risk and provider responsibility in outdoor adventure activities

This article was downloaded by: [University of Chicago Library]On: 15 November 2014, At: 21:30Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office:Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Teacher Development: An internationaljournal of teachers' professionaldevelopmentPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscriptioninformation:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rtde20

Risk and provider responsibility in outdooradventure activitiesSue Thomas a & Carole Raymond aa University of Exeter , United KingdomPublished online: 20 Dec 2006.

To cite this article: Sue Thomas & Carole Raymond (1998) Risk and provider responsibility in outdooradventure activities, Teacher Development: An international journal of teachers' professionaldevelopment, 2:2, 265-281, DOI: 10.1080/13664539800200054

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13664539800200054

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, ouragents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to theaccuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the viewsof or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied uponand should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francisshall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses,damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly inconnection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantialor systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access anduse can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rtde20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/13664539800200054

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13664539800200054

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Risk and Provider Responsibility in Outdoor Adventure Activities

SUE THOMAS & CAROLE RAYMONDUniversity of Exeter, United Kingdom

ABSTRACT Recent accidents to pupils, whilst involved in organised outdooradventure activities, prompted calls for a national review of safety procedures atactivity centres and sparked debate about the educational nature of outdoor activities inrelation to risk. Public opinion and perception that the outdoor medium, and adventureactivities in particular, are inherently hazardous and risky was largely responsible forthe statutory regulation of commercial activity providers through the Activity Centres(Young Persons’ Safety) Act 1995. This article considers some of the implications andconsequences of this legislation for schools. However, it also recognises that there ismore to the development of a safety culture than just increased regulation. Schools asproviders of outdoor adventure activities need to understand how and why accidentshappen and how they can manage the safety of participants. Risk assessments providethe first step in safety management and this article identifies the key principles of riskassessment and suggests how they can be used in the management of safety in outdooradventure activities.

Introduction

Within the last decade, educational initiatives have, in part, beeninstrumental in widening the boundaries of the classroom and the concept ofeducational knowledge to include both the outdoor environment andadventurous activities (Thomas, 1994). For example, changed priorityobjectives and a commitment to providing young people with the skills andcompetences necessary for citizenship have resulted in the outdoorenvironment being recognised as a relevant and valuable learning contextand as a medium for such cross-curricular objectives as environmentalawareness, personal and social development and health and safety.Similarly, the inclusion of outdoor and adventurous activities (OAA) as aProgramme of Study (PoS) within the National Curriculum for PhysicalEducation (NCPE) has both broadened the notion of what it is to bephysically educated and formally recognised the need for adventure in theeducation of young people. For many schools, opportunities for pupils toengage in field trips and outdoor pursuits such as canoeing, skiing and

RESPONSIBILITY IN OUTDOOR ADVENTURE ACTIVITIES

265

Teacher Development, Vol. 2, No. 2, 1998

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 2

1:30

15

Nov

embe

r 20

14

expedition experiences also form an important part of the extra-curriculardimension of school life. However, whilst it could be argued that youngpeople now have increased opportunities to learn in, about and through theoutdoor environment, this potential expansion is not unproblematic.

Unfortunately, the educational benefits of outdoor adventure activitieshave been overshadowed by a number of recent and well-publicisedaccidents involving school pupils on organised trips and activities.Accidents to pupils in the outdoor environment do little to dispel an alreadyadverse public perception that the outdoor medium, and adventure activitiesin particular, are inherently hazardous and risky. The aftermath of the 1993Lyme Bay tragedy, when four pupils died as the result of a canoeingaccident, also indicated that confidence in the safety precautions taken byproviders of adventure activities had reached an all-time low (Jacobs, 1996).The events at Lyme Bay on 22 March 1993, visibly highlighted the risks toparticipants when adventure leaders and providers failed to provide areasonable standard of care. They also prompted calls for a national reviewof safety procedures at adventure activity centres and resulted in thestatutory regulation of such activity providers through the Activity Centres(Young Persons’ Safety) Act 1995. Although schools, as providers ofadventure activity experiences, were exempt from the new legislation, this isnot to suggest that they are immune to the consequences of the newlegislation. On the contrary, there are many implications for schools.Evidence is beginning to emerge (Raymond & Thomas, 1999 forthcoming)that in response to new legislation and the present litigious age, someschools, terrified of being blamed in the courts, are withdrawing frominvolvement in outdoor adventure activities, thereby denying many youngpeople the opportunity to experience and learn in the outdoor environment.Never has awareness for the safety of children whilst engaged in outdooradventure activities been of such concern and never before hasresponsibility been so clearly defined.

