1. Standardised Avalanche Reports Michael Staudinger, LWZ - Salzburg

2. Do skiers understand the avalanche report in the way the producers intended? Result: Yes and No !!! 2/3 can reproduce the danger level correctly. but: 2/3 are not able to quote the additional information in the avalanche reports correctly.

3. Who knows the additional information ? ? ? - people with avalanche trainings, - using avalanche strategies (50% of the users), - those who consider avalanche reports as important - those who can recognize terrain features

4. 1.A picture says more than 1000 words! The reader translates the report into pictures and compares this with reality > > > source of errors example: ask person about slope exposition – he´ll roll his eyes and talk with his hands and arms

5. 2. First things first! Description of the avalanche situation should be the first topic Information on the snow cover is important, but needs more expert knowledge to be understood. Weather is important, but there are weather reports and readers look for avalanche information first.

6. 3. From the simple to the complex! A user with poor expert knowledge should find those informations he needs the most (exposition, height etc.) on the best place.

7. The more a user studies the avalanche report, the more possibilities in the mountains he should be offered. This rule would motivate the user to go further into the text and to translate these informations into real terrain. E.g. : danger level 3 Regional danger level e. g. for Silvretta: below 2000m Exposition: North to Southeast danger spots: close to ridges

8. 4. Standardised Layout: Learning new icons needs time Icons only work if they are : standardised across the Alps Once reports are standardised, a large synergy potential becomes available (approx factor 10) (example of the European danger scale)

9. European Weather Warnings

10. Launch on 23rd March 2007: 12 Mio hits/day !

11. Science of communication : 3 Rules for the warning of the public:

12. Science of communication : 3 Rules for the warning of the public: Infos have to be clear and concise (floods: these houses have to be evacuated)

13. Science of communication : 3 Rules for the warning of the public: Infos have to be clear and concise - (floods: these houses have to be evacuated) System has to be consistent as a whole: Warnings - Definitions

14. Science of communication : 3 Rules for the warning of the public: Infos have to be clear and concise - (floods: these houses have to be evacuated) System has to be consistent as a whole: Warnings - Definitions Symbols concentrate information, raise the level of attention - (learning phase)

15. Amount of information > > > > Pyramid of informaton: penetration depth > > >

16. danger level Texts: 1.Avalanche danger 2.Snow cover 3.Weather user knowledge today: 2/3 1/3 greenhorn

17. danger level Texts: 1.Avalanche danger 2.Snow cover 3.Weather user knowledge today: 2/3 1/3 greenhornmountain guide commission

18. 3 danger degree Language independent - avalanche danger user knowledge tomorrow: 2/3 1/3 >> 2/3 ¼ >> 2/3 !! greenhorn Texte: 1.Avalanche danger 2. Snow cover 3. Weather 4. Tendency

19. 3 danger degree Texte: 1.Avalanche danger 2. Snow cover 3. Weather 4. Tendency user knowledge tomorrow: „greenhorn“ „Snowslabs on southeastern slopes above 2000m already in the morning“

20. wet + dry aval. seperately

28. Bavaria: history of danger level

30. DAV - Symbols

31. DAV – Piktogramme (user representatives) all information pictogrammed!

32. Conclusion : too little remains in the memory of the users of the avalanche reports We should transport more than only danger degrees Recommandations: Standardised contents (and order of the different elements) Standardised graphical concepts

33. Working group on avalanche reports (Davos meeting 2005): Meetings: Bolzano, June 2006 Salzburg, October 2006 members: CEAGLIO Elisabetta - Italy-Aosta: itit COLEOU Cecile - France: DELLAVEDOVA Paola -Italy-Aosta KYZEK Filip - Slovakia-Jasna NAIRZ Patrick - Austria-Tyrol OBERSCHMIED Christoph -Italy-AINEVA-S. Tyrol PETO Jan - Slovakia STAUDINGER Michael -Austria-Salzburg STUCKI Thomas - Switzerland ZENKE Bernd – Bavaria, Germany

34. Conclusion working group on avalanche reports: Standardised graphical concepts (icons): aspects *** time development *** elevation*** regional danger levels** (decided by regional aval. service)

35. General graphical concept

36. Proposal for standardised report: Change of danger level during the day:

37. Proposal for standardised report: Change of danger level during the day: Most critical slope aspect:

38. Icon proposal for standardised report: Change of danger level during the day: Most critical slope aspect: Most critical height:

39. Display changes during the day: morning Change of danger level during the day: Most critical slope aspect: Most critical slope height:

40. Display changes during the day: afternoon Change of danger level during the day: Most critical slope aspect: Most critical slope height:

41. Web new:

42. How many users do we have?

43. How many users do we have – 8 Mio /season

44. Does it matter if we loose users? Approx. domestic users (all alpine countries) 2002200320042006200720082009 4 Mio 8 Mio 12 Mio 16 Mio

45. Does it matter if we loose users? Estimated domestic users (all alpine countries) Users outside the own region 2002200320042006200720082009 4 Mio 8 Mio 12 Mio 16 Mio

46. Does it matter if we loose users? Estimated domestic users (all alpine countries) Users outside the own region 2002200320042006200720082009 4 Mio 8 Mio 12 Mio 16 Mio

47. Does it matter if we loose users? Estimated domestic users (all alpine countries) Users outside the own region Integrated outside users 2002200320042006200720082009 4 Mio 8 Mio 12 Mio 16 Mio

48. Additional users 2007 2009 2008 4 Mio 8 Mio 12 Mio 16 Mio

49. Additional users 2007 2009 2008 20 Mio Users! 4 Mio 8 Mio 12 Mio 16 Mio

50. Technical solution: 1. Production in each country 2. production on a single website + deep link

51. Txs for your attention!!