Exploring motivations of winter backcountry recreationists in support of avalanche risk communication
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Following best practices from risk communication research, there are growing efforts to better understand avalanche forecast users and find opportunities to improve the effectiveness of avalanche safety information products and services. While motivations are a well-established topic in the recreation literature, the avalanche safety community has so far only paid limited attention to this dimension of their target community. The objective of this study is to examine 1) the importance of different motivations related to the types of experiences recreationists seek in the winter backcountry, 2) whether we can identify distinct motivation profiles among our sample of backcountry recreationists, and 3) how these motivations relate to other measures of backcountry and avalanche safety practices such as preferred backcountry terrain, level of formal avalanche safety training, and primary winter backcountry activity. Drawing from the avalanche forecast research panels of the Euregio and Swiss Avalanche Warning Services, we examined patterns in 15 motivation items among 2121 European winter backcountry recreationists. Overall, we found a clear hierarchy of motivations from least to most important. While the motivations vary on a continuum, we identified six clusters with distinct motivation patterns using a k-means approach: the Overall Keeners, Less Enthusiastic, Serenity Seekers , Skills Focused, Summit Focused, and Challenge & Risk Minded . Our analyses of the relationships between motivations, terrain preferences, avalanche safety training level, and primary winter backcountry activity show the expected patterns but also highlight the wide range of motivational patterns that exist across the community and warrant a more comprehensive characterization beyond the traditional focus on backcountry activity and avalanche safety training level. Our results provide initial practical insights into how knowledge of recreationists’ motivations and preferences can be leveraged to design more targeted avalanche safety products and services intended to resonate better with the motivations, needs, and capabilities of different audiences.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".