challenge courses, zip line, and aerial adventure parks - history, trends & stats 11-2016

Copyright © 2015, 2016 by Michael R. Smith. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying, recording, or other electronic or mechanical methods, without the prior written permission of the author, except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical reviews and certain other noncommercial uses permitted by copyright law. For permission requests, write to the author.

Presented by

Michael R. Smith AdventureSmith, Inc. 2434 Pleasant View Dr Rochester Hills, MI 48306 (248) 481‐2568 office (248) 321‐4968 mobile (248) 212‐0070 fax [email protected] www.adventuresmithinc.com

CONTENTS INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................................... 4 HISTORY OF ADVENTURE CHALLENGE PROGRAMMING ....................................................................................... 5 PHILOSOPHICAL UNDERPINNINGS ................................................................................................................................ 5 FOUNDATIONS OF EXPERIENTIAL EDUCATION .............................................................................................................. 6 OUTWARD BOUND ........................................................................................................................................................ 6 THE NATIONAL OUTDOOR LEADERSHIP SCHOOL & THE WILDERNESS EDUCATION ASSOCIATION .............................. 8 PROJECT ADVENTURE .................................................................................................................................................... 8 EXPEDITIONARY LEARNING SCHOOLS ........................................................................................................................... 9 CORPORATE ADVENTURE TRAINING (CAT) & EXPERIENCE‐BASED TRAINING AND DEVELOPMENT (EBTD) ................. 9 EMERGENCE OF PROFESSIONAL TRADE ASSOCIATIONS ............................................................................................. 10 EVOLUTION OF THE CHALLENGE COURSE .......................................................................................................... 11 EMERGING COURSE TYPES .......................................................................................................................................... 12 STANDARDS FOR CHALLENGE COURSES ............................................................................................................. 14 TERMS AND DEFINITIONS .................................................................................................................................. 15 CURRENT & FUTURE TRENDS ............................................................................................................................. 16 FACTS AND FIGURES .......................................................................................................................................... 18 COMMECIAL MARKET GROWTH TRENDS .................................................................................................................... 19 COMMECIAL COURSE TICKET PRICES .......................................................................................................................... 19 ECONOMIC IMPACT ..................................................................................................................................................... 19 ACCIDENTS AND INCIDENTS (U.S. & CANADA) ............................................................................................................ 20 CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................................................... 22 ABOUT THE AUTHOR ......................................................................................................................................... 22 FOR MORE INFORMATION ................................................................................................................................ 23 REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................................................... 24

CHALLENGE COURSES, ZIP LINES, & AERIAL ADVENTURE PARKS PAGE 4 OF 24

INTRODUCTION The number of people participating in zip lines, challenge courses, and

aerial adventure courses is skyrocketing. Following more than a decade (perhaps even four decades) of double‐digit growth in the U.S. and Canadian markets, these structures and programs are more than a trend. Commercial courses dot the landscape of most ski resorts and major vacation destination locations. Thousands of courses are located at summer camps, outdoor education programs, schools, and universities. More recently, zip lines and aerial adventure courses have started to appear at fairs, inside shopping malls, atop cruise ships, and even in popular video games. Zip lines have become so ubiquitous as to be used in the marketing of yoga classes, insurance, and financial planning.

With rapid growth comes innovation, competition, commercialization, and challenges. The purpose of this report is to provide a historic account, overview of the recent growth of the market, propose common definitions, explore emerging trends, and suggest a direction forward.

This is not an objective report of the market, and the reader is advised of the writer’s biases and limitations. In laying out this report, I was intentional in including these biases, especially in the amount of time that I have dedicated to the history and emergence of adventure education versus trends in pure recreation or military training. Living and working in the U.S., this report is very U.S.‐centric. I have, at times, attempted to include and acknowledge advancements from outside the United States. Admittedly, I have not done a good job of highlighting the immense contributions which have been made from educators, entrepreneurs, and companies outside of the United States.

This is the story of a market which emerged from unlikely roots: military training, the green air movement, education, and human growth theory. Initially, challenge course and physical structures were designed to support mostly educational, development, or therapeutic outcomes. Today, the

market is a mix. While basic engineering principles remain constant across course types and structures, the philosophies, methodologies, and experiences are very different. At one end of the spectrum are traditional challenge course programs that remain intensely therapeutic, developmental, or educational. In the middle are programs that are purely recreational in nature and participation is most akin to adventure sports. At the far opposite end of the spectrum are rides designed to thrill and amuse in which participants are no more than riders and the experience is controlled by the structure or operator.

