Your
Relationship to Risk
A common definition of risk is the potential for harm or
loss. Loss or harm can be physical (E.g.
illness or injury); social (E.g. embarrassment or even ostrasization);
financial (E.g. damage to equipment or property); even psychological (E.g.
stress, anxiety, psychosis). As implied
in this definition, most of us think of risk as a negative consequence. Certainly law makers and enforcers spend a
great deal of time and money trying to keep us safe from the potential negative
risks of daily living. Mandatory seat
belts, bicycle helmets, and health inspections of restaurants are three obvious
examples. This view is particularly
useful when the risks are assumed involuntarily, for example, manufacturing
standards for cars or trains. In
recreation, however, risk is often assumed voluntarily, and as a result, we
need another definition when we talk about recreational risk.
It is also useful to think of risk as the potential for
rewards. Rewards can be physical (E.g.
fitness and relaxation); social (E.g. friendship); financial (E.g. money); even
psychological (E.g. stress reduction, confidence). Indeed in conversation after conversation
with kayakers, most cite the potential for rewards as the reason for their
ongoing participation in the sport. In
other words, most of us paddle, not in spite of the potential for harm, but
because of some tangible benefit.
A quick survey of some of my paddling friends highlights some
common benefits including:
- Physical
challenges and fitness
- Exploration
of the natural world
- Social
interactions with other paddlers
It is worth taking a few minutes to think about what
motivates you continue paddling. These
motivations are a guide to the kind of trips and people you should be paddling
with.
In the context of low, medium, and high consequence decision
making, the consequences can be negative and positive. Positive consequences include self
confidence, a feeling of accomplishment, meeting personal and professional
goals, and making new discoveries.
Defined this way, risk exists along a
continuum defined by loss and reward.
How do we reconcile these seemingly opposed visions?
At the level of the individual, I think the answer rests
with a concept call the “Dangerous Edge”, a concept originally articulated by
Michael Apter,
and modified for this article. The Dangerous Edge exists at the boundary
between excitement and anxiety, relaxation and boredom. Recreation is voluntary; we choose to
participate, often seeking the rewards of excitement and/or relaxation. On trip, and indeed, throughout our lives, we
are looking to optimize our level of arousal (in the clinical sense!). If we are over stimulated, we can easily
cross the Dangerous Edge from excitement (reward) to anxiety (loss). Conversely, if we are under stimulated, we
also cross the Dangerous Edge from relaxation (reward) to boredom (loss). Viewed this way, we modify our exposure to
risk according to our needs, seeking an optimally level of arousal that
balances rewards and losses.
This model of risk implies that we actually need some risk
in our lives, and recreation is one important source. When setting goals and laying out
expectations for wilderness travel, it is important to understand
- What
end of the continuum you are moving toward (relaxation or excitement);
and,
- Where
your Dangerous Edge lies.
Risk
and Kayaking
Kayak touring is a very safe sport. Canadian and US coast guard statistics, and
studies by the American Canoe Association (ACA) support this statement.
By safe we mean, that in comparison to other
water based activities, kayak touring has fewer and less severe accidents. There are at least three important factors
that contribute to our collective safety:
- Kayakers
wear PFDs
- Kayakers
don’t drink and paddle
- Kayakers
are male and female, and over the age of 25
As a community, we have embraced the importance of safety.
We wear our PFD’s, avoid alcohol on the
water, buy our immersion gear, and practice our rescue skills. There is no doubt this has contributed to the
high level of safety our community has achieved. This is not to say that kayak touring has no
risks. Reviews of incidents and accidents from community publications, safety
reviews, SAR personnel, and anecdotal reports highlight some common patterns
that have contributed significantly to incidents and accidents.
- Lack
of local knowledge (especially about local hazards). E.g. currents around
headlands or gap winds.
- Travel
into areas of higher risk without increasing safety. E.g. traveling around
headlands or through surf without tightening group communication,
reviewing safety protocols or donning safety equipment.
- Many,
if not most, incidents happen in or around the campsite. E.g. strains or
breaks because of stumbles on logs or rocks or burns and small wounds from
the kitchen.
- The
most dangerous part of a trip is driving to and from the launch site.
