How safe is adventure tourism in New Zealand? An exploratory analysis

Applied Ergonomics 32 (2001) 327–338

How safe is adventure tourism in New Zealand?An exploratory analysis

Tim Bentleya, Stephen Pageb,*, Denny Meyerc, David Chalmersd, Ian Lairde

aForest Research, Sala Street, Private Bag 3020, Rotorua, New ZealandbDepartment of Marketing, University of Stirling, FK9 4LA, UK

cDepartment of Statistics, Massey University-Albany, Private Bag 102 904, Auckland, New Zealandd Injury Prevention Research Unit, Department of Preventive and Social Medicine, University of Otago, PO Box 913, Dunedin, New Zealand

eDepartment of Human Resource Management, Massey University, Private Bag 11122, Palmerston North, New Zealand

Received 19 November 1999; received in revised form 8 January 2001; accepted 16 January 2001

Abstract

The paper reports findings from a multidisciplinary programme of research, the major aims of which were to determine the nature

and extent of the New Zealand adventure tourism injury problem. Analysis of hospital discharge and mortality data for a 15-yearperiod identified adventure tourism-related activities as contributing to approximately 20% of overseas visitor injuries, and 22% offatalities. Activities that commonly involve independent-unguided adventure tourism, notably mountaineering, skiing and tramping,

contributed most to injury and fatality incidence. Horse riding and cycling activities were identified from hospital discharge data andadventure tourism operators’ reported client injury-incidence, as the commercial adventure tourism activities most frequentlyinvolved in client injuries. Falls were the most common injury events, and a range of client, equipment, environmental and

organisational risk factors were identified. Possible interventions to reduce injury risk among overseas and domestic adventuretourists are discussed. # 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Adventure tourism; Mountain and marine recreation; Injury analysis and prevention

1. Introduction

The tourist experience in destination areas willinevitably involve a degree of risk (Clift and Page,1996; Page and Meyer, 1996; Page, 1997; Bentley et al.,2000; Bentley and Page, 2001). The environment inwhich tourists are accommodated, the attractions theyvisit, the transportation they use and the activities theypursue all have risk factors associated with their use andpatronage (Philipp and Hodgkinson, 1994). The need toidentify and control these risks is evident, in the light ofrecent well-publicised tourist accidents, and the pro-found impact adverse health experiences can have on theimage of a destination country and its tourism industry(Bovet, 1994; Berno and Moore, 1996; Cossar et al.,1990; Cossar 1996; Greenaway, 1996; Wilks et al., 1996;World Tourism Organisation, 1996).

Published tourism research in this area of travelmedicine is extremely limited. Evidence from themedical and epidemiological literature, however, sug-gests unintentional-injury is a leading cause of the non-tourist (e.g. Feyer and Langley, 2000) and touristmorbidity and mortality (Guptill et al., 1991; Hargartenet al., 1991; Paixao et al., 1991; Hargarten and Bouc,1993; Nichol et al., 1996), especially in the recreationalcontext for skiing (Hudson, 2000; Erhart et al., 1996).This is also the case for cycling (e.g., Ritchie, 1998)which is undertaken both as a means of transport andfor recreational purposes’ (Povey et al., 1999, p. 763).These and other studies have drawn attention to theincreased risk of injury faced by tourists who traveloverseas, and the important role of overseas visitorunfamiliarity with foreign road and marine environ-ments, and activities undertaken in such environments,in tourist injuries and fatalities (Hartung et al., 1990;Wilks and Atherton, 1994; Wilks and Oldenburg, 1995;Wilks and Watson, 1998; Wilks, 1999; Wilks et al., 1999;Rosman, 2001). Considerably less attention, however,

*Corresponding author. Tel.: +44-1786-466 6451; fax: +44-1786-

464745.

E-mail address: [email protected] (S.J. Page).

0003-6870/01/$ - see front matter # 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

PII: S 0 0 0 3 - 6 8 7 0 ( 0 1 ) 0 0 0 1 1 - 4

has been paid to the risks associated with participationin specific recreational and adventure tourism activities,which in some cases will be novel experiences foroverseas participants.The adventure tourism industry provides a wide range

of commercially operated outdoor adventure activitiesinvolving a combination of adventure and excitement(Fig. 1). New Zealand is regarded as a major adventuretourism destination, and its adventure tourism industryhas expanded rapidly during the past decade (NewZealand Tourism Board, 1993; Berno and Moore, 1996).There has been some debate in recent years as to

whether New Zealand’s adventure tourism industry canmanage the risk its clients are exposed to. Much of thisattention has focused on white-water rafting, a challen-ging, high thrills pursuit, which has claimed the lives of anumber of overseas and domestic recreationalists inNew Zealand and elsewhere (Hall and McArthur, 1991;McLaughlan, 1995; Major, 1995; Greenaway, 1996;Page, 1997). Following a series of well-publicisedadventure tourism fatalities during 1995, a number ofagencies, notably the Ministry of Commerce’s TourismPolicy Group (TPG) and the New Zealand TourismIndustry Association (NZTIA), sought a review of theadequacy of safety regulations. A discussion paperentitled ‘Safety Management in the Adventure TourismIndustry,’ authored by the TPG (Ministry of Commerce,1996), outlined the importance of understanding thelevel of risk involved in specific adventure tourism

