MLMarkus Landrø

Markus Landrø

*This is an algorithmically generated author record based on publicly available information.

Current Organizations / Institutes

The organizations/institutes from the scholar's latest article

Previous Organizations / Institutes

The organizations / institutes from the scholar's other articles in the past ten years


Markus Landrø has a total of 18 co-authors. Here are the top co-authors by number of shared publications:


Latest Publications

  • Open Access

    From Autonomy to Coordination: Informal Leader Emergence and Group Safety in Backcountry Skiing

    by Guang Rong, Lauri Ahonen, Gerit Pfuhl, Markus Landrø, Audun Hetland, Benjamin Cowley

    Outdoor recreation offers a natural testbed of informal leader emergence (ILE): autonomy is prized, yet coordination can be safety-critical. We study ILE in backcountry (BC) skiing across two linked studies. Study 1 (215 skiers) compared group-function appraisals between ILE-perceivers and non-perceivers. ILE-perceivers rated Skill lower (overall group dynamics slightly lower), while Trust and Confidence were comparably good. Factor analyses revealed distinct evaluative lenses: with-leader accounts emphasized Openness, Relevant competence, and Sense of involvement; without-leader accounts emphasized Preparedness and Harmony—interpreted as group skill configuration and decision-making climate. Study 2 (250 skiers in 100 groups) used path analysis to test how skill configuration and decision processes relate to ILE and safety outcomes. Greater within-group dispersion of avalanche-assessment skill (Group Skill Dispersion; GSD) predicted more ILE and related negatively to both group mitigation practices enacted (nGMP) and Individual Confidence; Decision Involvement (DI) robustly increased confidence. By contrast, the group’s Maximum Assessment Skill, Democratic Decision Climate, and ILE itself were not reliable correlates of nGMP or Confidence once GSD and DI were modeled. Exploratory multi-group tests indicated the GSD–nGMP association was more negative when ILE was low; confidence pathways were largely invariant. Together, the studies suggest ILE in BC skiing is chiefly compensatory for uneven intra-group assessment skills, while skill configuration and participation are the proximate levers of group functioning. Practically, reducing GSD through partner matching and on-trip calibration, and facilitating DI, are key levers—and when GSD is inevitably high, recognizing a leader can restore group outcomes to those achieved under low GSD.

  • Open Access

    How hard do avalanche practitioners tap during snow stability tests?

    by Håvard B. Toft, Samuel V. Verplanck, Markus Landrø

    This study examines the impact force applied from hand taps during extended column tests (ECTs), a common method of assessing snow stability. The hand-tap loading method has inherent subjectivity and inconsistencies across US, Canadian, Swiss, and Norwegian written standards. We developed a device, the “tap-o-meter”, to measure the force-time curves during these taps and collected data from 286 practitioners, including avalanche forecasters and mountain guides in Scandinavia, Central Europe, and North America. The mean, median, and inner-quartile peak forces are distinctly different for each loading step (wrist, elbow, and shoulder), and the peak force approximately doubles from one loading step to the next. However, there is considerable overlap across the range of measurements and examples of participants with higher-force wrist taps than other participants' shoulder taps. This overlap challenges the reliability and reproducibility of ECT results, potentially leading to dangerous interpretations in avalanche decision-making, forecasting, and risk assessments. Our results provide an answer to the question “How hard do avalanche practitioners tap?” but not necessarily to the question “How hard should avalanche practitioners tap?” These data and insights are intended to facilitate discussion among the tests' creators, the scientific community, and the practitioner community to update thresholds, guidelines, and test interpretation.


  • Open Access

    Reply on RC1

    by Håvard Boutera Toft, Samuel V. Verplanck, Markus Landrø

    This study examines the impact force applied from hand taps during Extended Column Tests (ECT), a common method of assessing snow stability. The hand-tap loading method has inconsistencies across the United States, Canadian, and Norwegian written standards, as well as inherent subjectivity. We developed a device, the “tap-o-meter”, to measure the force-time curves during these taps and collected data from 286 practitioners, including avalanche forecasters and mountain guides in Scandinavia, Central Europe, and North America. Peak forces and loading rates are the metrics chosen to quantitatively compare the data. The mean, median, and inner quartile peak forces are distinctly different for each loading step (wrist, elbow and shoulder), as are the loading rates. However, there is significant overlap across the range of measurements and examples of participants with higher force wrist taps than other participants' shoulder taps. This overlap challenges the reliability and reproducibility of ECT results, potentially leading to dangerous interpretations in avalanche decision-making, forecasting and risk assessments. Therefore, we recommend updating the standards for the ECT. We propose two viable paths for future action: (1) define a target impact force-time curve for each tap level and develop tools and training to minimize variability in tapping force (2) assess the significance of the information derived from the number of taps. If deemed not highly valuable, we should consider reverting to a simpler binary interpretation that focuses exclusively on crack propagation.