This article recognises that there is risk in almost everything we do, butalso that conventional wisdom about the safety of many outdoor adventureactivities is at variance with the reality – that they are potentially no morehazardous than many everyday activities. However, reality requires us torecognise that in this safety conscious society we are moving to a statewhere any accident is perceived to be someone’s fault, from whomcompensation must be claimed as a matter of course. Litigation is a growingphenomenon. Increased regulation and legislation can play a part inimproving safety frameworks, and this article considers some of theimplications and consequences of recent legislation. However, we alsobelieve that providers of outdoor adventure activities need to understand andappreciate how, and why, accidents may happen and how they can managethe safety of their participants. Therefore, this article also aims to identifyfor teachers and others responsible for teacher development the nature ofaccidents in the outdoors and outline a risk assessment process that cancontribute to safety management in outdoor adventure activities.

SUE THOMAS & CAROLE RAYMOND

266

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 2

1:30

15

Nov

embe

r 20

14

The Nature of Outdoor Adventure and the Concept of Risk

The term outdoor adventure is currently a popular one and can be applied toactivities and experiences taking place in the outdoors that are exciting,physically and/or mentally challenging, and where participants confront realuncertainties (Ewert, 1989, Priest & Dixon, 1990). For example, anunfamiliar environment or doubts about one’s ability to achieve theobjective can make the experience adventurous. While challenge is centralto the concept of adventure, so too is the concept of risk. As Mortlock(1984) suggests, “risk is as basic to adventure as competition is to sport, butthe stakes are normally higher” (p. 30). The inclusion of risk is, therefore, anessential and desirable element of the learning experience, and as we(Raymond & Thomas, 1996) and others (see Bonnington, reported inGhouri, 1997) have argued, to remove such challenge from aspects of schoolprovision would be to alter fundamentally the character, appeal and integrityof the experience. Furthermore, many have recognised that there is risk ineverything that we do and that we would be failing our young people if, intheir rite of passage through life, we do not give them opportunities toengage in challenging activities and develop the ability to recognise, assessand respond to these and master the principles of safety (Department forEducation and Employment [DfEE], 1994; Health and Safety Executive[HSE], 1996a; Jacobs, 1996; Lowe, 1997; Purves, 1997). That said,activities should never be dangerous and the key question then becomes oneof what level of risk is acceptable for a young person.

It is this question that has posed the greatest dilemma. The removal ofall risk within adventure activities would not only be educationallyundesirable, but would also be very difficult to guarantee as unforeseenconditions, inappropriate decisions and/or inappropriate behaviour on thepart of participants can all generate unforeseen risk. Nevertheless, as theHSE (1996a) in their report following the Lyme Bay tragedy recognised, “itis essential that the risks inherent ... are reduced and controlled to tolerablelevels. In this way an environment can be created in which individuals canexperience the challenge and benefits of the activity, but with minimalactual risk to their safety” (p. 2). Adventure activity providers, whetherschools or commercial providers, are, therefore, engaged in the delicatebalance of maintaining some risks (acceptable risks) whilst controlling andminimising others (unacceptable risks). This will involve them in theimplementation of relevant legislation and in exercising their professionaljudgement in assessing the risk and ensuring that this is commensurate withthe planned learning outcomes.

Accidents in Adventure Education

There is little doubt that the tragedy at Lyme Bay increased the level ofconsciousness about safety in adventure education, but it could be arguedthat it also distorted the picture about the safety of adventure activities, with


267

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 2

1:30

15

Nov

embe

r 20

14

implications for all providers. We feel that it is worth putting this intoperspective.

In the lead-up to the Activity Centres (Young Persons’ Safety) Act1995, the HSE inspected 311 activity centres and concluded that “the overallattitude of providers to safety was positive ... the picture indicates a highlevel of safety awareness” (reported in Revell, 1997, p. 4). Similarly, Jacobs(1996) reported that more children are killed or injured travelling to andfrom activity centres than at the centres themselves and a survey by theOutward Bound Trust (reported in Hansard) also found that more childrenwere hurt falling down stairs at activity centres than injured whileparticipating in the adventure activities themselves. This would tend tosuggest that some adventure experiences are less risky than some aspects ofeveryday living and that participants in some adventure programmes may beexposed to lower levels of risk than they might normally encounter ineveryday living or during other types of educational activity such as schooltrips. The range of possible outdoor activities is recognised as havingdifferent risk levels and this point is one raised by Wharton (1996), whoargues that while the obvious risks for activities perceived as ‘high risk’such as climbing, canoeing, abseiling, may be greater than those identifiedfor ‘low-risk’ activities, such as initiative/problem-solving exercises or fieldtrips and visits, the high risk activities often have more controls (trainingcourses, National Governing Body qualifications and standards of goodpractice) which function to reduce and manage the level of actual risk. Manyso-called low-risk activities lack these controls and a hazardous imagewhich could make the potential risk greater. Wharton’s argument is evenmore compelling when the outdoor activity nature of some of the mostrecent accidents to schoolchildren are considered. In July 1997 an 11year-old boy died after falling 50 feet down a cliff during a nature ramble. Inthe same month, an 11 year-old girl drowned whilst on a school trip. InApril, a sixth form pupil fell 60 feet to his death from a hotel balcony whilston a school ski trip to Austria. In June 1996 a 13 year-old boy disappearedfrom a group being supervised by two teachers and an activity leader, whilethey were walking to the abseiling spot – his body was later found in a rockpool. In 1994 while taking part in a school sponsored walk, an 11 year-oldgirl fell into a storm swollen river and drowned. Add to this the accidentsand deaths of pupils from Altwood School (1989) and Stoke Poges MiddleSchool (Lands End 1985), both of which were regarded as low-risk schooltrips.

