Acceptable Risk

Doing any outdoor activity brings with it some risks.

The challenge is determining what is an acceptable level of risk.

On a case by case basis, a risk might be considered to be acceptable where:

1.       The risk is inherent to the activity.

You have to go near a cliff to go abseiling, you have to get on water to go canoeing, you have to deal with the weather you’re dealt when on long bushwalks, etc.

2.                  The risk has been presented to, understood and accepted by the stakeholders.

Ensure that the right person is informed about and accepts the risks. There is a key difference between a client (a person who books and/or pays for an activity) and a participant (the person who actually does the activity). Another example: a student/child/dependent might have very different risk tolerances to a parent/guardian. Also, there is often a great void between what someone thinks they signed up for and what the activity they will be doing actually entails. Ensure that the risks are clearly outlined. 

3.                  The likelihood and consequence has been reduced as far as reasonably practicable.

The work of minimising risk still has to be done. Minor sun burn might be considered acceptable for some activities (it would be very hard to avoid on a multi-day sea kayaking adventure), but only if you’ve reduced the likelihood and severity of the sunburn (“slip, slop, slap, wrap”).

4.   Effective treatments are applied in the event of an incident.

Things don’t always go to plan. A response to an incident is required. And sometimes the response to an incident can make the risk acceptable. If someone has a known bee allergy, the ability to get them the timely medical assistance they need means that their participation in an activity is considered acceptable.

5.                  The benefits of the risk outweigh the disadvantages.*

This is about choosing the lesser of two evils that are within our direct control. When crossing an ankle deep river in the snowy mountains in winter on a multiday ski touring expedition do we go barefoot and risk small cuts, or do we leave our touring boots on and risk blisters, cold injuries, and more? Or, when faced with a massive storm in the middle of the night, do we stay where we are and risk lightning strike, or do we get up and move and face hypothermia, tiredness and slips and falls when moving to a different campsite in the dark and rain? 

6.                  The consequences are minor, non-permanent, or negligible.

Walking along an overgrown track in shorts might result in some minor cuts and scratches on the legs. There is the remote chance of infection, but generally these consequences are minor, non-permanent and negligible.

There are also many other factors that can make a risk acceptable. A few examples:

• if the risks are so pervasive so as to be almost negligible in the thinking of the broader community (e.g. driving a car to an outdoor activity is a very risky activity but it rarely rates a mention when considering the overall plan.)

• if the risk is understood to be an outlier/freak occurrence (e.g. cliff collapse in the Blue Mountains happens from time to time, but the probability of someone being squashed by a collapse is minuscule and if it did occur it would have to be viewed as bad luck.)

• if the risk can be easily explained away as inherent to the activity (e.g. getting grazed knees when playing football).

Just because a risk is acceptable does not mean we are absolved from trying to mitigate that risk. Going near a cliff is a necessary risk for an abseiling activity, but we still use safety lines to approach the cliff edge.

As always, aims and objectives should be paramount in the decision making process. Acceptable risk will vary depending on the aims and objectives of all of the stakeholders.

*It is tempting to apply our worldview when justifying risk decisions, but defining acceptable risk for an activity cannot rely upon personal beliefs about the value of outdoor activities in addressing major societal ills (for example). When leading dependent groups, our own definitions or judgements relating to acceptable risk become rather meaningless. Rather, the tolerances of stakeholders, authorities, society, and of course the law**, become important. And these external tolerances are fluid. A previous standard practice might quickly become unacceptable when the tide of public opinion changes after a particular event (eg. the attitude of the Australian public toward guns in the community after the Port Arthur massacre).

**In a workplace the relevant legislation must also be considered. In Australia the Workplace Health and Safety laws broadly state that you must eliminate or minimise health and safety risks throughout the workplace.