activities to assist in the formulation of policy. In theabsence of any single body responsible for collatingstatistics on such incidents, and published research inthis area, the TPG commissioned a review of adventuretourism accidents involving overseas visitors since 1992.The resulting study (Page, 1997; Bentley and Page, 2001)found indirect evidence of adventure tourism as a majorcontributor to overseas visitor claims to the NewZealand Accident Rehabilitation and CompensationScheme (ACC) (New Zealand Statutes, 1972). Thestudy also reported on the involvement of adventuretourism in incidents recorded by the New ZealandMountain Safety Council, Maritime Safety Authorityand Civil Aviation Authority. These data sourcesprovided information on the role of a limited rangeof ‘high risk’ adventure tourism activities in overseasand domestic visitor morbidity and mortality. Theauthors concluded, however, that it was impossibleto determine the actual scale and nature of theNew Zealand adventure tourism injury problemfrom these data. Moreover, the injury risk associatedwith the entire range of adventure tourismactivities could not be identified. The present paperdescribes a comprehensive programme of researchundertaken to address these information gaps.The research involved multi-disciplinary collabora-tion, and the use of primary and secondary data ina series of studies designed to achieve the follow-ing aims:

Fig. 1. New Zealand adventure tourism activities.

T. Bentley et al. / Applied Ergonomics 32 (2001) 327–338328

(i) to quantify the contribution of adventuretourism to overseas visitor injury morbidityand mortality in New Zealand, and examinepatterns and trends in adventure tourism-injuryincidence;

(ii) to identify the injury risk for a wide range of NewZealand adventure tourism activities;

(iii) to identify common injury events and key con-tributing factors for New Zealand adventure tour-ism injuries;

(iv) to suggest possible intervention measures to reducethe risk of adventure tourism-related injury.

2. Methods

The research programme involved a series ofstudies, and used primary and secondary data toinvestigate adventure tourism safety from a number ofperspectives. Table 1 outlines sources of data, and

describes variables considered in the analysis andinformation collected.The secondary data sources used were the Ministry of

Health’s New Zealand Health Information Service(NZHIS) public hospital morbidity files for non-NewZealand residents (1982–1996), and NZHIS mortalityfiles for non-New Zealand residents (1979–1995). Themain source of primary data was an ‘injury experience’survey of 142 New Zealand adventure tourism opera-tors. This sample represented 47% of the 300 NewZealand adventure tourism operators who were postedquestionnaires. Operators surveyed represented some 21different adventure tourism activity sectors, and to-gether catered for a total of over half a million clientsannually. Questions related to the adventure activityprovided, client injury experience of operators, injuryevents and causative factors. The analysis methods usedincluded content analysis of narrative text, frequency,cross-tabulation and correspondence analysis (Green-acre, 1984).

Table 1

Sources of data on overseas visitor injury morbidity and mortality

Secondary data source Variables considered in the analysis

New Zealand Health Information Service (NZHIS) public hospital

discharge data for non-New Zealand residents for the period: 1982–

1996

Event group: Derived from 3-digit E-codes (International Classification

of Diseases. External Causes of Injury and Poisoning). The numerous

3-digit E-code values were collapsed into 17 Event groups (e.g. E-codes

870-888=‘falls from a height and on the level’)

Cases classified according to the World Health Organisation’s

International Classification of Diseases (ICD) Injury and Poisoning

(N codes) as injuries were included in the study

Recreational and adventure tourism activity: Determined from content

analysis of ‘one-line’ narrative text containing information about the

injury event (e.g. ‘fell out of raft on Shotover river’; ‘slipped while

skiing’)

Place of occurrence (e.g. ‘a place for recreation or sport’, ‘home’)

Geographical location: Regional area determined indirectly from

hospital codes containing information about hospital injured person

was admitted to. The many hospital codes were collapsed into 15

regions (e.g. Northland, Otago, Canterbury, Auckland)

Month and year of injury

Sex and age of injured person

NZHIS mortality files for non-New Zealand residents for the period:

1979–1995

Event group: Derived from 3-digit E-codes (as for morbidity data

described above)

Cases classified as injuries as described above Recreational and adventure tourism activity: Determined from narrative

text (as for morbidity data described above)

Month and year of injury

Sex and age of injured person

Primary data collection Information collected

Injury experience questionnaire survey of 142 New Zealand adventure

tourism operators

Incidence of client injuries (serious and minor) during the previous 12

month period: January–December, 1998

Information on client numbers (for use in determining injury incidence

(per million participation hours)

Common injury events (e.g. ‘fall from height’; ‘fracture’)

Operators’ perceptions of risk factors/causes of adventure tourism

injuries

Injury experience face-to-face interview survey of overseas visitors to

New Zealand

On-going research considering overseas visitor accident/injury experi-

ences while in New Zealand (not reported here)

T. Bentley et al. / Applied Ergonomics 32 (2001) 327–338 329

2.1. Correspondence analysis

For this purpose, correspondence analysis was used tofacilitate the data analysis process as it is the mostappropriate method of analysis to quantify the morequalitative and descriptive data commonly associatedwith nominal variables. The correspondence analysiscan transform the nonmetric data to a metric-level formand perform dimensional reduction to determine thedegree of association among variable categories. Corre-spondence analysis was a statistical technique recentlydeveloped which facilitates dimensional reduction andconducts multidimensional scaling. It can be classified asa compositional technique because it creates a percep-tual map based on the association between objects and aset of descriptive characteristics or attributes. Thus theassociation is based on the attributes specified by theresearcher. Among the compositional techniques, factoranalysis is probably the most similar equivalent statis-tical technique, but correspondence analysis has beenextended past the application of factor analysis. Its mostdirect application is in portraying the ‘correspondence’of categories of variables, particularly those measured innominal terms. This correspondence then becomes thebasis for developing perceptual maps or ‘pictures’. Thecorrespondence analysis is particularly useful to give amore accurate picture on how multidimensional objectsare related to each other (Feng and Page, 2000).