The rigid dichotomy between amusement and adventure education contrasted with the obvious similarity of structures is at the heart of many of the challenges the market is currently facing as policy makers, regulators, standards writers, and the general public work to balance public safety with the public good. Pervasive terms like zip line and challenge course are used to describe structures rather than potential outcomes and possible goods. Central to this is a confused public which does not understand what they are buying and what risks they are exposing themselves to when they participate in a program or event.

Inherent in this discussion is the concern of traditional‐use operators and educators who fear over‐engineering and blanket regulation will eliminate the educational, developmental, and therapeutic value gained from structured experiences that expose participants to risk, train them in skills, and foster an environment where reflection, introspection, and behavioral change are paramount. Balancing this is the need to protect the public interest and to eliminate unnecessary risks in situations where actual risk is not instrumental in leading the participant to an outcome other than frivolity and amusement.

The current discussion regarding risk in the challenge course industry is not unlike the current debate in football in the United States where recent reports and studies regarding head injuries and concussions has brought to the forefront the questions about equipment, procedures for treating injured players, and a debate about the social value of the sport. Is, for


example, the risk of injury not inherent in the sport? Can rules be imposed to reduce dangerous tackles? Or in setting rules, are we somehow effectively destroying the nature of the game itself.

I am a firm believer in the value of adventure and the power that well‐crafted, novel experiences can have on an individual, family, small group, or community. I believe in the innate value of spending time alone in nature, in challenging oneself physically and emotionally, and of experiencing and learning to manage risk in a healthy way.

In exploring the history, current trends, and statistics of the marketplace, I hope that readers will come away with a greater appreciation for the industry, the opportunities, and the challenges which await.

HISTORY OF ADVENTURE CHALLENGE PROGRAMMING

Many researchers trace the origin of adventure challenge programming back to Kurt Hahn and the creation of Outward Bound. Although Hahn played a significant role in the development of Outward Bound, a movement that has popularized the use of expeditionary learning and built upon Hahn’s educational approach of engaging learners and developing prepared citizens through a combination of classical education, testing, physical achievement, personal projects, and community service, the roots of challenge courses and adventure education programming dates back further. Challenge course programming traces its history along several converging paths of educational and social reform including the emergence of experiential education and active learning theory, the developing academic study of social and personal growth, the evolution of leadership training and physical education, and wilderness expeditionary learning.

PHILOSOPHICAL UNDERPINNINGS The foundations of Western philosophy and education were laid down

in the works of the Greek philosophers Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. The Socratic method of inquiry, a process of finding the truth through continued questioning, provides much of the basis of facilitation technique today. Socrates used this questioning process to explore and help others learn about the world around them. Based on a belief that ignorance was the root of evil, Socrates professed that virtue was knowledge and that those who knew right would act rightly. Socrates’ pupil, Plato, expanded on this premise as it pertained to the development of youth and a virtuous society. In order to assume positions of leadership in society, Plato believed that youth needed to acquire virtues such as wisdom, bravery, justice, and compassion. The best way to attain such virtues was through practice or purposeful experience that impelled the learner into action (Hunt, 1990). Further, Plato and Aristotle both advanced the idea that danger, risk, and


safety were important conditions for human growth (Priest and Gass, 1997, p 14). Challenge course programming today is based upon an acceptance of the value to education of Plato’s virtues and of the conditions under which those virtues are most effectively thought to develop.

FOUNDATIONS OF EXPERIENTIAL EDUCATION Although a few philosophers, including Comenius, Rousseau, and

Pestalozzi, contributed to the development and emergence of experiential education, it was John Dewey in the early twentieth century who helped popularize experiential education and bring about educational reform in the United States. Known as the parent of modern experiential education, Dewey (1938) wrote widely on the value of experience in formal education. He believed that individuals needed to be involved in what they were learning, and that learning through purposeful activities inside and outside the classroom, not just through the teacher, was important. Dewey’s belief that education should be holistic and directed toward the development of the whole person—physical, mental, and emotional—have vast implications for our approaches today.