  • Open Access

    Reply on RC2

    by Håvard Boutera Toft, Samuel V. Verplanck, Markus Landrø

    This study examines the impact force applied from hand taps during Extended Column Tests (ECT), a common method of assessing snow stability. The hand-tap loading method has inconsistencies across the United States, Canadian, and Norwegian written standards, as well as inherent subjectivity. We developed a device, the “tap-o-meter”, to measure the force-time curves during these taps and collected data from 286 practitioners, including avalanche forecasters and mountain guides in Scandinavia, Central Europe, and North America. Peak forces and loading rates are the metrics chosen to quantitatively compare the data. The mean, median, and inner quartile peak forces are distinctly different for each loading step (wrist, elbow and shoulder), as are the loading rates. However, there is significant overlap across the range of measurements and examples of participants with higher force wrist taps than other participants' shoulder taps. This overlap challenges the reliability and reproducibility of ECT results, potentially leading to dangerous interpretations in avalanche decision-making, forecasting and risk assessments. Therefore, we recommend updating the standards for the ECT. We propose two viable paths for future action: (1) define a target impact force-time curve for each tap level and develop tools and training to minimize variability in tapping force (2) assess the significance of the information derived from the number of taps. If deemed not highly valuable, we should consider reverting to a simpler binary interpretation that focuses exclusively on crack propagation.

  • Open Access

    How hard do we tap during snow stability tests?

    by Håvard Boutera Toft, Samuel V. Verplanck, Markus Landrø

    This study examines the impact force applied from hand taps during Extended Column Tests (ECT), a common method of assessing snow stability. The hand-tap loading method has inconsistencies across the United States, Canadian, and Norwegian written standards, as well as inherent subjectivity. We developed a device, the “tap-o-meter”, to measure the force-time curves during these taps and collected data from 286 practitioners, including avalanche forecasters and mountain guides in Scandinavia, Central Europe, and North America. Peak forces and loading rates are the metrics chosen to quantitatively compare the data. The mean, median, and inner quartile peak forces are distinctly different for each loading step (wrist, elbow and shoulder), as are the loading rates. However, there is significant overlap across the range of measurements and examples of participants with higher force wrist taps than other participants' shoulder taps. This overlap challenges the reliability and reproducibility of ECT results, potentially leading to dangerous interpretations in avalanche decision-making, forecasting and risk assessments. Therefore, we recommend updating the standards for the ECT. We propose two viable paths for future action: (1) define a target impact force-time curve for each tap level and develop tools and training to minimize variability in tapping force (2) assess the significance of the information derived from the number of taps. If deemed not highly valuable, we should consider reverting to a simpler binary interpretation that focuses exclusively on crack propagation.

  • Open Access

    Challenges of Using Signaling Data From Telecom Network in Non-Urban Areas

    by Håvard Toft, Alexey Sirotkin, Markus Landrø, Rune Verpe Engeset, Jordy Hendrikx

    Outdoor recreation continues to increase in popularity. In Norway, several avalanche fatalities are recorded every year, but the accurate calculation of a fatal accident rate is impossible without knowing how many people are exposed. We attempted to employ signaling data from telecom network data to enumerate backcountry travelers in avalanche terrain. Each signaling data event contains information about which coverage area the phone is connected to and timestamp. There is no triangulation, making it impossible to know whether the associated phone is moving or stationary within the coverage area. Hence, it's easier to track the phone's movement through different coverage areas. We utilize this by enumerating the number of people with phones traveling to avalanche-prone terrain for the 2019/2020 winter season. We estimated that 13,666 phones were in avalanche terrain during the season, ranging from 0 to 118 phones/day with an average of 75 phones/day. We correlated the number of phones per day against amount of daylight (R2=0.186, p-value <0.01), weekends and holidays (R2=0.073, p-value <0.01), number of bulletin views (R2=0.045, p-value <0.01). Unfortunately, the validation revealed discrepancies between the estimated positions in the mobile network and the true reference positions as collected with a GPS. We attribute this to the algorithm being designed to measure urban mobility and the long distance between the base transceiver stations in mountainous areas. This lack of coherence between the signaling data and GPS records for rural areas in Norway has implication for the utility of signaling data outside of urban regions.