3. Results

Findings from the studies outlined in Table 1 arepresented and discussed as they relate to the five projectaims expressed above.

3.1. The scale of the New Zealand adventure tourisminjury problem

Analysis of hospital discharge data for the period1982–1996 provided evidence for the role of adventuretourism in overseas visitor injuries. Table 2 identifies themajor place of occurrence categories for overseas visitorinjuries, highlighting ‘place for sport or recreation’ and‘street or highway’ as the largest contributors tooverseas visitor morbidity. Since a large proportionof cases were uncoded for this variable (47%), it isargued that the true contribution of sport and recrea-tion to overseas visitor injuries is likely to be approxi-mately 20%.While the contribution of adventure tourism to

overseas visitor morbidity cannot be determined directlyfrom these data, the spatial distribution of sport andrecreation injuries highlights the association betweensuch events and known centres for adventure tourism inNew Zealand (Rotorua, Otago, Canterbury and Central

North Island). This relationship between place ofoccurrence and geographical region is demonstrated inthe correspondence analysis plot presented in Fig. 2.The association between these variables can be identifiedusing the proximity of labels.Fig. 3 shows the distribution of sport and recreation

injuries by sex and age group. Male overseas visitors inthe 20–29 age group were found to be over-representedamong sport and recreation injuries (27% of all sportand recreation injuries), this distribution reflecting theknown sex and age profile for adventure tourists(Page and Meyer, 1996; Bentley and Page, 2001).The seasonal distribution of overseas visitor injuries

(Fig. 4), suggests further evidence for the role ofadventure tourism in overseas visitor injuries. Sportand recreation injuries were observed to increasesharply over the winter sports season, peaking atover 22% of all injuries in August. Further analysisrevealed highest counts of winter injuries were locatedin the major skiing and mountain recreation regionsof Central North Island, Canterbury, Otago andSouthland.A closer examination of adventure tourism as a

contributor to overseas visitor injuries and fatalities waspossible due to the availability of ‘one-line’ narrativedescriptions of injury events and location informationprovided in the hospital discharge and mortality datasets. Content analysis of this narrative data was under-taken for relevant event group categories (determinedfrom 3-digit E-codes) (see Table 1). Table 3 showsadventure tourism-related cases identified from hospitaldischarge and mortality data sets.Approximately 17% of overseas visitor injuries

(n ¼ 1027), and 22% of fatalities (n ¼ 99) were identi-fied as being adventure tourism-related. It was notpossible to determine whether a large number of cycle,watercraft and aviation-related injuries involvedadventure tourism, due to incomplete event informa-tion provided in the narrative text for these cases.Based on the assumption that 17% of such eventswere adventure tourism-related, an adjusted total of1109 injury events was produced, representing approxi-

Table 2

Place of occurrence for overseas visitor injuries

Place of occurrence n %

Home 419 7.1

Farm 87 1.5

Industrial place and premises 41 0.7

Place for recreation and sport 887 15.1

Street or highway 792 13.5

Public building 258 4.4

Other specified place 594 10.1

Other unspecified place 2785 47.5

Total 5863 100


mately 19% of overseas visitor injuries. These figurescorrespond to an injury-incidence rate of approxi-mately eight injuries per 100,000 overseas visitorsfor the 15 year period to the morbidity analysis, anda fatality-incidence rate of approximately 0.8 per100,000 overseas visitors.1 It is argued that thesefigures are unacceptably high given the relatively lowexposure of tourists to adventure tourism activities incomparison to driving (including all vehicle types), anactivity for which an injury-incidence rate of approxi-

mately 12 injuries per 100,000 overseas visitors wasdetermined.

3.2. The injury risk for specific adventure tourismactivities

Table 3 provides a breakdown of the involvement ofspecific adventure tourism activities in overseas visitorinjury morbidity and mortality. Highest counts ofadventure tourism-related injuries and fatalities weresustained by recreationalists engaging in unguided,independent adventure activities, notably skiing andmountaineering. Some 6.2% of all injury cases (n ¼ 364)involved skiing, while just five skiing fatalities wereidentified from the mortality data. These statistics reflectthe relatively high frequency, low hazard nature ofskiing injuries, the majority of which involve ‘soft falls’onto snow. This is consistent with the most widely citedresearch on skiing injuries (i.e. Chissel et al., 1996) whichfound that skiing injuries had declined from a 5–8 per1000 skiers/days in the 1950s to 2–3 per 1000 skiers/daysin the early 1980s. This is much lower than the 6–10 per1000 skiers/days for snowboarders where 60% ofinjuries occurred amongst those with less than 20 daysexperience of snowboarding. In contrast, Chissel et al.(1996) found that 34% of skier injuries were sustainedby beginners.Mountaineering/tramping (which typically occurs in

New Zealand National Parks) comprised 4.6% of injurycases (n ¼ 270), and was the largest category ofadventure tourism-related injury mortality (50% ofadventure tourism-related fatalities involved mountai-neering (n ¼ 31 cases) or tramping (n ¼ 19 cases)). Thisis not a surprising in view of the useful insights providedby Johnston (1989) using social survey data and ananalysis of coroners records for the period 1885–1985

Fig. 2. Correspondence analysis showing association between place of

occurrence and regional area.