As early as the mid‐nineteenth century and prior to the U.S. Civil War, progressive educators began to experiment with adventure‐based programs and expeditions in the United States. Following the war, camping grew as both an educational and a recreational endeavor, and prompted an environmental conservancy movement which ultimately led to the formation of national parks and the preservation of national lands. Initially through private schools and then later through public schools and camps, experiential education continued to grow. In 1924, the Camp Directors Association and Association of Directors of Girls’ Camps merged to form the American Camping Association. The American Camping Association continues today to be a leading force in the standardization and continuing growth of the camping industry and experiential education.

OUTWARD BOUND As adventure‐based programs were developing in America, similar

educational reforms were also underway in Europe. Out of the collapse of Germany after World War I, Kurt Hahn emerged to become a prominent educator as the headmaster of Salem Schule (Shalom School). Building on the work of Plato, Hahn sought at Salem Schule to empower Germany’s youth and instill in them the virtues of kindness, personal responsibility, social justice, and service to the greater community. Inevitably, Hahn’s ideals clashed with those of the Nazi party, which at that time was rising to power. Following Hitler’s 1932 “Beuthen telegram” in which he hailed and honored five storm troopers for trampling a young Communist to death in front of his mother, Hahn sent a letter out to all Salem alumni declaring that Salem could not stand neutral—alumni were called upon to declare their support for Salem or the Nazi party. Hahn was imprisoned soon after the Nazi party took control in 1933, but with the aid of former colleagues he was granted exile in Britain later that year.

In the spring of 1934, Hahn opened the Gordonstoun School for boys. The curriculum was to be based on the Plato’s virtues with the goal of developing the “entire person.” At the same time, Hahn also began working on a national plan to help foster “physical fitness, enterprise, tenacity, and compassion among British youth” (Miner, 1999, p.55). His plan included the development of athletic skills combined with an expedition that tested personal determination and wilderness skills, and led to a national award known as the Moray Badge. When war broke out in 1939, Hahn saw new challenges and opportunities. During the war, he was approached by and teamed with Lawrence Holt, a partner in a large merchant‐shipping enterprise who was concerned with the increasing loss of life at sea. Holt believed that many young seamen were needlessly dying because of faulty training and a lack of experience. Holt hypothesized that younger seaman who were not sail‐trained lacked the life experience, sense of wind and weather, and spirit of camaraderie that the older seaman had acquired in days prior to modern technological advances.


Hahn and Holt agreed that what was needed was a training program that provided young seamen with the life experience, courage, and skills needed to survive the hardships of being stranded at sea in the North Atlantic awaiting rescue. With the help of Jim Hogan, a British educator, the first Outward Bound School was established at Aberdovey in Wales in 1941.

Drawing on ideas set forth by William James exploring ways in which the physical and psychological stresses of war can bring out many of the best virtues and qualities in people, the Outward Bound program sought to simulate wartime stresses through the use of nature, adventurous situations, and community service. As James worded it in his essay “The Moral Equivalent of War”:

If now—and this is my idea—there were, instead of military conscription, a conscription of the whole youthful population to form for a certain number of years a part of the army enlisted against Nature, the injustice [if war which James abhorred] would tend to be evened out, and numerous other goods to the commonwealth would remain blind as the luxurious classes now are blind, to man's relations to the globe he lives on, and to the permanently sour and hard foundations of his higher life (James, 1949, p. 319).

Using the outdoors for a classroom, the course was rigorous and concluded with a final expedition that it was hoped would reproduce “the moral equivalent of war” and prepare young men with the virtues and life experience to better serve the community at large, prepare them for the rigors of the sea in as sailors in the merchant marine, and train them to act as rescue technicians in the event of ship sinkings.

The typical month‐long course contained “a mix of small‐boat training, athletic endeavor to reach standards of competence, cross‐country route finding by map and compass, rescue training, an expedition at sea, a land expedition across three mountain ranges, and service to the local people” (Miner, 1999, p.58). The obstacle course used during the program, and designed to mimic the settings at sea, was the predecessor of the modern

ropes course. “Young sailors would swing on old hawser ropes, cross rope bridges between tree tops, and climb up and down roped cargo nets or smooth wooden walls” (Priest and Gass, 1997 p.28). In addition to preparing sailors for the task of abandoning ship, the aim of the obstacle course was to build self‐confidence and group skills. Perhaps Holt best summed up the Outward Bound experience when he stated, “The training at Aberdovey must be less a training for the sea than through the sea, and so benefit all walks of life” (Miner, 1999, p. 58).

