Spatial consistency and bias in avalanche forecasts – a case study in the European Alps
Spatial consistency and bias in avalanche forecasts – a case study in the European Alps
复制标题
雪崩预报的空间一致性和偏差——欧洲阿尔卑斯山的案例研究
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2018
影响因子：
4.6
通讯作者：
R. Purves
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
F. Techel;C. Mitterer;E. Ceaglio;C. Coléou;S. Morin;F. Rastelli;R. Purves
抽象的。在欧洲阿尔卑斯山，公众提供区域雪崩
整个冬季，大约30个预报中心发布的预报，
覆盖空间上连续的区域。这些预测中的一个关键因素是，
雪崩危险的沟通，按照五个级别，顺序
欧洲雪崩危险等级（埃兹）。在应用中的一致性
各预报中心的雪崩危险等级是至关重要的，
避免用户的误解或误解，特别是那些
利用不同预报中心发布的公告。的质量
雪崩预测很难验证，由于分类性质，
在埃兹中，我们通过关注空间
一致性和偏差，从四个冬季探索真实的预测危险水平
季节（477天预报）。我们描述了操作限制
与雪崩公告的制作和传播有关，
我们提出了一种定量探索空间一致性的方法，
和偏见我们注意到，预测的危险水平远低于
通常在跨国家和预报中心边界进行比较时（约
60%）比在预报中心边界内（约90%）。
此外，多个预报中心也表现出显著的系统性，
在更频繁地使用较低（或较高）危险级别方面的差异
比他们的邻居。在分析这些问题时，
预测危险级别为4 -高和5 -非常高的比例。的
警告区域的大小，明确规定的最小地理范围
预测产品的基础领域，
预报中心。区域大小也对所有总结有重大影响
统计，是影响发布危险等级的关键参数，
也限制了危险等级的空间变化的通信。
雪崩生产和通信中的操作限制
本地对埃兹的解释方式的预测和变化可能
造成不一致，可能是
预测用户的误解。所有这些问题都突出表明，
进一步协调预报生产过程和雪崩方式
传达危险，以提高一致性，从而促进
旅行用户的跨境预报解释。
Abstract. In the European Alps, the public is provided with regional avalanche
forecasts, issued by about 30 forecast centers throughout the winter,
covering a spatially contiguous area. A key element in these forecasts is the
communication of avalanche danger according to the five-level, ordinal
European Avalanche Danger Scale (EADS). Consistency in the application of the
avalanche danger levels by the individual forecast centers is essential to
avoid misunderstandings or misinterpretations by users, particularly those
utilizing bulletins issued by different forecast centers. As the quality of
avalanche forecasts is difficult to verify, due to the categorical nature of
the EADS, we investigated forecast goodness by focusing on spatial
consistency and bias, exploring real forecast danger levels from four winter
seasons (477 forecast days). We describe the operational constraints
associated with the production and communication of the avalanche bulletins,
and we propose a methodology to quantitatively explore spatial consistency
and bias. We note that the forecast danger level agreed significantly less
often when compared across national and forecast center boundaries (about
60 %) than within forecast center boundaries (about 90 %).
Furthermore, several forecast centers showed significant systematic
differences in terms of more frequently using lower (or higher) danger levels
than their neighbors. Discrepancies seemed to be greatest when analyzing the
proportion of forecasts with danger level 4 – high and 5 – very high. The
size of the warning regions, the smallest geographically clearly specified
areas underlying the forecast products, differed considerably between
forecast centers. Region size also had a significant impact on all summary
statistics and is a key parameter influencing the issued danger level, but it
also limits the communication of spatial variations in the danger level.
Operational constraints in the production and communication of avalanche
forecasts and variation in the ways the EADS is interpreted locally may
contribute to inconsistencies and may be potential sources for
misinterpretation by forecast users. All these issues highlight the need to
further harmonize the forecast production process and the way avalanche
hazard is communicated to increase consistency and hence facilitate
cross-border forecast interpretation by traveling users.