Fig. 3. Sport and recreation injuries by sex and age of injured overseas

visitor.

Fig. 4. Seasonal distribution of overseas visitor injuries by injury

location.

1Rates based on Statistics New Zealand records for overseas visitor

numbers.


for mountain recreation-related deaths. Yet interest-ingly, Johnston (1989, p. 327) observed that there is noevidence to support the suggestion that internationalvisitors are exposed to more danger than are NewZealanders, two points need to be emphasised. . .. First,the number of active international visitors to NewZealand’s mountain area has progressively grown overthe years, particularly with the Australians since the1950s, in addition to a variety of other overseas groups

in the past decade. This raises important questions inview of the NZHIS data and the contribution ofmountain recreational activities and back countryactivities to the wider debate on the safety of specificadventure tourism activities.While water and aviation-based adventure tourism

made an important contribution to overseas visitorinjury mortality, notably scenic aircraft (n ¼ 12; 2.6%),scenic helicopter flights (n ¼ 10; 2.2%), ballooning

Table 3

The role of adventure tourism in overseas visitor injury morbidity and mortality: 1982–1996a

Adventure tourism injury n % Event group Adventure tourism fatality n %

Quad/farm bike 18 0.3 Motor vehicle traffic and non-traffic

accident

Quad/farm bike 1 0.2

Injuries (1663; 28.4%)

Fatalities (179; 39.4%)

Mountain biking 13 0.2 Pedal cycle Unclassifed cycling 10 2.2

Injuries (165; 2.8%) (road/mountain)

Unclassified cycling

(road/mountain)

152 2.6 Fatalities (10; 2.2%)

Horse (fell from) 153 2.6 Animal-related Horse riding 1 0.2

Horse (kicked by) 18 0.3 Injuries (174; 3%)

Bull (rodeo) 3 0.05 Fatalities (1; 0.2%)

White-water rafting 46 0.8 Watercraft White-water rafting 6 1.3

Jet boating 21 0.4 Injuries (320: 5.5%) Jet boating 4 0.9

Kayaking 3 0.05 Fatalities (54; 11.9%) Kayaking 4 0.9

Diving 3 0.05 Unspecified boat ship 21 4.6

Unspecified boat ship 132 2.3

Parapenting/gliding 27 0.5 Aviation-related Scenic aircraft (ski-plane 2) 12 2.6

Skydiving 23 0.4 Injuries (100; 1.7%) Scenic helicopter 10 2.2

Glider 5 0.08 Fatalities (60; 13.2%) Ballooning 3 0.7

Hang glider 4 0.06

Helicopter 13 0.2

Unspecified aircraft 28 0.5

Skiing/snowboarding 344 5.9 Falls from a height/on the level

Mountaineering/tramping 260 4.4 Injuries (2014; 34.4%) Mountaineering/tramping 28 6.2

Luge (artificial) 24 0.4 Fatalities (38; 8.4%) Skiing/sleding 3 0.7

Flying fox 18 0.3

Parapenting 9 0.2

White-water rafting 5 0.2

Skiing/snowboarding 20 0.3 Struck by/strike against object or person

Mountaineering/tramping 10 0.2 Skiing 3 0.7

Rugby/other sports 108 1.8 Injuries (325; 5.5%) Climbing 1 0.2


Excessive hot/cold

Injuries (23; 0.4%) Mountaineering/tramping 5 1.1


Other event

Injuries (1123; 19.1%) Mountaineering/tramping 16 3.5

Fatalities (66; 14.5%) Scuba diving 2 0.4

Total adventure tourism injuries 1027 17.5 Total adventure tourism fatalities 99 21.8

aFigures in italics indicate adventure tourism-related cases.


(3; 0.7%), white-water rafting (n ¼ 6; 1.3%), kayaking(n ¼ 4; 0.9%) and jet boating (n ¼ 4; 0.9%), theseactivities were less well-represented among the adven-ture tourism-related injury morbidity data. Highestcounts of non-mountain-based adventure tourism-related injury were observed for horse riding (n ¼ 171;2.9%) and cycling (n ¼ 165; 2.8%), although thenumber of cycle injuries involving commercial cycletours or mountain-biking could not be determined fromthe narrative text. Aviation and water-based incidentsresulted in injuries of greatest severity: some 25% ofaviation-related injuries among overseas visitors re-quired hospital stays of more than 10 days, while horseriding and cycle injuries required over 10 days hospita-lisation in approximately 9% of cases only.Female overseas visitors in the 18–30 age range were

identified as the population group most at risk of horseriding injuries, with some 72% of injuries resulting fromfalls from horses sustained by females. Male visitorswere found to be over-represented in injuries involvingcycling (65% of all cycle injuries were to males),watercraft (70%), aviation (64%) and struck by/strikeagainst events (many of which were contact sportsinjuries) (72%).The role of a wider range of adventure tourism