Following the war, Outward Bound took the form of a social movement, aimed at addressing what Hahn saw as six ways in which attitudes and abilities of youth were in social decline:

1. decline of fitness due to modern methods of locomotion 2. decline of initiative and enterprise due to the widespread disease

of “spectatoritis” 3. decline of memory and imagination due to the confused

restlessness of modern life 4. decline of skill and care due to the weakened tradition of

craftsmanship 5. decline of self‐discipline due to the ever‐present availability of

stimulants and tranquilizers 6. decline of compassion due to the unseemly haste with which

modern life is conducted (Richards, 1999, p. 66) The need to reverse these six areas of decline became the foundation

and guiding principle of Outward Bound and continues to be at the core of its programs today.

With the assistance of Joshua Miner, an American educator who had worked for Hahn at Gordonstrum; Paul Petzoldt, legendary American mountaineer; and others the first Outward School in America was established in 1961 in Marble, Colorado. Originally focused on extended expeditions for young men who were seeking “a unique and challenging opportunity to prove themselves in a rugged contest” (COBS, 2004), the Outward Bound program expanded to include programs for young women


(1965), adults (1969), and special courses for families, couples, educators, and youth‐at‐risk (1970) and gave rise to a growing outdoor education industry in the United States. Outward Bound continues to be a leading force in the growth of the field of Adventure Education with dozens of schools across the world.

Prior to his death in 1974, Hahn expressed his frustration in a 1960 address to the Outward Bound Trust. “There is little penetration into the established system of education… Our influence is not wide enough.”

It is unclear as to whether Hahn would have viewed the emergence and growth of the challenge course field as part of this reach into the schools. I believe many experiential educators would side with him in the belief that the reach is not widely enough adopted. Still Out of the Outward Bound movement in the United States came many distinct developments. Some of these were focused on education reform in the schools; others on wilderness leadership outside the school system. Three of the most notable being the National Outdoor Leadership School (NOLS), Project Adventure, and Expeditionary Learning Schools.

For more information on Outward Bound, visit http://www.outwardbound.net.

THE NATIONAL OUTDOOR LEADERSHIP SCHOOL & THE WILDERNESS EDUCATION ASSOCIATION

Recognizing the need for a school to train outdoor leaders, Paul Petzoldt along with “Tap” Tapley, both chief instructors at the Colorado Outward Bound School, founded the National Outdoor Leadership School in the spring of 1965. Over the past 40 years, NOLS has become one of the foremost leaders in training wilderness leaders. In 1997, Petzoldt co‐founded the Wilderness Education Association, a non‐profit agency chartered to administer an eighteen‐point wilderness leadership program that would certify educators and college students interested in pursuing

careers in recreation, forestry, conservation, and other outdoor fields (Ringholz, 1997, p. 213). The WEA continues to be one of the only driving forces in the United States toward a national certification for wilderness leaders. WEA currently offers courses through a network of accredited affiliates around the world. In addition to the work done by NOLS and WEA, Petzoldt’s contributions to the field are numerous, including the formalization of climbing commands, “Leave No Trace” ethics, and advancements in mountaineering and wilderness camping equipment.

For more information, visit www.nols.edu and www.weainfo.org/.

PROJECT ADVENTURE As the Outward Bound movement grew in North America, it inspired

many educators to adopt the adventure and experiential education philosophy into their curriculums. In 1971, Jerry Pieh, the principal at Hamilton‐Wenham Junior‐Senior High School and son of Bob Pieh, founder of the Minnesota Outward Bound School (now Voyageur Outward Bound), was awarded a three‐year grant to develop a comprehensive, experiential curriculum that would introduce the concepts of Outward Bound into the classroom. This project was called Project Adventure. This was not the first Outward Bound style program brought to schools, but it was the first to incorporate Outward Bound style learning into a high school curriculum and was the most successful.

The 1974 evaluation of Project Adventure showed such positive results that it was awarded National Demonstration School status and National Diffusion Network Model program status and funding for dissemination by the Office of Education. The Hamilton‐Wenham School District continued to receive a dissemination grant each year from 1974 to 1981 to subsidize the dissemination of the Project Adventure curriculum to other schools in the country. By 1980, more than 400 schools had adopted at least part of the original Project Adventure Curriculum (Dick Prouty, Project Adventure: A Brief History, Miles and Priest, p. 95).