Put in perspective, and contrary to conventional wisdom, outdooradventure activities are often less risky than other school organised activitiesperceived to be of a less hazardous nature. In relation to accidents inadventure activities, Ford & Blanchard (1993) have also drawn a causaldistinction between the activity and people involved, arguing that theactivity does not cause accidents, people cause accidents by being in thewrong place, at the wrong time, with the wrong equipment and/or by makingwrong decisions. This is an important distinction to make and appreciate if


268

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 2

1:30

15

Nov

embe

r 20

14

we are fully to understand accidents and apply this knowledge towards riskmanagement and accident prevention in outdoor adventure activities.

Understanding the Anatomy of an Accident in Securing a Framework of Safety

While some accidents may be acceptable, they are only to the extent that anyinjuries are intrinsic to participation, recoverable and not disabling. Gettingwet, cold, tired, bruised or scratched can be the outcome of learning fromone’s mistakes, which is a central tenet of adventure education. Theavoidance of unacceptable accidents is what the management of risk is allabout. An understanding of why accidents happen is an important element ofthe risk management process. Elsewhere we have suggested that there aresimilarities as to why accidents happen (Raymond & Thomas, 1996). Inrelation to the accidents analysed, a common factor to emerge was that therewas not one, but a combination of errors culminating in tragedy. Evidencealso suggests that most accidents occur when two types of dangers (humanand environmental) are present and combine at the same time (Hale, 1983;Priest, 1996), For example, in the Lyme Bay accident, the cold and wetconditions, along with the sea state, wind direction and strength, created fiveenvironmental hazards. In addition, the inadequate equipment, pupil andleader inexperience, fatigue and poor judgement created five humanhazards. The likelihood of an accident often depends upon the number ofhazards and their interaction. The greater the hazards the more likely anaccident because more combinations among the environmental and humandangers are possible. Unfortunately, in the Lyme Bay accident theinteraction and combination of five environmental and five human dangers(5 x 5) created a situation in which an accident was 25 times more likelythan had there been just one danger in the environment and human domains.Hale’s approach is helpful to all outdoor adventure leaders because anidentification and assessment of the environmental and human hazards canenable the leader to recognise whether the potential of the risk of anaccident is present. It also addresses Ford & Blanchard’s point, that inrelation to risk management, leaders ignore the human dimension at theirperil.

Outdoor Adventure Activities: whose responsibility and what responsibility?

Schools which offer their pupils outdoor adventure draw upon a range ofproviders. This can range from suitably qualified teachers employed at theschool, parents, governors and other volunteers, to the local educationauthority (LEA) and commercial activity centre providers. Until 28 June1995, the main legislation governing practice and identifying responsibilityfor all providers was:


269

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 2

1:30

15

Nov

embe

r 20

14

x the Health and Safety at Work (HSW) Act 1974 section 7, which requiredschools and their teachers to take reasonable care for the health and safetyof themselves and others who may be affected by their actions oromissions;

x Health and Safety (First-Aid) Regulations 1981 requiring the provision oftrained first aiders and adequate and appropriate first aid equipment;

x the Management of Health and Safety at Work (MHSW) Regulations1992, which imposed a duty on governing bodies and headteachers toidentify and assess the levels of risk that exist in curriculum activities andto ensure the design and implementation of effective risk controlmeasures, appropriate systems, procedures and policies to manage,control and protect health and safety;

x the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1992 requiring theselection, maintenance and monitoring of suitable equipment used inactivities;

x the Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations 1992 requiringthe provision of suitable personal protective equipment (PPE) use andmaintenance of PPE (such as waterproofs, helmets, buoyancyaids/lifejackets, harnesses);

x Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations(RIDDOR) 1995, which imposes a duty on the “responsible person” (theheadteacher and /or governing body) to report to the HSE or localauthority accidents which result in death or major injuries or accidentswhich prevent the injured person from continuing at his/her normal workfor more than three days. Records of incidents must be made and retainedfor at least 3 years; and

x Common Law, wherein teachers are expected to act in loco parentis,exercising the same degree of responsibility for those in their care aswould any reasonably careful parent when looking after his or her ownchildren. Under Common Law, teachers or other persons leading andmanaging an activity should have regard for the health, safety and welfareof their pupils. Compliance with Common Law Duty is usually tested andassessed in relation to the provision of a safe working/learningenvironment, provision of safe systems of learning including the use ofappropriate progressions, the provision of adequate equipment andmaterials, the use of competent persons leading and/or managing theactivity and in the steps taken to protect pupils from unnecessary risk orinjury.