activities in client injuries was examined from a surveyof some 142 New Zealand adventure tourism operators.Operators provided details of injuries sustained byclients participating in adventure tourism activities

during the 12 month period, January to December,1998. Table 4 shows client injury-incidence rates, andthe proportion of operators from each activity sector in‘zero’, ‘low’ (1–99 clients injuries per million participa-tion hours}I.M.P.H.), ‘medium’ (100–499) and ‘high’(500+) client injury groups, based on client injuryfigures and activity duration times provided by surveyrespondents.Lowest reported client injury-incidence was observed

for aviation-related activities, with all but one reportingzero injuries for the 12 month period, January–December 1998. These figures reflect the high hazard,low frequency nature of aviation accidents, but aresomewhat at odds with findings from analysis of injurymorbidity and mortality data, reported above, whichshow scenic flights, parapenting/gliding and skydividingactivities to make a small but important contribution tooverseas visitor injury morbidity and mortality. Thehighest mean injury rate was found for cycle touring(7401 injuries per million participation hours), withthree of the five cycle tour operators surveyed havingclient injury-incidence rates of 500 plus.The relatively high injury-incidence rates among cycle

tour and horse riding operations are in line with findingsfrom the analysis of injury morbidity and mortality datareported above. It is notable that these activities, whicharguably have a low level of ‘perceived risk’ associatedwith them, appear to present considerably greater‘actual’ injury risk than activities with higher levels of

Table 4

Injuries per million participation hours groups and mean client injury-incidence rates by activity sector

Activity Zero injuries

(%)

‘Low’ injury gp. 5100

I.M.P.H.a (%)

‘Moderate’ Injury gp.

100–499 I.M.P.H. (%)

‘High’ injury gp.

500+I.M.P.H. (%)

I.M.P.H.

Mean SD

All terrain vehicles 40 20 20 0 25 43

Adventure education 25 75 0 0 33 45

Balloon 100 0 0 0 0

Black water rafting 33 0 0 67 483 425

Bungy jumping 20 40 40 0 117 127

Caving 0 0 0 100 6636 8293

Cycle tour 0 0 40 60 7401 10273

Diving 25 50 25 0 125 144

Eco tour 89 11 0 0 5 17

Fishing 0 0 50 50 3164 4096

Guided walk 80 13 7 0 20 48

Horse riding 30 30 20 20 718 1344

Jet boat 60 20 20 0 33 74

Kayaking 83 13 4 0 14 62

Marine encounter 43 43 14 0 48 84

Mountain recreation 36 27 18 18 216 330

Quad bike 0 0 0 100 3096 3112

Scenic flight 89 11 0 0 7 2

Skydiving/parasailing 100 0 0 0 0

Wind surfing 80 0 20 0 50 112

White-water rafting 30 0 40 30 537 1131

Total % for accident groups 55 18 14 13

a I.M.P.H.: Injuries per million participation hours.


perceived risk (e.g. rafting, skydiving and bungyjumping). Indeed, the perception of risk held byadventure tourism clients engaging in these activitiesmay be an important moderator of client behaviour, andthus a significant factor in injury risk (CM Research,1995). Just two of the 11 mountain recreation operationssurveyed were in the ‘high’ injury-incidence group. Thisfinding is unsurprising, despite the obvious risk asso-ciated with climbing and tramping activities in mountainenvironments, as analysis of overseas visitor injurymorbidity and mortality data indicated that it isindependent, unguided mountain recreationists whoare most frequently involved in injury events (also seeJohnston, 1989; Bentley and Page, 2001).What these findings indicate is that within the gamut

of adventure tourism activities, it is possible to classifysuch activities according to their injury severity andincidence rates. What emerges is a continuum rangingfrom the low client injury-incidence through to the highclient injury-incidence, where perceived levels of riskassociated with the activity level, degree of physicalinvolvement in the activity and likely accident severitydoes not necessarily equate with actual levels of riskexperienced. The differences in rates between horseriding (see Beeton, 1999) compared with white-waterrafting offer two extremes of perceived levels of risk,which are not borne out in reality. Horse riding has ahigher than expected level of risk associated with itcompared to white-water rafting which is frequentlyperceived as a risky activity. What distinguishes eachactivity on the continuum, is that horse riding injuriesare normally more common but of less severity than inthe case of white-water rafting where injury outcomesare often quite severe (Page, 1997). By adopting thepossible classification of adventure tourism activitiesaccording to their client injury-incidence and likelyaccident severity, it is possible to target those areaswhere intervention strategies might best be placed toreduce some of the risks and resulting accidents andinjuries in a climate of limited resources for safetypromotion in a business sector largely dependent uponsmall businesses.