In 1981, it was decided with the Hamilton‐Wenham School that Project Adventure would separate from the school and become its own entity. Since its inception, Project Adventure has continued to grow, offering adventure‐based programming, consultation, teacher workshops, staff training, challenge course construction and safety reviews, and challenge course hardware. In addition to its other services, Project Adventure continues to be one of the leading publishers of challenge course related studies and materials in the field.

Along with a broad list of other experiential educators, challenge course professionals, and programmers, Project Adventure has helped to introduce millions of youth and adult participants to the concepts and benefits of adventure education and programming and to popularize the use of challenge courses.

For more information on Project Adventure, visit http://www.pa.org.

EXPEDITIONARY LEARNING SCHOOLS In 1991, Kurt Hahn’s ideas caught the attention of American CEO’s

looking for “break‐the‐mold” designs to reform U.S. education. Through a partnership between Outward Bound USA and the Harvard Graduate School of Education, a new school modeled after Hahn’s vision was created. They called the model “Expeditionary Learning.”

There are more than 150 Expeditionary Learning Schools across 30 states in the United States as of this writing. Additional information, research, and a list of Expeditionary Learning Schools can be found at http://www.elschools.org.

CORPORATE ADVENTURE TRAINING (CAT) & EXPERIENCE‐BASED TRAINING AND DEVELOPMENT (EBTD)

The origins of Experience‐Based Training and Development (EBTD) can be found in the fields of adventure education, adult learning theory, and organizational development. Joshua Miner observed that Outward Bound may have been one of the first EBTD programs in existence at its inception was ultimately an organizational development solution for a merchant‐shipping company who wished to enhance the performance of personnel in emergency situations (Miles and Priest, 1999). Others would opine that the military was the first and continues to be the leading purveyor.

It was the work of Kurt Lewin, based on the work of John Dewey, in the late 1930’s and early 40’s that is most often credited with the popularization of experiential training in America. In the summer of 1946 Lewin, along with other colleagues (Lippitt, Bradford, and Benne) designed and implemented a series of two‐week programs aimed at encouraging group discussion and decision‐making in an environment where participants could treat each other as peers. The resulting programs which came to be known as T‐groups or Learning Laboratories were so successful that further programs were scheduled. Continued work was conducted throughout the ’50’s and into the late ’60’s at the National Training Laboratories (NTL) in the United States and at the Tavistock Institute in England before concerns about the psychological safety of participants and a lack of documented results led to its demise (Miner, 1999, p. 396). During the same time period, EBTD, more commonly referred to there as Outdoor Management Development, experienced substantial growth in Britain.

Primarily focused on enhancing workforce performance through the use of outdoor, experiential methodologies, the EBTD movement in America took off in the late ’70’s and early ’80’s. With the dissemination of new research into experiential learning and learning theory, and programs like Project Adventure, EBTD grew significantly in the ’80’s. One of the first


examples of EBTD developed through a partnership between Tony Langston at Boston University and Project Adventure’s Karl Rhonke and Bob Lentz. The initial program, known as Executive Challenge, enjoyed such success that other companies soon began adopting the model. EBTD grew quickly in the ’80’s and into the ’90’s, incorporating activities, including ropes courses, group initiatives, rock climbing, rafting, wilderness expeditions, and other extreme sports.

Although there is no uniform definition of EBTD, EBTD has become one of the strongest and largest professional groups inside the Association for Experiential Education (AEE).

EMERGENCE OF PROFESSIONAL TRADE ASSOCIATIONS

Even today, challenge courses and aerial adventure courses are largely unregulated in the United States. That said, practitioners in the field have come together to form a number of trade associations and educational associations devoted to disseminating information, credentialing individuals, accrediting organization, authoring standards, and advancing the field.

American Camping Association (ACA)

Formed in 1910 originally as the Camp Directors Association of America (CDAA), the ACA is dedicated to enriching the lives of young people and adults through camping experiences. The ACA offers a variety of educational resources and provides accreditation and peer review to camps.

For more information, visit www.acacamps.org.

Association for Experiential Education (AEE)

During the “progressive” education movement of the 1970’s, a group of educators assembled in Boone, North Carolina, at Appalachian State

University for the first North American Conference on Outdoor Pursuits in Higher Education. They discussed the formation of a national organization whose aim was to promote ways in which education could be made more relevant for students through experiential learning. In 1977, the articles of incorporation were formally filed in the state of Colorado. The stated mission of the AEE was “to promote experiential education, support experiential education, and further develop experiential learning approaches through such services as conferences, publications, consulting, research, workshops, etc.” (AEE, 1977).