Under this legislation, headteachers, school governors, teachers and LEAswere held responsible for the safety of their pupils. This responsibilityextended whether the activities were provided by school staff or wherepupils were booked into an activity centre often involving matters,procedures and activities that school staff did not always have thecompetence to judge and/or control. Should there have been a question ofliability, this could have been imposed on the school governors and LEA.

The tragedy at Lyme Bay brought this, amongst other issues, to theforefront and resulted in the Activity Centres (Young Persons’ Safety) Act


270

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 2

1:30

15

Nov

embe

r 20

14

1995 and the Adventure Activities Licensing Regulations 1996. Under thisnew legislation, commercial providers of adventure activities to peopleunder the age of 18 are now required to obtain a licence to continue theiroperations. For most providers this extends their existing responsibilitiesunder the previous Health and Safety at Work legislation. For schools usingcommercial providers, the significance of the legislation is this: as long asthe adventure activity providers are licensed, liability is now transferredfrom the school to the providers of the activity in respect of any injury orloss. This is a significant and appropriate shift in responsibility and liability.

Commercial Providers’ Responsibilities and the Activity Centres (Young Persons’ Safety) Act 1995

The regulations require commercial providers of instruction or leadership inadventure activities to young people under 18 years of age to be licensed.Local authorities also need to obtain a licence as long as they are providingfacilities for educational establishments. However, the regulationsspecifically exclude voluntary associations (such as scout/guide groups andyouth clubs) providing adventure activities for their own members andfamily groups. Schools are also exempt where they are providing for theirown pupils, but they still have legal obligations of care .

While the possession of a licence will make it easier for a school toidentify reputable commercial providers, schools do need to be fully awareof the scope of the regulations and of the exemptions in order to avoid afalse sense of security. For instance, commercial providers are onlygoverned by the regulations if they are providing some element ofinstruction and leadership. Even though a centre may be licensed, schoolshiring the premises or equipment for adventure activities staffed in-housewould assume legal responsibility. For example, a school hiring sailingdinghies from an activity centre, but supplying instruction independent ofthe centre would assume leadership of the activity and hence legalresponsibility should things go wrong. Activity centres only hiring outpremises or equipment would not be considered to be providing adventureactivities and without some element of instruction or leadership, the newregulations would not be operative. Many schools also use commercialcentres abroad, but these centres may not be covered by the inspectionregime. Similarly, for the purposes of licensing, the regulations define onlycertain activities as adventure activities. There are also some exemptionsand grey areas within the activities (see NAOE, 1996).

Adventure Activities

x Caving: involving the underground exploration of natural caves and minesor quarries which are no longer worked (other than such passagesprincipally used as showplaces open to the public). These regulationsimply that almost all activities underground are covered. Visits to show


271

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 2

1:30

15

Nov

embe

r 20

14

caves, tourist mines and open ends of horizontal caves such as thosefound at the coast are excluded.

x Climbing: includes all climbing, traversing, abseiling and scramblingactivities except on purpose built walls and towers. A purpose-builtclimbing/abseiling tower or wall can be used for instruction withoutrequiring a licence. However, instruction on an artificial structure suchas an old railway bridge or viaduct is included and requires a licence.The popular activities of gorge walking and ghyll scrambling are alsoincluded.

x Trekking: includes walking, running, pony trekking, mountain biking,off-piste skiing and related activities when done in moorland or mountaincountry which is remote, i.e. land above 600 metres or open land morethan 30 minutes’ travelling time from the nearest road or refuge. Trekkingeffectively includes all travel, not just walking, and the 30 minutestipulation implies a distance of 2.5 kilometres at the most (theregulations specify that routes should be based on a metric version ofNaismith’s Rule which approximates to 5 kph on the flat and 1 minute per10 metres of assent).

x Watersports: includes canoeing, rafting, sailing and related activitieswhen done on the sea, tidal waters or larger placid inland waters. Boatspropelled by oars (rowing), motor propelled or towed rafts are excluded.Watersports do not cover any activity involving a powered craft. Added tothese exemptions, watersports are only included if they are undertaken onspecified waters. The regulations only apply to activities on the sea(regardless of distance from the shore), tidal waters, inland water whereany part of the water is more than 50 metres from the land (excluding anyislands), moving inland waters (where the surface can be made turbulentbecause of weirs, rapids, waterfalls and fast flowing currents). Thismeans that activities operating on placid inland water less than 100metres wide at its maximum are not covered.

In defining which adventure activities should be subject to statutoryregulation, the Health and Safety Commission focused on activities where:x there is significant risk of death;x the competence of the instructors/leaders is crucial;x the activity is vulnerable to the vagaries of the weather and environment;

andx there is significant risk to the safety of participants if things go wrong.