  • Should I judge safety or danger? Perceived risk depends on the question frame.

    by Matthew B. Stephensen, Christin Schulze, Markus Landrø, Jordy Hendrikx, Audun Hetland

    Linguistic polarity is a natural characteristic of judgments: Is that situation safe/dangerous? How difficult/easy was the task? Is that politician honest/dishonest? Across six studies (N = 1599), we tested how the qualitative frame of the question eliciting a risk judgment influenced risk perception and behavior intention. Using a series of hypothetical scenarios of skiing in avalanche terrain, experienced backcountry skiers judged either how safe or how dangerous each scenario was and indicated whether they would ski the scenario. Phrasing risk judgments in terms of safety elicited lower judged safety values, which in turn resulted in a lower likelihood of intending to ski the slope. The frame "safe" did not evoke a more positive assessment than the frame "danger" as might be expected under a valence-consistent or communication-driven framing effect. This seemingly paradoxical direction of the effect suggests that the question frame directed attention in a way that guided selective information sampling. Uncertainty was not required for this effect as it was observed when judging objectively safe, uncertain, and dangerous scenarios. These findings advance our theoretical understanding of framing effects and can inform the development of practices that harness question framing for applied risk perception and communication. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).


  • Open Access

    Should I judge safety or danger? Perceived risk depends on the question frame

    by Matthew Benjamin Stephensen, Christin Schulze, Markus Landrø, Jordy Hendrikx, Audun Hetland

    Linguistic polarity is a natural characteristic of judgments: Is that situation safe/dangerous? How difficult/easy was the task? Is that politician honest/dishonest? Across six studies (N = 1599), we tested how the qualitative frame of the question eliciting a risk judgment influenced risk perception and behavior intention. Using a series of hypothetical scenarios of skiing in avalanche terrain, experienced backcountry skiers judged either how safe or how dangerous each scenario was and indicated whether they would ski the scenario. Phrasing risk judgments in terms of safety elicited lower judged safety values, which in turn resulted in a lower likelihood of intending to ski the slope. The frame “safe” did not evoke a more positive assessment than the frame “danger” as might be expected under a valence-consistent or communication-driven framing effect. This seemingly paradoxical direction of the effect suggests that the question frame directed attention in a way that guided selective information sampling. Uncertainty was not required for this effect as it was observed when judging objectively safe, uncertain, and dangerous scenarios. These findings advance our theoretical understanding of framing effects and can inform the development of practices that harness question framing for applied risk perception and communication.


  • Open Access

    Avalanche decision-making frameworks: Classification and description of underlying factors

    by Markus Landrø, Gerit Pfuhl, Rune Engeset, Miriam Jackson, Audun Hetland


  • Open Access

    Communicating public avalanche warnings – what works?

    by Rune V. Engeset, Gerit Pfuhl, Markus Landrø, Andrea Mannberg, Audun Hetland

    Like many other mountainous countries, Norway has experienced a rapid increase in both recreational winter activities and fatalities in avalanche terrain during the past few decades: during the decade 2008–2017, 64 recreational avalanche fatalities were recorded in Norway. This is a 106 % increase from that of the previous decade. In 2013, Norway therefore launched the National Avalanche Warning Service (NAWS), which provides avalanche warnings to transport and preparedness authorities and to the public. Previous studies suggest that avalanche warnings are used extensively in trip and preparedness planning and have a relatively strong influence on the decisions people make in order to reduce risk. However, no evaluation concerning how efficiently the warnings are communicated and understood has been done to date in Norway. Avalanche warnings communicate complex natural phenomena with a variable complexity and level of uncertainty about both the future and the present. In order to manage avalanche risk successfully, it is fundamental that the warning message can be understood and translated into practice by a wide range of different user groups. Users with little or no avalanche competence may need simple information to decide when to stay away from avalanche terrain, while professional users may need advanced technical details in order to make their decisions. To evaluate how different modes of communication are understood, and how efficiently the informational content is communicated, we designed and implemented a web-based user survey. The modes of presentation were based on the Varsom.no 2017 version (Varsom.no being the national portal for natural hazard warnings in Norway). We first used a panel of 110 experts from NAWS to answer the survey, and used their answers to establish the indented message of the avalanche warning. We thereafter received responses from 264 users and compared their answers to those of the NAWS experts for the different modes of communication. We developed a method, the comprehension effectiveness score, to test the comprehension. Our empirical analyses suggest that most users find the warning service to be useful and well suited to their needs. However, the effectiveness of a warnings seems to be influenced by the competency of the user and the complexity of the scenarios. We discuss the findings and make recommendations on how to improve communication of avalanche warnings.