1 / 20

Chapter 7 Programming for Risks

Chapter 7 Programming for Risks. C H A P T E R. 7. Programming for Risks. Programming for Risks. Traditionally, safety managers seek to eliminate any and all risks.

ovidio
Download Presentation

Chapter 7 Programming for Risks

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  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.

More Related