Chapter 7 Programming for Risks

1. Chapter 7 Programming for Risks C H A P T E R 7 Programming for Risks

2. 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.

3. 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)

4. 2 x 2 Risk Matrix (continued)

5. 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

6. Low Actual and Low Perceived Risks • The actual risks present are low and the participants perceive the risks as low. • Example: A lazy riverride

7. 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

8. Drowning Trap

9. 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

10. 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)

11. 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.

12. Inverted-U Curve

13. Five Categories of the AEP • Devastation and disaster • Misadventure • Peak adventure • Exploration and experimentation • Adventure

14. AEP Integrates Inverted-U and Flow Models

15. Adventure Categories • 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.

16. 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)

17. AEP From the Participant’s Perspective (continued)

18. 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.

19. 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).

20. 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.