3.3. Common adventure tourism mishaps and perceivedrisk factors

Falls were the most common cause of injury amongskiers and other mountain recreationalists, and com-prised some 65% of all adventure tourism-relatedinjuries among overseas visitors (Table 3). Thesefindings are supported by the responses of adventuretourism operators surveyed, with the majority ofoperators reporting slips, trips and falls on the level tobe events leading to client injuries. Falls from a heightwere also frequently reported as a cause of client injuriesby adventure tourism operators, and were most often

listed by operators of activities with highest client injury-incidence.More specific information on factors affecting the risk

of adventure tourism injuries was sought. Operatorswere asked to list perceived common causes of incidentsinvolving clients of their activity. Operators’ responsesto this task were organised into the systems modelshown in Fig. 5.Commonly mentioned risk factors are organised

into a number of interacting subsystems. ‘Client’,‘equipment’ and ‘environmental’ factors are shown tointeract to produce the circumstances in which there isan increased mishap and injury risk. The model suggeststhat it is unlikely any one factor acting alone wouldproduce injury risk; rather, it is the interaction of two ormore factors (e.g. ‘failing to listen to instructions’ and‘sudden changes in weather conditions’) which createsthe conditions in which a mishap can occur. Manage-ment and organisational factors are shown to underlieclient, equipment and environmental factors, and can bethought of as latent failures on the part of the activityoperator. Finally, extra-organisational influences (fac-tors out of the direct control of management whichimpinge on the organisation of the activity) should alsobe considered if safety in small, independent operationssuch as found in the New Zealand adventure tourismindustry is to be better understood.

3.4. Possible interventions to reduce the risk of adventuretourism injuries

Interventions to reduce the adventure tourism injuryrisk should act at four main levels: the individual touristor recreationalist; the management and organisation ofadventure operations; the adventure tourism industry;and, where appropriate, government regulatory inter-vention.The analysis presented above suggests safety commu-

nications and other interventions to reduce injury risk inadventure tourism should target young male tourists,particularly men in the 20–30 age range. Potentialadventure tourism participants should be aware thatsome ‘actual risk’ is associated with adventure activities,and of the level of experience and skill required toparticipate safely. This is particularly true of activitiessuch as mountain biking, quad biking and horse riding,for which a relatively low level of risk may be perceived.Particular attention might well be paid to the promotionof safe adventuring and recreation practice amongindependent, unguided tourists, notably those engagingin mountain recreation and tramping in wilderness areas(i.e. the New Zealand backcountry). The risks associatedwith fast-changing mountain and marine environmentalconditions should be highlighted, and overseas visitorsshould be discouraged from attempting to undertakenovel activities in these environments without the


accompaniment of someone experienced with NewZealand conditions. Yet as Johnston (1989, p. 325)observed in mountain areas ‘Fatalities are by no meansthe most common of negative outcomes, but they arewell documented’ and to date there is no conclusiveevidence on the extent to which the introduction ofguides might reduce the range of injuries which areassociated with such environments. What is withoutdoubt, is the need to encourage good practice whichmakes visitors aware of the risks and some of the

prevention strategies they can adopt in an unfamiliarenvironment.Clearly, there is considerable scope for adventure

tourism operators and providers of recreational activ-ities to improve client safety (Fig. 5). Operators shouldbe confident that clients have sufficient knowledge,experience, fitness levels and understanding of potentialhazards and how to avoid or safely negotiate them,before allowing participation in their activity. Commu-nicating instructions which are important to client safety

Fig. 5. Risk factors for adventure tourism mishaps.


may be problematic due to language and culturaldifficulties, and a reluctance of some clients to attendto the less exciting issue of safety while preparing to takepart in a high-thrills activity. The challenge foroperators is to ensure all key safety instructions arefully understood by participants prior to commencingthe activity, as it is often too late to relay instructions toa client once the activity is underway. The use of guideswith the necessary activity experience and knowledge oflocal conditions is vital in mountain, marine and white-water activities. Adventure activity operators shouldalso consider the choice of terrain used for activitieswhere slips, trips and falls are common. Moreover,provision of footwear suitable for the underfootconditions likely to be encountered in walking-basedactivities would contribute to a reduced client injury-incidence. Careful maintenance of activity equipment,and better matching of clients with equipment andclothing would further improve adventure tourismsafety. The application of operational risk management(McKay, 1998) to adventure tourism operations shouldensure all risks associated with activities are identified,assessed, and where the potential for injury exists,removed or ameliorated.One of the most vivid elements that emerge from a

careful reading and analysis of accident reports, such asthose by the Maritime Safety Authority for water-borneadventure tourism accidents (see Page, 1997 for moredetail) is the constant pressure which many smalltourism operators face in placing commercial objectivesin front of safety concerns. For example, many of theMaritime Safety Authority reports on white-waterrafting and jet boating accidents emphasised climaticand environmental conditions. In some cases, these weremarginal at the outset of the activity and simplyworsened during the activity, contributing to the chainof events which led to the accident event (see Page andMeyer, 1996; Bentley and Page, 2001 for more detail onthe theoretical context of accident causation). Thisconstant pressure among small operators who areweather-dependent tourism operators does raise addi-tional environmental factors when the operation isbased in remote rural locations, highlighting thesignificance of balancing the pursuit of profit to keepthe business viable against safety considerations. For-tunately, Codes of Practice have now been put in placefor a number of New Zealand adventure tourismactivities in response to a series of tourist fatalities inthe more perceived ‘risky’ sectors of the industry, mostrecently white-water rafting and jet boating. This studysuggests regulatory government intervention should beextended to a number of other activities for which clientinjury risk appears considerably greater, notably horseriding and cycle-related adventure activities. Althoughthe New Zealand government and the tourism industryare strongly against regulation and planning in any form

beyond self-regulation (Page and Thorn, 1997), there isa delicate balance to be struck between ensuring thattourism businesses are not swamped by bureaucracy andred tape, while their clients are offered an experiencethat falls within internationally acceptable levels of riskand injury. At present, unacceptable levels of risk inadventure tourism activities simply shift the costs ofinadequate self-regulation on to the health sectorthrough the treatment of injuries through the no-faultACC scheme of treatment which operates in NewZealand (see Page and Meyer, 1996 for more detail onthis scheme).