Consequences of the Act for Schools

Schools buying in adventure experiences for their pupils should, therefore,be very careful to establish exactly what activities will be undertaken andwhere these will operate. In addition, schools should recognise that somearrangements are excluded from the regulations, for example,accommodation, catering, travel and recreation/entertainment, of anypackage sold by providers and which are incidental to the instruction or


272

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 2

1:30

15

Nov

embe

r 20

14

leadership in adventure activities. In other words, buying into an outdooradventure package does not release school staff from all of their legalresponsibilities. The safety of the pupils can be entrusted to the instructortemporarily and party leaders should be clear about the division ofresponsibility.

As well as being aware of the scope of the regulations, schools need tobe aware of the implications and consequences of the legislation andregulations for them, as voluntary providers of adventure activity. Duringthe consultation period, a number of organisations, including the NationalUnion of Teachers (NUT) and Consumers Association, argued that schoolsoffering adventurous activities, “should be required to seek a licence if theyare offering instruction and leadership in an activity which would requirethe operator to seek a licence if the activity was offered on a commercialbasis” (Doug McAvoy reported in Revell, 1997, p. 4). A clear feeling wasthat all children were entitled to the same level of protection and withschools exempt, this may not be the case. However, while exempt from theregulations, schools ignore the guidance at their peril. Never has the subjectof safety and young people been more emotive and contentious and neverhas the expectation society has for its leaders of adventure activities beengreater. Schools have a legal duty of care which implies that responsibleauthorities should make use of the best advice possible and that leadersshould be able to implement the best practice of the profession. Theregulations, accompanied by guidance from the HSE, set out the criteria tobe applied in the interpretation of the regulations and assessing whether aprovider has satisfactorily met the requirements. This covers guidance onsafety standards, risk assessment, general arrangements for a safetymanagement system, staffing ratios and competence matrices definingsuitable technical competence, awards at leader, assistant leader andtechnical expert level. In this sense they represent a definition of the bestadvice and practice and as Revell (1997) has suggested, any accidentinvestigation involving a school-led party would be likely to draw upon andjudge on the basis of the advice in the HSE guidance document. Teachersleading and instructing adventure activities can not, therefore, afford toignore this guidance. Already required, under the Management of Healthand Safety at Work Regulations 1992, to undertake suitable and sufficientassessment of risks and make arrangements for the implementation of riskcontrol strategies, one further consequence of the Activity Centres (YoungPersons’ Safety) Act is that schools should be able to provide evidence thatthe management of health and safety in adventure activities is theresponsibility of at least one competent person. Unless schools possess staffwith the appropriate qualifications and experience, as defined in thetechnical experts column of the competence matrices, the headteacher andgoverning body should consider validating risk assessment and managementstrategies through the involvement of a suitably qualified professional.

Elsewhere, we have identified the legal and statutory, professional andmoral responsibilities of teachers working with young people either on oroff the school site and across a range of activities (Raymond & Thomas,


273

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 2

1:30

15

Nov

embe

r 20

14

1996). In this article we have also drawn attention to the legal obligation foreach school, through the MHSW regulations, to instigate an overall healthand safety management policy. In relation to adventure activities, we havealso suggested the yardstick against which schools, as providers, are likelyto be judged should things go wrong.

However, while all teachers have a duty to safeguard the health andsafety of their pupils, it is recognised that this policy should be expandedand amplified for those subjects where it is acknowledged that a greatervariety of hazard and increased level of risk to staff and pupils exists.Teachers of subjects such as physical education, outdoor adventureactivities, science and design and technology will, therefore, have a higherduty by virtue of their specialist subject and roles.

As part of a safety management system, schools organising, leading orinstructing adventure activities are required to make a suitable and sufficientassessment of the risks to which participants might be exposed. However, assome practitioners have suggested, opportunities for teachers to develop theskills and competences to undertake risk assessments are often limited andthere is a need for further guidance to reduce confusion (Bailie, 1996; Smithreported in Hutchings, 1998), The following section attempts to identify thekey principles of risk assessments and how they can be used in themanagement of safety in outdoor adventure activities.

Risk Assessment: an aspect of effective management of safety

Risk assessment is the process by which hazards present in an activity areidentified and an estimation is made of the extent of the risks involved. Thisshould take into account any safety precautions and existing controlmeasures already being taken. In the outdoor adventure context this willrequire an assessment of the capabilities and limitations of the participants(pupils and leaders), the equipment being used, the environment in whichthe activity takes place and the hazards inherent in the activities. Riskassessment is essentially a process involving a number of steps and whilethe ‘5 Steps’ guidance from the HSE is very helpful at a general level, it isnot activity or subject-specific. What follows is an attempt to look at theissue of risk assessment in the context of the outdoor adventure environmentin which teachers will be engaged.

The first stage in the risk assessment process is to recognise and admitthat accidents can happen to you! As Priest (1996, p. 18) has argued,“practitioners must not consider themselves immune from accidentsregardless of their experience or level of competence”. Accidents happenand failure to recognise this will not generate a safety ethos andconsciousness.