The Association for Experiential Education publishes the Journal of Experiential Education, the Jobs Clearinghouse, newsletters, and more. In addition to its publications, the AEE convenes regional and national conferences each year and offers accreditation and peer review services. The AEE is located in Boulder, Colorado.

For more information, visit http://www.aee.org.

Association for Challenge Course Technology (ACCT)

Originally discussed in the late 1980’s during a series of Ropes Course Builder Symposiums, the Association for Challenge Course Technology (ACCT) was formally organized in 1993. The first trade organization in the industry, the ACCT was founded by a series of vendors, challenge course managers, and facilitators to set minimum standards for challenge course installation, operation, and management. The organization consists of a general membership and a voting board who constitute some of the leading builders, operators, practitioners, and suppliers in the industry.

In addition to setting minimum standards for design, installation, inspection, operation, and management of challenge courses, the ACCT offers peer review and accreditation services for designers, installers, inspectors and trainers; inspector certification program, and a variety of educational opportunities including an annual conference that offers a broad array of workshops and networking opportunities. In recent years, the ACCT has been heavily involved in helping to bring about mindful


regulations as local jurisdictions and policy makers attempt to make sense of the growing marketplace and develop regulatory policies.

The ANSI/ACCT 03‐2016 Standard was published in January 2016 and is the most current version of the ACCT Standard.

Many states, provinces, and other jurisdictional authorities specifically reference the ACCT Standard in policy and ACCT continues to lobby for practical regulation.

At the time of writing of this report, ACCT is in the early stages of rolling out a program to accredit challenge course programs and aerial adventure course operations.

For more information, visit http://www.acctinfo.org.

Professional Ropes Course Association (PRCA) The Professional Ropes Course Association (PRCA) was formally

established late in 2003 with a mission to promote best practices for all in the ropes course industry. First discussed in 1994, PRCA evolved out of concerns about the structure of the ACCT. The PRCA offers services similar to those offered by the ACCT, including accreditation, negotiated insurance rates for peer‐reviewed members, publication of standards, and an annual conference. PRCA published the ANSI/PRCA American National Standard (ANS) 1.0‐.3‐2014 on March 3, 2014.

For more information, visit http://www.prcainfo.org.

EVOLUTION OF THE CHALLENGE COURSE It would be challenging to determine where and when the first ropes

course was created. Obstacle courses, also known as “assault” or “commando” courses have been used by the military to train soldiers as far back as the ancient Greeks (Neill, n.d.). These courses, however, were primarily used for the training of extremely fit individuals and not

necessarily aimed at the development of the whole person as is the practice on educationally‐rooted ropes courses or toward the amusement, entertainment, and recreation of the general population as with commercial aerial adventure courses, zip lines, and canopy tours today. The use of belay and risk management systems on these courses were limited or often non‐existent.

Many practitioners cite George Hébert as the originator of the modern ropes course. A French naval officer in the early 1900’s, Hébert developed his own method of physical education, apparatus, and principles to train in what he called the “Natural Method,” which included the development of physical, moral, and “virile” qualities in an outdoor environment. Drawing from his naval background, Hébert patterned some of his obstacles on structures found on the decks of ships. “Hébertism” grew during and between the World Wars, becoming the standard for physical education training for the French military. Many ropes courses and challenge course programs in eastern Canada and Europe are still known as Hébertism courses today. Hébert’s methods have been greatly evolved over the past century. Many consider them the foundation of Urban Free Flow, also known as Parkour or freerunning.

While it is not known what influence Hebert may have had on military training or “assault courses” in other countries, there is evidence of a course at the Outward Bound School in Aberdovey as early as 1941. As many of the Outward Bound instructors had military experience, the course was said to have mirrored military assault courses of the day (Wagstaff). Further evidence regarding the use of ropes courses at Outward Bound Schools is more prevelant.

Marble, Colorado, the site of the Colorado Outward Bound course is believed to be the location of one of the first ropes course in the United States. Patterned after a military obstacle course and similar to the course in use at Aberdovey, the course was constructed of hemp ropes. Belay systems were minimal or non‐existent (Rhonke, Wall, Tait, and Rogers, 2003, p. 4).


