the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 12 Jun 2026
Brief communication: Keeping pace with human factors in avalanche decision‑making—an update to the NHESS scoping review (2023–2026)
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.
- Preprint
(582 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 24 Jul 2026)
- RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-3189', Benjamin Zweifel, 17 Jun 2026 reply
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-3189', Philip A. Ebert, 24 Jun 2026
reply
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
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 31 | 3 | 1 | 35 | 0 | 2 |
- HTML: 31
- PDF: 3
- XML: 1
- Total: 35
- BibTeX: 0
- EndNote: 2
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
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.