the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Assessment of avalanche hazard of freeride skiing areas
Abstract. Freeride skiing and ski touring have been growing in popularity in Slovakia as an alternative to crowded ski slopes, offering skiers the thrill of untracked snow and challenging terrain. However, venturing into unmanaged mountain areas exposes participants to significantly greater dangers, especially avalanches and risk of falling. This study presents an approach for assessing avalanche hazard of freeride areas, demonstrated at the Jasná ski resort in Slovakia's Low Tatras. Using high-quality elevation data, precise vegetation mapping, and historical avalanche records, potential avalanche release zones were identified, their potential run-out paths for skier trigger avalanches (≤ size 3) were modelled, and the frequency in which are avalanches likely to occur on different slopes were approximated. Results show that 15.9 % of the area has high to very high release potential, with the most hazardous slopes concentrated on steep, north-facing terrain above 1700 metres. Simulations of more than 180 avalanche scenarios produced run-outs covering 44 % of the area. Frequency analysis found that 64.9 % of avalanche-prone slopes in freeride zones are subject to very frequent activity. Moreover, frequency approximation achieved 82,61 % match with intersecting areas of the existing avalanche cadastre. Based on the results the freeride zones were divided into 4 groups based on their danger level. The proposed approach can be adapted to other mountain regions and may be further improved by automating vegetation mapping, modelling additional avalanche types, and using open-source simulation tools.
- Preprint
(1593 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-4220', Håvard Boutera Toft, 16 Sep 2025
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Adam Kupec, 21 Oct 2025
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-4220', Anonymous Referee #2, 06 Nov 2025
The topic—avalanche hazard assessment for freeride skiing areas—is relevant for mountain risk management. However, the scientific contribution and methodological soundness are questionable. The study mainly combines existing approaches (Biskupič & Barka model and RAMMS simulations) without introducing a clearly defined methodological innovation. Furthermore, the validity of the approach for freeride-scale avalanches is uncertain, given the limitations of the applied model and the arbitrary selection of simulation parameters.
The overall robustness of the study is insufficient.
Starting points for avalanche simulations were selected randomly rather than defined by expert judgment or objective terrain analysis. This introduces significant uncertainty and undermines reproducibility and physical realism.
The RAMMS model version used (RAMMS:Avalanche) is not calibrated for small, skier-triggered avalanches (≤ size 3), which are the focus of this paper. The authors acknowledge this limitation but still base their conclusions on these simulations.No clear uncertainty or sensitivity assessment is provided. The validation (82.61 % overlap with cadastre) does not adequately measure model performance because both datasets may contain inherent spatial inaccuracies.Consequently, the results appear qualitative rather than quantitatively validated, and the methodology cannot be confidently generalized to other mountain areas.
The methods section provides many technical details but lacks a clearly structured, reproducible framework. Input data processing steps (DEM manipulation, vegetation classification) are described in detail, but the logical reasoning behind parameter choices is missing. The linkage between model inputs, assumptions, and outputs is weak. The approach’s transferability to other freeride areas is not convincingly demonstrated.
The discussion repeats descriptive results without deeper analysis or critical interpretation. It acknowledges model limitations but still presents the findings as reliable, which is inconsistent.
The conclusion should explicitly state that the current model configuration has limited applicability to freeride conditions, rather than suggesting general adaptability.Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-4220-RC2 - AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Adam Kupec, 14 Nov 2025
Data sets
Assessment of avalanche hazard of freeride skiing areas Adam Kupec and Štefan Koco https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.16961371
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1,091 | 44 | 17 | 1,152 | 13 | 11 |
- HTML: 1,091
- PDF: 44
- XML: 17
- Total: 1,152
- BibTeX: 13
- EndNote: 11
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
See attached PDF for review comments.