifel, B., and Winkler, K.: Analysis of avalanche risk factors in backcountry terrain based on usage frequency and accident data in Switzerland, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 15, 1985–1997, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-15-1985-2015, 2015. a
Techel, F., Müller, K., and Schweizer, J.: On the importance of snowpack stability, the frequency distribution of snowpack stability, and avalanche size in assessing the avalanche danger level, The Cryosphere, 14, 3503–3521, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-14-3503-2020, 2020. a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, j, k, l, m
Techel, F., Lucas, C., Pielmeier, C., Müller, K., and Morreau, M.: Unreliability in expert estimates of factors determining avalanche danger and impact on danger level estimation with the Matrix, in: Proceedings International Snow Science Workshop, Tromsø, Norway, 23–29 September 2024, 264–271, https://arc.lib.montana.edu/snow-science/objects/ISSW2024_P1.31.pdf (last access: 7 November 2025), 2024. a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h
Techel, F., Müller, K., and Mitterer, C.: Data for publication: The EAWS matrix, a decision support tool to determine the regional avalanche danger level (Part A): Conceptual development, Natural Hazards Earth System Sciences, Zenodo [data set], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17086424, 2025b. a
Techel, F., Purves, R. S., Mayer, S., Schmudlach, G., and Winkler, K.: Can model-based avalanche forecasts match the discriminatory skill of human danger-level forecasts? A comparison from Switzerland, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 25, 3333–3353, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-25-3333-2025, 2025. a
Winkler, K., Schmudlach, G., Degraeuwe, B., and Techel, F.: On the correlation between the forecast avalanche danger and avalanche risk taken by backcountry skiers in Switzerland, Cold Reg. Sci. Technol., 188, 103299, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coldregions.2021.103299, 2021. a
Short summary
This paper presents the updated EAWS (European Avalanche Warning Services) Matrix, developed to support consistent avalanche danger assessments across Europe. It links snowpack stability, its frequency, and avalanche size to the five danger levels. Based on expert surveys and operational testing, the Matrix supports expert judgment and aligns with the Conceptual Model of Avalanche Hazard while addressing known ambiguities in practice.
This paper presents the updated EAWS (European Avalanche Warning Services) Matrix, developed to...
Altmetrics
Final-revised paper
Preprint