A Multi-Perspective Analysis of Risk Perception within Outdoor Adventure Activities
Hargreave Mawson, Gerald (2025)
2025
All rights reserved. This publication is copyrighted. You may download, display and print it for Your own personal use. Commercial use is prohibited.
Julkaisun pysyvä osoite on
https://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi:amk-2025100625590
https://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi:amk-2025100625590
Tiivistelmä
Risk perception is a vital safety practice in most industries, but especially the outdoor industry. The discussion of risk perception of individuals within the outdoor adventure industry is an area lacking previous research, so there is a need for further examination. Outdoor adventure and the outdoor education industry are under-appreciated aspects of education, despite insights from other educators acknowledging their benefits, but the industry lacks large scale aid or frameworks.
This research looked at the differences in perception of risks and hazards between frontline operational staff, such as instructors and guides, compared with the perceptions of non-frontline staff such as managers and office support staff. The research identified a clear link between the level of experience of an individual’s role with the level with which risk was perceived. The author found that early in an outdoor instructor or guide’s career, the individual is more likely to perceive high levels of risk in specific activities, such as snowmobiling or climbing, whereas the more experienced instructor or guide identified varied ranges of hazards but fewer actual risks, due to practice and experience.
Individuals working in non-frontline roles, such as management or office staff, mainly gave similar responses to those of an early stage outdoor instructor. This is perceived to be due to the limited opportunities to experience frontline work. However, management and office staff with previous practical experience as an outdoor instructor/guide role are found to occupy mid-ground for risk perception, thereby evidencing the benefit of experiential learning.
Whilst this was not an entitrely unexpected finding, it does help to clarify the need for multi-disciplinary assessment of hazard and risk at the planning stage for the best and most accurate outcomes. In the industry, there is a disparity between each role in risk evaluation and perception, but those disparities between roles can be mistaken for an inability to infer the differences between the risks and hazards on an excursion, thus causing a circuit of issues that outdoor professionals and participants may experience.
This research looked at the differences in perception of risks and hazards between frontline operational staff, such as instructors and guides, compared with the perceptions of non-frontline staff such as managers and office support staff. The research identified a clear link between the level of experience of an individual’s role with the level with which risk was perceived. The author found that early in an outdoor instructor or guide’s career, the individual is more likely to perceive high levels of risk in specific activities, such as snowmobiling or climbing, whereas the more experienced instructor or guide identified varied ranges of hazards but fewer actual risks, due to practice and experience.
Individuals working in non-frontline roles, such as management or office staff, mainly gave similar responses to those of an early stage outdoor instructor. This is perceived to be due to the limited opportunities to experience frontline work. However, management and office staff with previous practical experience as an outdoor instructor/guide role are found to occupy mid-ground for risk perception, thereby evidencing the benefit of experiential learning.
Whilst this was not an entitrely unexpected finding, it does help to clarify the need for multi-disciplinary assessment of hazard and risk at the planning stage for the best and most accurate outcomes. In the industry, there is a disparity between each role in risk evaluation and perception, but those disparities between roles can be mistaken for an inability to infer the differences between the risks and hazards on an excursion, thus causing a circuit of issues that outdoor professionals and participants may experience.