4. Conclusions

Initial findings from a detailed programme of researchhave been triangulated to determine the extent of theadventure tourism accident and injury problem in NewZealand, to identify activities with greatest client injuryrisk, and causes of mishaps and injuries amongadventure tourism clients. This paper indicates thatadventure tourism is a significant contributor to over-seas visitor injury morbidity and mortality, and supportsthe assumptions drawn indirectly from injury compen-sation claims, outlined in earlier research by theseauthors (Page and Meyer, 1996, 1997; Bentley and Page,2001). It is argued that the overseas visitor adventuretourism injury-incidence rate is unacceptably high whencompared to that for driving, an activity with consider-ably greater visitor exposure. This is constantly over-looked by the tourism industry and in some cases, theindustry has been notable silent for its unwillingness toaccept or challenge this type of research. The lack of acritical debate in a public policy context has also ensuredthat the negative aspects of adventure tourism have beenminimized beyond the media’s attempts to hype thenegative consequences of fatalities. The underlyingpremise that safety standards and the need for regula-tion are certainly in need of a thorough review andreassessment in the light of such research is not inquestion. Influencing policy-makers to consider suchproblems, in a sector of the national economy which is amajor employer and source of foreign revenue thatmight be tarnished by a public debate on injury andaccidents, needs to be phrased in a positive manner. Thisneeds to emphasise the long term sustainability andability to value-add to adventure tourism businessesthrough improved safety standards which could allowmany businesses to reinvent their product offerings tothe overseas visitor.Highest injury-incidence was found for mountain-

based activities, notably skiing, climbing and tramping,which predominantly involve independent unguidedparticipation. Highest non-mountain injury-incidencewas observed for cycle and horse riding activities which


are not normally perceived as high injury-incidenceactivities. Interestingly, activities such as white-waterrafting, skydiving and bungy jumping, for which thereis, arguably, a much greater ‘perceived risk’, wereconsiderably less well-represented in overseas visitorinjury morbidity.Slips, trips and falls and falls from a height were the

most frequently recorded adventure tourism-relatedinjury events, and a range of potential risk factors foradventure tourism mishaps were identified from injurydata and adventure tourism operators’ perceptions ofmishap causes. These data were used to help identifypossible intervention measures to reduce the risk ofadventure tourism injuries. Intervention should have amulti-layered focus, targeting the individual adventurer,providers of organised adventure tourism experiences,and the adventure tourism industry. Moreover, thedebate for government regulation verses industry self-regulation should be revisited, in light of the findingspresented here, and following recent well-publicisedadventure tourism incidents involving internationaltourists.On-going research by these authors, considering

adventure tourism safety from overseas visitors’ ac-counts of injury experiences, will help to further identifyhigh risk activities and conditions, and should provideadditional data from which effective measures to reduceadventure tourism client injury risk may be determined.

References

Beeton, S., 1999. Hoof prints on the mind: an exploration of

attitudinal relationships between bushwalkers and commercial

horseback tours. Tourism Management 20 (2), 255–259.

Bentley, T.A., Page, S.J., 2001. Scaling the extent of adventure tourism

accidents. Annals of Tourism Research, in press.

Bentley, T.A., Page, S.J., Laird, I.S., 2000. Safety in New Zealand’s

adventure tourism industry: the client injury experience of adventure

tourism operators. Journal of Travel Medicine 7 (5), 239–246.

Berno, T., Moore, K., 1996. The nature of the adventure tourism

experience in Queenstown. Paper presented at the Tourism Down

Under Conference, Centre for Tourism, University of Otago,

December 1996.

Bovet, S., 1994. Safety concerns world travel market: B-M survey

shows. Public Relations Review 50, 8.

Chissel, H., Feagin, J., Warme, W., Lambert, K., King, P., Johnson,

C., 1996. Trends in ski and snowboard injuries. Sports Medicine 22

(3), 141–145.

Clift, S., Page, S.J., (Eds.), 1996. Health and the International Tourist.

Routledge, London.

CM Research, 1995. White-Water Rafting Customer Research:

Qualitative and Quantitative Findings. Report prepared for the

Maritime Safety Authority White-Water Rafting Safety Advisory

Group, CM Research, Wellington, New Zealand.

Cossar, J., 1996. Traveller’s health: a medical perspective. In: Clift, S.,

Page, S.J. (Eds.), Health and the International Tourist. Routledge,

London, pp. 23–43.

Cossar, J., Reid, D., Fallon, R., Bell, E., Riding, M., Follett, E., Dow,

B., Mitchell, S., Grist, N., 1990. A cumulative review of studies on

travellers, their experiences of illness and the implications of these

findings. Journal of Infection 21, 27–42.

Erhart, F., Bereiter, A., Leutenegger, A., Ruedi, T., 1996. Severe skiing

injuries: a retrospective analysis of 361 patients including mechanism

of trauma, severity of injury and mortality. Journal of Trauma,

Injury, Infection and Critical Care 39 (4), 737–741.

