Abstract
Introduction
Avalanche risk can be mitigated by adhering to certain safety practices. Previous studies of these practices have focused on western United States and European cohorts. We conducted a survey of backcountry users in the White Mountains of New Hampshire to determine local adherence to 5 previously studied avalanche safety practices. We assessed whether participants were carrying transceiver, probe, and shovel (TPS); had formal avalanche education; had awareness of the day’s avalanche danger level; had a route plan; and were traveling in a group.
Methods
Backcountry users in the White Mountains were directed to an online survey from December 2020 to June 2021. The survey was completed individually and queried demographics and avalanche safety practices.
Results
A total of 133 users participated. Not all surveyed participants answered all questions. Avalanche training was reported by 87% of users, 86% checked the avalanche forecast prior to recreating, 93% had a travel plan, 87% traveled in a group, and 59% carried TPS. All 3 items were carried by all group members only 48% of the time. Only 28% of users met all 5 safety practices.
Conclusions
White Mountains backcountry users are less likely to meet avalanche safety practices than users in previous studies. There is an association between meeting these defined safety practices and formal avalanche education.
Introduction
Winter backcountry recreation is becoming increasingly popular. There are 700,000 backcountry skiers and snowboarders in the United States alone, making it the only segment of the skiing industry that has consistently grown over the last few years. 1 Recreating in backcountry areas comes with an increased risk of triggering an avalanche. Avalanche deaths have been increasing annually in the United States. 2
While there is no definitive way to make travel in avalanche terrain risk-free, studies on backcountry populations have looked at various practices that are generally accepted to mitigate danger in avalanche terrain and increase chances of rescue if caught in an avalanche. Three of the 5 practices described in this study are as follows: carrying appropriate equipment (transceiver, probe, and shovel [TPS]), traveling in a group, and having formal avalanche education. 3 Avalanche education consists of a progression of courses that include basic “awareness” courses (ie, “Know Before You Go” or “Avalanche Awareness”), followed by 2-d courses (Avalanche-1), which then lead to in-depth (Avalanche-2) or professional courses. Two additional avalanche safety practices are “day-of” elements that include knowledge of the local avalanche forecast and selecting an adequate route with “off limits” terrain. 3 Finally, given that companion rescue provides the best chance of survival in an avalanche, traveling with and having adequately prepared companions are generally viewed as important for safety. 3
Prior studies on avalanche safety used differing definitions of which components could be considered the minimum for avalanche safety practices. These studies show varying adherence to avalanche safety practices (Table 1). 4 -7 No previous studies have evaluated the avalanche preparedness of the backcountry users in the White Mountains.
Summary of previous population studies on avalanche safety practices. Bolded values are the average of all safety practices for that study.
n/a, not applicable; TPS, transceiver, probe, and shovel.
The objectives of this study were to describe the avalanche preparedness of White Mountains backcountry users and to compare these data with previously reported avalanche preparedness data from studies in other regions.
Methods
This cross-sectional observational study surveyed users accessing the White Mountains in New Hampshire, United States, from December 2020 through June 2021, which is the end of the local ski season. This study was approved by the institutional review boards of both Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center and the University of Vermont Medical Center. Permission was obtained from the US Department of Agriculture, White Mountains National Forest Service Office.
The survey assessed whether users possessed the 5 components listed in the reference studies as well as whether group partners were avalanche-trained and equipped with TPS (individual subjects vouched for their partners by selecting “yes” or “no” to the question). The primary outcome was the comparison of adherence to avalanche safety practices to prior reported data. The secondary outcome was the description of avalanche safety practices in the White Mountains.
Participants at designated trailheads were directed to a quick response (QR) code either on a business card or poster. Posters with the QR code were posted at trailheads that primarily access avalanche terrain. Additionally, weatherproof boxes that contained business cards with the QR code were attached to the posters. The QR code linked to an online Google Forms survey that contained 15 questions. The survey form was created in consultation with Mount Washington avalanche forecasters and queried demographics and avalanche safety practices (Table 2). Each participant filled out his/her own individual survey. We then used these data to compare local safety practices to those previously reported in the literature.
Survey responses
Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, including percentages and means, as well as χ2 analysis. Data are summarized as mean±SD (range), median (IQR), or percentage, as appropriate. P<0.05 was considered statistically significant. Analysis was performed using STATA (StataCorp, College Station, TX).
Results
A total of 133 responses were collected (Table 2). All responses were self-reported. The age of respondents was 36±12 (15–65) y. Males represented 75% of respondents. The majority of those surveyed were skiers (62%). Most people traveled in groups, with group size being 3±2 people. Thirteen percent of individuals traveled alone. Thirty-eight percent of White Mountains backcountry users met all 5 avalanche safety practice components assessed. TPS were reported as carried by 59% of individuals, with 9% carrying 1 or 2 items and 32% carrying no items. Only 48% of groups reported that all members carried all TPS. In terms of avalanche education, 57% of individuals had “Avalanche 1” or greater, 30% had only seen the “Know Before You Go” or taken an avalanche awareness class, and 13% reported no formal avalanche training. Thirty-five percent of respondents reported that their companions had avalanche training. The avalanche forecast was checked daily by 38% of respondents, 28% checked it every time they traveled into the backcountry, 20% checked it a few days before going out, and 14% did not check it. As long as participants checked the avalanche forecast at least “a few days before going out,” it was deemed to meet avalanche safety practices. Nearly all (93%) respondents had a planned route, and 70% had designated “no go” zones (Table 2). Thirty-eight individuals (28%) had all of the above components.