The second step in the risk assessment process is to decide on theaspect to be covered. This might be an activity such as climbing or it mightbe a particular venue or environment such as the local woods or canal basin.The identification of all hazards in the activity or area under review and anassessment of what might reasonably be expected to happen is the next


274

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 2

1:30

15

Nov

embe

r 20

14

consideration. Hazard is the potential for harm and attention here shouldfocus on those significant hazards which could forseeably result in death ordisabling injury.

In the outdoor adventure context Bailie (1996) has identified threethings that will cause death or disablement:(1) drowning; (2) impact with something solid, e.g. falling from a height to the ground);and (3) exposure/hypothermia. This said, in order to achieve suitable and sufficient risk assessments, it isessential to identify all the significant hazards associated with the activity,including non-routine activities such as breakdowns and maintenance. Aswe have argued earlier, this should involve a consideration of the workingenvironment (physical hazards and natural phenomena), the equipment used,the pedagogical strategies, the competence, trustworthiness and readiness ofpupils and the competence of the leaders.

The key is also to consider the interrelationship between theseelements. For complex activities, it can also be useful to break down theactivity into its component parts. For example, a rock climbing/abseilactivity may well involve the walk into the working area and transportationof all equipment, the setting up of the activity and management of the groupand base, the activity and the ascent and/or descent of pupils, thedismantling of the activity and the walk out. Finally, hazard identification isbest undertaken by a practical inspection of the area/activity. ‘Armchair’assessments based on perceptions of how you think an activity is carried outcan be very different in reality. Additionally, hazard identification is mosteffective if carried out as a team involving all interested parties such asother teachers and advisers.

The next step of the risk assessment process is to identify all thosepersons at risk. Consider who is at risk, which groups or individuals andhow many people. This assessment should include teachers, pupils and anyothers affected by the activity under consideration. Here it is essential toremember that duty of care is to the individual pupil and not the averagepupil, and that knowledge about both the strengths and weaknesses of theparticipants is important to be able to make appropriate provision.

Following this, an evaluation of the risks associated with the hazardsneeds to take place. This requires a judgement as to the level of risk basedon the likelihood of harm occurring and the severity of its consequences.Within the United Kingdom we do not currently possess an adventureactivities accident database on which we can draw to provide informationand an indication of which activities might produce more than their fairshare of accidents. However, there are many ways in which the evaluation ofrisks can be determined. These range from complicated systems, usuallyborrowed from industry, to a simple subjective judgement of risk as eithernegligible (presenting very little risk to health and safety), low (butsignificant and requiring some control), high (requiring an urgent review of


275

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 2

1:30

15

Nov

embe

r 20

14

control measures), or unacceptable (where continued operation isunacceptable).

For most outdoor adventure activities and schools a simple methodinvolving a degree of subjectivity is sufficient. However, it would be wise todocument and record the basis for your assessment of the risk. Judgementsabout risk can be generated by identifying the hazard, taking into accountany existing controls and determining an assessment of the likelihood andthe severity of any injuries arising from the hazard. From Tables I and II(adapted from Kazer, 1993; Cornwall-Smith, 1996) it is possible to establisha likelihood rating and a severity rating.

From this a risk factor can be calculated by multiplying the likelihoodrating by the severity rating, which would result in a number between 1 and25. The higher the number, the greater the risk and if the product is over 5,the existing control measures are not sufficient to control the risk and needto be improved.

There is really no likelihood of an accident occuring. Only under freakconditions could there be a possibility. All precautions have been takento safeguard the working environment.

Not likely1

If other factors were present, an accident might occur, but would beunusual. The probability is low and the risk minimal.

Possible2

The accident may happen if additional factors precipitate it, but it isunlikely to happen without them.

Quite possible3

Environmental factors and/or human error could precipitate an accident,but which is unlikely to happen without this additional factor (e.g. abseilbelay anchor not secure, inappropriate equipment).

Likely4

If the activity continues in its present form there is almost 100%certainty that an accident will occur.

Very likely5

Likelihood/probability

Table I.

No risk of injury or disease.Nil1

Causing minor injury that would allow the individual to continueparticipation after first aid – scratch, bruise, minor lacerations.

Slight2

Causing injury or disease which could keep a participant away fromschool/work for more than 3 days.

Moderate3

Causing death/serious injury to an individual (fractures, amputationsand permanent loss of sight/hearing, hospitalisation for more than 24hours).

High4

Multiple deaths.Very high5

Severity

Table II.


276

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 2

1:30

15

Nov

embe

r 20

14

For example, using an abseiling scenario, if an inexperienced pupil isabseiling without an appropriate harness and is not protected by a safetyrope, managed by a competent person, the chances of falling could be likely(4). The severity of the outcome would depend on the height of the fall. Afall from a low level may result in slight injury (2), but a fall from the top ofthe cliff could be fatal (4). The risk factor for the activity conducted underthese circumstances would be between 8 and 16, which would place the riskof this activity in the high/unacceptable category, clearly indicating the needfor some additional control measures. The rating will enable leaders toidentify and prioritise for control the most serious risks and to decidewhether to abandon the activity, whether safety can be better controlled orwhether the risk can be accepted.