Feng, K., Page, S.J., 2000. An exploratory study of the tourism,

migration–immigration nexus: experiences of Chinese residents in

New Zealand. Current Issues in Tourism 3 (3), 246–281.

Feyer, A., Langley, J., 2000. Unintentional injury in New Zealand:

priorities and future directions. Journal of Safety Research 31 (3),

109–134.

Greenacre, M., 1984. Theory and Application of Correspondence

Analysis. Academic Press Inc., London.

Greenaway, R., 1996. Thrilling not killing: managing the risk tourism

business. Management 46–49.

Guptill, K., Hargarten, S.W., Baker, T., 1991. American travel deaths

in Mexico: causes and prevention strategies. West Journal of

Medicine 154, 169–171.

Hall, C.M., McArthur, S., 1991. Commercial white water rafting in

Australia. Australian Journal of Leisure and Recreation 1, 25–30.

Hargarten, W., Baker, M.T., Guptill, K., 1991. Overseas fatalities of

United States citizen travelers: an analysis of deaths related to

international travel. Annals of Emergency Medicine 20, 622–626.

Hargarten, S.W., Bouc, G.T., 1993. Emergency air medical transport

of US-citizen tourists: 1988 to 1990. Air Medicine Journal 12,

398–402.

Hartung, G., Geobert, D., Taniguchi, R., Okamoto, G., 1990.

Epidemiology of ocean sports-related injuries in Hawaii: ‘Akahele

O Ke Kai’. Hawaii Medical Journal 49, 52–56.

Hudson, S., 2000. Snow Business: A Study of the International Ski

Industry. Continuum, London.

Johnston, M., 1989. Accidents in mountain recreation: the experiences

of international and domestic visitors in New Zealand. GeoJournal

19, 323–328.

McKay, D., 1998. Don’t run the risk. New Zealand Local Government

39–41.

McLaughlan, M., 1995. White water death: why is the shotover New

Zealand’s most lethal river? North and South 70–81.

Major, R., 1995. Making sense of cave creek. New Zealand Leisure

Manager 21–22.

Ministry of Commerce, 1996. Safety Management in the Adventure

Tourism Industry: Voluntary and Regulatory Approaches. Ministry

of Commerce, Wellington.

New Zealand Statutes, 1972. Accident Compensation Corporation Act

1972. Government Print, Wellington.

New Zealand Tourism Board, 1993. New Zealand International

Visitor Survey 1992/3. New Zealand Tourism Board: Wellington.

Nichol, J., Wilks, J., Wood, M., 1996. Tourists as inpatients in

Queensland regional hospitals. Australian Health Review 19, 55–72.

Page, S.J., 1997. The Cost of Accidents in the Adventure Tourism

Industry: Consultants Report for the Tourism Policy Group.

Ministry of Commerce, Wellington.

Page, S.J., Meyer, D., 1996. Tourist accidents: an exploratory analysis.

Annals of Tourism Research 23, 666–690.

Page, S.J., Meyer, D., 1997. Injuries and accidents among international

tourists in Australasia. In: Clift, S., Grabowski, P. (Eds.), Health

and Tourism. Cassell, London, pp. 61–80.

Page, S.J., Thorn, K., 1997. Towards sustainable tourism planning in

New Zealand: Public sector planning responses. Journal of

Sustainable Tourism 5, 59–77.

Paixao, M., Dewar, R., Cossar, J., Reid, D., 1991. What do Scots die

of when abroad? Scottish Medical Journal 36, 114–116.

Philipp, R., Hodgkinson, G., 1994. The management of health and

safety hazards in tourist resorts. International Journal of Occupa-

tional Medicine and Environmental Health 7, 207–219.


Povey, L., Frith, W., Graham, P., 1999. Cycle helmet effectiveness in

New Zealand. Accident Analysis and Prevention 31, 763–770.

Ritchie, B., 1998. Bicycle tourism in the South Island of New Zealand:

planning and management implications. Tourism Management 19

(6), 567–582.

Rosman, D., 2001. The Western Australia road injury database

1987–1996: Ten years of linked police, hospital and death records of

road crashes. Accident Analysis and Prevention 33 (1), 81–88.

Wilks, J., 1999. International tourists, motor vehicles and road safety:

a review of the literature leading up to the Sydney 2000 Olympics.

Journal of Travel Medicine 6, 115–121.

Wilks, J., Atherton, T., 1994. Health and safety in marine tourism:

a social, medical and legal appraisal. Journal of Tourism Studies 5,

2–16.

Wilks, J., Oldenburg, B., 1995. Tourist health: the silent factor in

customer service. Australian Journal of Hospitality Management 2,

13–23.

Wilks, J., Pendergast, D., Service, M., 1996. Newspaper reporting of

tourist health and safety issues. Australian Leisure 7, 45–48.

Wilks, J., Watson, B., 1998. Road safety and international visitors in

Australia: looking beyond the tip of the iceberg. Travel Medicine

International 16, 194–198.

Wilks, J., Watson, B., Faulks, I., 1999. International tourists and road

safety in Australia: developing a national research and management

programme. Tourism Management 20, 645–654.

World Tourism Organisation, 1996. Tourist Safety. World Tourism

Organisation, Madrid.


Documents

How safe is adventure tourism in New Zealand? An exploratory analysis