χ2 analyses of adherence to avalanche safety practices revealed that users who reported having completed more formal avalanche training were more likely to meet all criteria (χ2(3, 119)=[15], P<0.05).
When statistically assessing only solo travelers, 6 of 17 (35%) individuals met all criteria. All of these individuals were also carrying TPS despite traveling alone.
Discussion
Comparing the data from our sample population to previously used definitions of standard avalanche safety practices, we found that White Mountains users do not have the same level of adherence to avalanche safety practices as their western United States or European counterparts. 4 -7 TPS are widely considered important safety tools for avalanche terrain travel. Proper use of these tools is taught in avalanche safety courses, and all of our reference studies on avalanche preparedness queried whether users carried these items. Just over half (59%) of users in this sample reported carrying TPS, while the reference studies cite nearly 90% adherence to carrying TPS or a transceiver/shovel combination. 4 -7 The relatively low carrying of TPS in our sample was the major component leading to our finding of a lower adherence to the avalanche safety practices compared to that of cohorts in other regions.
While these items alone do not make travel in avalanche terrain inherently safer, they are important safety tools for rescue, should an avalanche occur. This is especially true of a transceiver, which can only be used if both the rescuer and avalanche victim have the devices. 8 The snow conditions and terrain in New Hampshire may influence local backcountry users to consider carrying alternate gear. For instance, New Hampshire backcountry recreation is at lower altitude and with a different snowpack than that in the western United States or Europe. Varying geography has been previously reported as a factor in differing avalanche mortality and injury patterns. 9 A review of accidents in the White Mountains showed that long sliding falls are more common than avalanche burials. 10 It is possible that these factors have led backcountry users in the White Mountains to overlook the value of TPS in favor of alternate gear—such as crampons and ice axes—compared to backcountry users in other regions.
Another possibility for decreased adherence to avalanche safety practices is that White Mountains users may view the presence of local ski patrol as indicative of avalanche control or assured rescue. This may lead to the sense that the terrain is “side country” rather than true “backcountry” and impart a false sense of security. Research has indicated that decreased safety practices are seen in “out-of-bounds” resort skiers and riders compared with those in backcountry users. 7 There is also evidence that this user group will accept higher avalanche risk in prioritizing good snow and spend more time in complex avalanche terrain during high avalanche danger days. 11
While not often studied, the preparedness of partners should also be considered. Apart from carrying a transceiver, rescue is most dependent on the level of ability and preparedness of the user’s companion.3,8 Only half of the respondents reported being in a group in which all members carried TPS. Additionally, roughly only one-third of groups consisted of individuals who all possessed formal avalanche training. The effect of partner preparedness on avalanche safety outcomes should be focused on in future studies.
Our data revealed that users who reported having completed higher level avalanche preparedness courses were more likely to carry TPS. This could suggest that avalanche training prompts individuals to carry avalanche preparedness items in avalanche terrain, although this relationship could be correlative rather than causative. Previous studies have shown that the cost of avalanche equipment is a barrier to acquiring these items. 4 However, other research has shown that the decision to carry TPS may be dynamic in response to current avalanche conditions, suggesting that the decision may be more nuanced. 12
Finally, increased avalanche education was associated with an overall likelihood of meeting all 5 avalanche safety practices assessed in this study. While assessing the effect of meeting these 5 practices on avalanche mortality is outside the scope of this study, this set of safety practices occurs repeatedly in studies regarding avalanche preparedness. Focusing on increased avalanche education may lead to improved adherence to avalanche safety practices and, potentially, increased avalanche safety.
Limitations
This study is limited due to its nature as a small convenience sample of backcountry users. Sample size was likely limited by the short duration of the enrollment window, a lack of sustained formal advertising, and lack of engagement with the posters, because they required placement at already crowded trailhead informational bulletin boards. Additionally, there was no way to assess how many people saw the posters, how many took the survey after collecting a card, or how many users saw the advertisement and did not participate. This raises the potential for selection and reporting bias by participants. Furthermore, as the data were collected via self-reporting survey, it is impossible to verify the veracity of the statements reported. It is also assumed that individual members from groups each filled out surveys independently because the software was set to limit the number of responses to 1 per user, but collective answers cannot be ruled out. Finally, the survey did not query the proportion of group participants who took the survey. This could skew results if, for example, just 1 highly trained individual from a group took the survey.
Conclusions
Comparing the avalanche safety practices of a White Mountains cohort to those reported in prior studies in the western United States and Europe, White Mountains backcountry users are less likely to meet avalanche safety practices. All of the respondents who met the avalanche safety practices had formal avalanche education, suggesting an association between avalanche education and preparedness.
Footnotes
Acknowledgments
The authors thank Samuel Kocen, BA (MS1) for trailside interviews and Frank Carus and Jeffrey Fongemie, Mount Washington Avalanche Center, for help with survey development.
Author Contributions: study concept and design (MAR-Z, END); data acquisition (MAR-Z, END); data analysis (END); drafting of the manuscript (MAR-Z); critical revision of the manuscript (END, NJD); and approval of final manuscript (MAR-Z, END, NJD).
Financial/Material Support: None.
Disclosures: None.