Having evaluated the risks and identified the priorities, the next stageis the implementation of control strategies. These are measures taken toreduce risk and ensure that any risk of injury falls within an acceptable riskzone. The selection and implementation of control measures is the crucialfactor which determines the success or otherwise of the efforts to reduce riskto health and safety. If inappropriate control measures are taken, the wholerisk assessment process can be jeopardised. In health and safety literature, ahierarchy of controls has emerged, with those deemed to be most effective atthe top and the least effective at the bottom of the list.

Hierarchy of Controls

1. Remove the hazard – at its most extreme, this may mean discontinuing theactivity. However, it could mean removing a loose rock which could fall onsomebody or the removal of a pupil whose behaviour is jeopardising thesafety of the group/activity.2. Substitute the activity with something less hazardous – change the methodof working (e.g. top rope rock climbing rather than lead climbing, substituteperceived risk for real risk).3. Avoid/enclose the hazard – separate the participants from the hazard (e.g.route away from dangerous areas, impose strict working boundaries, tape offto identify danger areas).4. Invoke a safe system of work to reduce risks to an acceptable level –make sure all participants understand and follow known written procedures.5. Apply stricter supervision ratios.6. Increase the level of training and experience of leaders.7. Specify higher competence/qualification levels.8. Reduce the period of exposure to the hazard.9. Provide additional information – signs, handouts, emergency instructionsetc.10. Supply additional personal protective equipment (e.g. wetsuits, fleecejumpers etc.)Very often the controls are used in combination to ensure that the risk isreduced to an acceptable level. In relation to the earlier abseiling example,the provision of an appropriate harness in conjunction with a safety rope


277

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 2

1:30

15

Nov

embe

r 20

14

managed by a competent person would reduce the risk factor to the pointwhere a fall was not likely (risk factor 1) and the severity slight (risk factor2), giving a rating of (2), an acceptable level of risk. An important point toconsider when implementing control measures is guidance from NationalGoverning Bodies (NGBs) or other agencies as to what is accepted as thebest practice for controlling the hazard. Teachers and leaders of outdooradventure activities will need to be aware of and keep abreast of newdevelopments in equipment, technique and instruction. NGB membershipand involvement in relevant continuing professional developmentprogrammes can keep teachers familiar with the best and recommendedpractice.

The next step is to record the significant facts of the risk assessment,such as the hazards and risks identified, those persons deemed to be at risk,the probability of harm occurring, the existing controls and any additionalaction (controls, training needs, remedial action etc. required). Actionsshould be prioritised with a time scale and an indication of who isresponsible for the action. This is an important stage in the risk assessmentprocess for it provides evidence that you are complying with HSElegislation in relation to risk assessment and that suitable safetyarrangements have been considered, developed and implemented. Similarly,it provides some evidence that you are providing a standard of care.

The recording of the risk assessment does not signal the end of thesafety management process. Legislation requires risk assessments not onlyto be suitable and sufficient, but also to be maintained and periodicallyupdated to ensure that they remain valid. If the working context changes,e.g. use of a different orienteering or climbing venue or different staff, thenthe assessment will need to be reviewed accordingly. Similarly, once controlmeasures have been implemented, there should be some system for checkingand monitoring effectiveness such as audits, feedback and safety meetings.Risk assessment is, therefore, an ongoing process.

While risk assessments are the cornerstone of contemporaryapproaches to the management of health and safety it is, however, importantto keep them in perspective. As Bailie (1996, p. 6) has pointed out, “they arenot the be all and end all. It is the outcome from the assessment which drivessafety”. Safety management is more than just risk assessment. It includes,amongst other things, the ability to react and respond appropriately in timesof crisis and to exercise sound judgement in making decisions, solvingproblems and predicting consequences on the basis of past and similarexperiences and with due regard to the notion of forseeability.

Concluding Comments

This article has considered the nature of outdoor adventure activities inrelation to the concept of risk and has argued that while risk is often anintegral and desirable part of the learning experience, this does not meanthat activities are or should be inherently dangerous. On the contrary, it hasbeen shown that other curricular and extra-curricular activities and aspects


278

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 2

1:30

15

Nov

embe

r 20

14

of everyday living often have greater risk potential than adventure activitiesper se.

Providers of adventure activities have always been required to workwithin Health and Safety legislation, but there is no doubt that public safetyconsciousness and an increasingly litigious era has created a culture whereincreased regulation is often seen as the solution to increased safety. TheActivity Centres (Young Persons’ Safety) Act 1995 and the AdventureLicensing Regulations 1996, while drawing on existing HSE legislation,also extends this and although aimed at commercial providers of adventureactivities, it has significance for all those working in outdoor adventure andparticularly teachers in schools. Adventure activity providers, whethercommercial or school-based, are obliged by law to produce risk assessmentsand, whilst there is general guidance from the HSE, the opportunities forteachers to develop the knowledge and skills to undertake suitable andsufficient risk assessments are often very limited. This is perhaps why thereis still some confusion about the writing of risk assessments and safetypolicies (Bailie, 1996).