- Intragroup
conflict
Obviously, we should continue with our rescue practices and
training with our rescue equipment. In
addition, we should learn from the hard lessons of others. It is easy to feel safe inside a dry suit
with a high float PFD, flares, and a VHF radio strapped to our body. The reality is, though, that this equipment
doesn’t keep us out of trouble. Proper
planning, local knowledge, communication, leadership, and good judgement (based
on thoughtful reflection of previous experiences) do. Peer groups planning trips should not only
review basic skills and check and practice with safety equipment but also
ensure these other, less tangible skills and resources are in place.
In the messy reality of an incident this planning and
practice will prove invaluable.
One simple model that I use divides decisions into three
groups based on their potential consequences.
- Low
consequence;
- Medium
consequence; and,
- High
consequence.
I use these groupings to set priorities in planning and to
anticipate potential sources of conflict during the trip. Many of the medium and high consequence
decisions can be anticipated during the planning of a trip. Some of these decisions can be made during
this phase of planning. Others will have to wait for the trip, but at least the
group can have an initial discussion. In some cases, especially for high
consequence decisions, it may be worthwhile laying out strategies for making
these decisions in advance. In fact, the
bulk of this article is about strategies for making decisions about fundamental
structures, which fall within the medium and high consequence groupings.
Low Consequence Problems
The vast majority of problems that groups face have very
little potential for harm or reward. The
choice between pasta and rice for dinner is an example of a low consequence
problem. Other examples include many of
the daily problems we face as paddlers, often giving them little time or
thought, which is entirely appropriate because of their limited
consequences. If group members experience
conflict over LCDs, it is often symptomatic of deeper and more important
conflicts.
Medium Consequence Problems
Other problems have the potential to affect the safety and
enjoyment of the group. The potential
consequences of this level of problem solving may not be immediately
evident. For example, the problem of
deciding whether or not to wear immersion clothing can have moderately serious
consequences in the event of a capsize.
High Consequence Problems
The decision to travel around a large headland or paddle in
strong winds, on the other hand, has a high potential consequence both for harm
and reward. These types of decision are
definitely worth thinking about.
Rational Model(s)
When it comes to solving problems, it helps to have some
tools to hand. Most of us have been
exposed to some version of the analytical problem solving model where we are
told that problems can be broken down into 5 (at least) discrete stages:
- Identify
the problem
- Gather
information about the problem
- Process
the information
- Act
- Reflect
This model works well if you have lots of time to make a
decision, away from environmental (wind, rain, cold, heat, swell, current,
surf) and social stresses
(relationships, gender, age), and other distractions.
The reality is that we do not often go through this kind of
detailed process to make (m)any decisions in our lives. I will leave the question of whether or not
this is a good thing to others. Instead,
I will highlight the fact that despite seeming irrationality, we often manage
to make good decisions.
We rely on other problem solving tools such
as heuristics and categorical frames to guide us in complex situations.
Heuristics
Heuristics simply refers to the use of short cuts (common
sense rules) in decision-making. Its
main advantage is that we can rely on it for quick, satisfactory and sufficient
answers. Unfortunately, heuristics also have pitfalls. We can overlook critical information, or
simply have no previous experience from which to draw answers. The snap decision is often good enough, but
not always.
For example, my dog will run after a ball, whether or not I
actually throw one. He uses the
heuristic rule of my arm moving back as if I am throwing a ball to guide his
decision to run. In this case, the heuristic
often works but occasionally it does not.
His “common sense” does not always work.
Another example is crossing an eddy line. The set of variables necessary to make a
detailed and calculated crossing are too complex to gather and process. Instead, most paddlers rely on a more
intuitive approach that restricts the number of variables to some combination
of current speed, forward momentum and angle of approach. This heuristic works well enough in most circumstances. Micro adjustments in forward momentum and
angle of approach can be made as we approach the current.
Categorical Frames
Ultimately we are able to discern patterns between
decisions; this can lead to the development of categorical problem solving,
which recognizes that many problems are related and share characteristics and
therefore share solutions. This
principle-based model informs much of the risk and safety training in paddle
sports. Categorical statements such as
“New paddlers should avoid wind speeds over 15 knots and currents over 3 knots”
are examples of categorical frames for problem solving.
These generalized solutions come from “experts” with large
bodies of experience, knowledge, and skills.
These experts know there are exceptions, and offer these categorical
solutions as guidelines. Newer paddlers
should be encouraged initially to follow these rules, and as they also gain
experience, knowledge, and skill to challenge and test their validity and
discover the exceptions for themselves.
