Brief communication: Keeping pace with human factors in avalanche decision‑making&mdash;an update to the NHESS scoping review (2023&ndash;2026)

Hetland, Audun; Myksvoll, Olav Kvåle; Westerlund, Tarjei; Mannberg, Andrea; Hetland, Rebecca Anne

doi:10.5194/egusphere-2026-3189

Preprints

https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-3189

Preprints

12 Jun 2026

| 12 Jun 2026

Brief communication: Keeping pace with human factors in avalanche decision‑making—an update to the NHESS scoping review (2023–2026)

Audun Hetland, Olav Kvåle Myksvoll, Tarjei Westerlund, Andrea Mannberg, and Rebecca Anne Hetland

Abstract. We update our NHESS scoping review of human factors in avalanche decision‑making to include 35 peer‑reviewed studies published 1 Jan 2023–13 May 2026. New work concentrates in Decision‑making strategies (9/35), with additions to Willingness to take risk (5/35), Population characteristics (4/35), Theory and Methods (5/35), Risk communication (3/35), Social factors and group decision‑making (3/35), Risk perception (2/35), and Avalanche accidents (1/35), Motivation (1/35); Avalanche education (1/35), Experience (1/35), none in Biases. Methods and sampling resemble the baseline. We recommend causal identification, behavioral linkage, and group‑level designs. Data and scripts are openly provided; this is a time‑bounded snapshot with a defined cut‑off.

Received: 02 Jun 2026 – Discussion started: 12 Jun 2026

Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this paper. While Copernicus Publications makes every effort to include appropriate place names, the final responsibility lies with the authors. Views expressed in the text are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher.

Download & links

Audun Hetland, Olav Kvåle Myksvoll, Tarjei Westerlund, Andrea Mannberg, and Rebecca Anne Hetland

Status: closed

RC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2026-3189', Benjamin Zweifel, 17 Jun 2026

Thanks to the authors for this update, which keeps the overview of human-factor-related research in avalanche terrain up to date. I recommend accepting the manuscript in its current form. I have only one minor comment.
The term New Work (as used in the abstract) appears to be used somewhat inaccurately in this context. New Work traditionally refers to a broader concept encompassing autonomy, meaningful work, self-determination, and organisational transformation. The authors may wish to reconsider the use of this term or clarify its intended meaning. If the authors simply refer to newly published studies, the term “new studies” may be more appropriate.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-3189-RC1
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Audun Hetland, 24 Jul 2026
  
  Thank you for your kind feedback on this paper.
  And to the comment on New Work - this is not intentional and we will change it to new publications.
  Well spotted
  Thanks again
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-3189-AC1
RC2:
'Comment on egusphere-2026-3189', Philip A. Ebert, 24 Jun 2026

The paper acts merely as an update to a previously published and very relevant scoping review. It provides external links to a list of new papers relevant to the original review but no siginifanct new analysis or insights can be learned from the communication. IT aims to be just that: a communication to readers that the resource received an update. It's fine to have a brief communication that an updated has taken place. I wonder whether the authors should just turn the note into a more open ended commitment to provide regular brief updates with fixed links to DOI'd resource that will be updated every few years.. Maybe this is not what the authors are aiming for, but maybe something to consider.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-3189-RC2
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Audun Hetland, 24 Jul 2026
  
  Thank you for the feedback on our paper.
  
  Yes - this is just an update to the literature review and a brief overview of how the literature has developed since the initial review.
  
  We have an intention to keep the literature up to date - however, in our current workflow this is all done manually and is rather labour intensive - but in the age of AI we will investigate if there are other ways to keep the literature up to date going into the future while still keeping the same strict criteria for inclusion and coding.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-3189-AC2

Status: closed

RC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2026-3189', Benjamin Zweifel, 17 Jun 2026

Thanks to the authors for this update, which keeps the overview of human-factor-related research in avalanche terrain up to date. I recommend accepting the manuscript in its current form. I have only one minor comment.
The term New Work (as used in the abstract) appears to be used somewhat inaccurately in this context. New Work traditionally refers to a broader concept encompassing autonomy, meaningful work, self-determination, and organisational transformation. The authors may wish to reconsider the use of this term or clarify its intended meaning. If the authors simply refer to newly published studies, the term “new studies” may be more appropriate.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-3189-RC1
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Audun Hetland, 24 Jul 2026
  
  Thank you for your kind feedback on this paper.
  And to the comment on New Work - this is not intentional and we will change it to new publications.
  Well spotted
  Thanks again
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-3189-AC1
RC2:
'Comment on egusphere-2026-3189', Philip A. Ebert, 24 Jun 2026

The paper acts merely as an update to a previously published and very relevant scoping review. It provides external links to a list of new papers relevant to the original review but no siginifanct new analysis or insights can be learned from the communication. IT aims to be just that: a communication to readers that the resource received an update. It's fine to have a brief communication that an updated has taken place. I wonder whether the authors should just turn the note into a more open ended commitment to provide regular brief updates with fixed links to DOI'd resource that will be updated every few years.. Maybe this is not what the authors are aiming for, but maybe something to consider.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-3189-RC2
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Audun Hetland, 24 Jul 2026
  
  Thank you for the feedback on our paper.
  
  Yes - this is just an update to the literature review and a brief overview of how the literature has developed since the initial review.
  
  We have an intention to keep the literature up to date - however, in our current workflow this is all done manually and is rather labour intensive - but in the age of AI we will investigate if there are other ways to keep the literature up to date going into the future while still keeping the same strict criteria for inclusion and coding.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-3189-AC2

Audun Hetland, Olav Kvåle Myksvoll, Tarjei Westerlund, Andrea Mannberg, and Rebecca Anne Hetland

Viewed

Total article views: 110 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)

HTML	PDF	XML	Total	BibTeX	EndNote
83	19	8	110	6	7

HTML: 83
PDF: 19
XML: 8
Total: 110
BibTeX: 6
EndNote: 7

Views and downloads (calculated since 12 Jun 2026)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Jun 2026	31	3	1	35
Jul 2026	39	13	6	58
Aug 2026	13	3	1	17

Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 12 Jun 2026)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Jun 2026	31	3	1	35
Jul 2026	39	13	6	58
Aug 2026	13	3	1	17

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 100 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 100 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.

Country	#	Views	%

Latest update: 24 Aug 2026

Short summary

Every year, people are caught in avalanches they themselves triggered, and most had some safety training. This study asked what research has learned about how people make decisions in avalanche terrain. We reviewed 35 recent studies and found growth concentrated in decision strategies and methods, with cognitive bias research notably absent. The findings point toward causal research designs and field-based education that meets recreationists where they actually are in the mountains.


Total:	0
HTML:	0
PDF:	0
XML:	0