We recognise that there is more to the development of a safety culturethan increased regulation or just the assessment of risks. Teachers’ ongoingprofessional development is an essential part of the process along withproviding opportunities for pupils to learn about taking care of themselvesand others in the outdoors. However, risk assessments provide the first stepin safety management and this article has presented some guidance forconsideration by teachers involved in adventure education.

Correspondence

Sue Thomas, School of Education, University of Exeter, Heavitree Road,Exeter EX1 2LU, United Kingdom.

ReferencesBailie, M. (1996) Risk assessments, safety statements and all that guff, Journal of Adventure

Education, 13, pp. 6-7.Cornwall-Smith, N. (1997) Where does responsibility lie for providing a safe environment?

Presentation to British Association of Lecturers and Advisers in Physical Education,25 February.

Department for Education and Employment (1994) Safety in Outdoor Activity Centres:circular 22/94. London: HMSO.

Department for Education and Employment (1995) Physical Education in the NationalCurriculum. London: HMSO.

Ewert, A. (1989) Outdoor Adventure Pursuits: foundations, models and theories . Arizona:Publishing Horizon Inc.

Field Studies Council and Manchester City Council (1993) Outdoor and EnvironmentalEducation in the National Curriculum . Shrewsbury: FCS/MCC.


279

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 2

1:30

15

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Ford, P. & Blanchard, J. (1993) Leadership and Administration of Outdoor Pursuits . VenturePublishing, Inc.

Ghouri, N. (1997) Too safe adventure under fire, The Times Educational Supplement , 3October, p. 17.

Hale, A. (1983) Safety management for outdoor program leaders, unpublished manuscript.Health and Safety Executive (1974) Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act. London: HMSO.Health and Safety Executive (1981) Health and Safety (First Aid) Regulations . London:

HMSO.Health and Safety Executive (1991) Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations .

London: HMSO.Health and Safety Executive (1992) Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulation .

London: HMSO.Health and Safety Executive (1992) Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations .

London: HMSO.Health and Safety Executive (1994) 5 Steps to Risk Assessment. London: HSE Books.Health and Safety Executive (1995) Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous

Occurrences Regulations. London: HMSO.Health and Safety Executive (1995) Activity Centres Young Persons’ Safety Act. London:

HMSO.Health and Safety Executive (1996a) A Report into Safety at Outdoor Acrtivity Centres .

London: HSE Books.Health and Safety Executive (1996b) Everyone’s guide to RIDDOR 95. London: HSE Books.Hutchings, D. (1998) New safety tips for school trips, Exeter Express and Echo, 24 January,

p. 13.Jacobs, Y. (1996) Safety at adventure activities centres following the Lyme Bay tragedy: what

are the legal consequences? Education and the Law , 8, pp. 295-306.Kazer, B. (1993) Risk assessment, a practical guide, The Safety and Health Practitioner ,

May, Supplement.Lowe, C. (1997) Who is responsible for what? The Times Educational Supplement – School

Management Update, 14 February, p. 15.Mortlock, C. (1984) The Adventure Alternative. Cumbria: Cicerone Press.National Association for Outdoor Education (NAOE) (1996) The Activity Centres (Young

Persons’ Safety) Act 1995, The Adventure Activities Licensing Regulations, 1996,Editorial briefing, Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Leadership , 13, pp.33-35.

Priest, S. (1996) Thoughts on managing dangers in adventure programmes, Journal ofAdventure Education and Outdoor Leadership , 13, pp. 18-21.

Priest, S. & Dixon, T. (1990) Practices in Adventure Programming. Boulder: Association forExperiential Education.

Purves, L. (1997) The heights of folly, The Times, 24 June, p. 4.Raymond, C. & Thomas, S.M. (1996) Safe practice: teachers’ responsibilities regarding risk,

Journal of Teacher Development, 5, pp. 27-32.Raymond, C. & Thomas, S.M. (1999 forthcoming) Health and safety legislation: teachers’

current practice and anxieties in physical education.Revell, P. (1997) A taste of risk without any recklessness, The Times Educational Supplement

– Going Places, 7 February, p. 4.


280

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 2

1:30

15

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Thomas, S.M. (1994) Adventure education: risk and safety out of school, in S.M. Thomas(Ed.) Outdoor Education , Perspectives 50. Exeter: University of Exeter.

Wharton, N. (1996) Health and safety in outdoor activity centres, Journal of AdventureEducation and Outdoor Leadership , 12, pp. 8-9.


281

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 2

1:30

15

Nov

embe

r 20

14

risk and provider responsibility in outdoor adventure activities

Documents