Chapter 7 Programming for Risks

Chapter 7 Programming for Risks

7

Programming for RisksProgramming for Risks

C H A P T E R

Programming for Risks

• Traditionally, safety managers seek to eliminate any and all risks.

• The recreation and park field and the outdoor field in particular embrace risk as an important component in challenge activities.

• The question becomes how to properly program for risks.

2 x 2 Risk Matrix

• Compares the relationship of actual versus perceived risks when designing programs

• Complements the adventure experience paradigm (AEP)

• Focuses on designing an activity that provides the appropriate experience

• Four quadrants of actual and perceived risk

(continued)

2 x 2 Risk Matrix (continued)

High Actual and High Perceived Risks

• Participants recognize that a high-risk situation is high risk.

• Participants tend to be receptive to the risks present.

• For those seeking mastery, actual risks are an integral part of the activity.

• Example: The Upper Youghiogheny River

Low Actual and Low Perceived Risks

• The actual risks present are low and the participants perceive the risks as low.

• Example: A lazy river ride

High Actual and Low Perceived Risks

• Participants do not recognize the high risks present.

• This category is potentially dangerous for recreation programmers.

• This category requires educating participants of the dangers or mitigating the actual risks on behalf of the participants.

• Example: The drowning trap

Drowning Trap

Low Actual and High Perceived Risks

• This category is full of chills and thrills but is relatively safe.

• This is a good programming strategy for activities in which participants do not seek mastery.

• Example: A roller coaster

AEP

• Built on optimal arousal theory and flow concepts

• Inverted-U curve and flow models

• Superimposes a participant topology on the flow model (risks and challenges)

(continued)

AEP (continued)

• Perform slower than optimum and performance decreases because participant becomes bored.

• Perform faster than optimum and performance decreases because of errors.

• Perform at optimum level and flow-type experience can result.

Inverted-U Curve

Five Categories of the AEP

• Devastation and disaster

• Misadventure

• Peak adventure

• Exploration and experimentation

• Adventure

AEP Integrates Inverted-U and Flow Models

• Peak adventure occurs when the resultant outcome matches perceived challenges with participant’s competency.

• Misadventure or devastation and disaster result when actual risks significantly exceed perceived risks.

• Adventure or exploration and experimentation occur when competence exceed risks.

Adventure Categories

AEP From the Participant’s Perspective

• The paradigm juxtaposes participant’s perceived risks and participant’s actual competence.

• The resultant outcome is the relationship between the perceived risk and actual competence.

(continued)

AEP From the Participant’s Perspective (continued)

Programming Implications

• 2 x 2 risk matrix and AEP provide programming strategies.

• They provide situations to avoid.

– Devastation and disaster, misadventure

– Situations that are high in actual risk and low in perceived risk

• The models provide strategies to help optimize the experience provided.

Legal Implications

• Know and practice the common practices of the activity and the standards of the industry serving the activity.

• Know which risks contribute to the experience and which do not (e.g., a worn-out climbing rope does not increase the challenge in a climbing activity).

Summary

• The recreation and park industry tends to embrace risk as an integral component of their programs.

• For general recreational activities, consider those low in actual risk and high in perceived risk (e.g., a roller coaster).

• The AEP is applicable to most recreational experiences involving mastery or challenge.