Since the late 1950’s, ropes courses have evolved considerably. Modern ropes courses incorporate sophisticated belay and life safety systems using wire rope, friction devices, and climbing harnesses to manage what before were unmanaged risks. Recent technological advances in pole hardware, tree attachment techniques and climbing equipment along with industry‐accepted installation and design practices have greatly reduced the risk to end users and to the natural environment.

While early high element courses “borrowed” the hardware and installation practices of utility companies, builders quickly realized that the forces imposed on challenge courses created unique stresses, and the industry has since developed a body of knowledge that incorporate leading practices, new hardware, and guidelines for design, installation, and testing of the materials.

Modern courses make use of a variety of support structures including trees, utility poles, rock walls, and engineered steel structures. Today’s courses can be found in a variety of locations, including wooded areas, open fields, or heated buildings. A recent trend of themed courses (i.e. ropes course meets Disney World) has created a whole new genre of challenge course aimed at recreational pay‐to‐play users. New, mobile ropes courses, climbing walls, and zip line rides built on flatbed trucks or trailers have made challenge courses more readily available to the public for recreational purposes and are generating increased publicity.

Once differentiated by the terms “high” and “low”, “high” referring to those elements which required a belay or for a participant to be harnessed and connected to a flexible lifeline systems, and “low” referring to those elements where a belay was not needed and the risk of a fall could be reasonably mitigated by participant “spotting” (a technique combining supporting and potentially cradling a participant to reduce the impact of a fall), modern courses often engage elaborate engineered systems which include wire ropes, steel or wood support columns, and hardware and materials specifically designed to prevent or capture a fall. Some new

concepts have removed the flexible lifeline system and instead replaced it with air bags and fall protection netting.

EMERGING COURSE TYPES The zip line canopy tour and aerial trekking course are two of the

newest trends in the evolution of the challenge course, the former evolving from techniques and study of the upper rainforest canopy in Central America while the latter has been spurred by growth and development in Europe. A variety of other zip rides or zip line concepts have also recently entered the market.

Zip Line Canopy Tour/Zip Line Tours

While military and civil application of zip lines dates back hundreds of years, the commercial popularity of sliding down tensioned cables is relatively recent. While there are many innovators in regards to the development of hardware, pulleys, and techniques, Dr. Donald Perry was among the first to utilize and popularize zip lines as a means to explore otherwise undocumented reaches of the forest canopy. His innovation in tree climbing and high‐wire rigging are well documented and provide a foundation of many of the techniques used today to install and operate zip line canopy tours. Many credit his research, many awards, including the 1984 Rolex Award for Exploration, and publications with both the popularization of the canopy tour and with the growth of eco‐tourism. Money from the Rolex award was used to develop one of the first aerial trams to study and provide commercial access to the upper reaches of the rain forest canopy. When his work appeared on Newsweek, Life, and the New York Times, use of zip lines and tree climbing entered the mainstream. Perry’s book, Life Above the Jungle Floor, was the inspiration for the 1992 movie, Medicine Man, with Sean Connery.

Joaquin von der Goltz of Rain Forest Adventures (first tram installed in 1994) and Darren Hreniuk of the Original Canopy Tour are among other


innovators whose tours popularized zip line canopy tours in the early 1990’s. Early tours began appearing in Mexico at the turn of the Century and in the U.S. and Canada in 2003. The U.S. market has experienced double‐digit, year‐over‐year growth of zip line tours and canopy tours since 2005 (www.ziplinenirvana.com).

Aerial Trekking Courses

Aerial Trekking Courses are an offshoot of the traditional challenge course. Innovations made in Europe from the late 1990’s forward, largely sparked by regulation, led to the development of high‐volume, commercial courses.

Other common names for aerial trekking courses include: aerial adventure parks, treetop trekking, treetop adventures, and treetop obstacle courses.

While many of the elements used in traditional challenge courses appear on aerial trekking courses, participant lanyards and life safety systems have been engineered for maximum throughput and to greatly reduce staff.

The following are common characteristics of aerial trekking courses:

1) Pay‐to‐play. While traditional challenge courses are generally open to just groups, most aerial trekking courses are open to the general public as pay‐to‐play.

2) Focus on novelty and recreation. While some aerial trekking courses offer custom programs structured that provide opportunities for facilitated experience and self‐reflection, most courses are purely recreational. Routes are constructed to allow participants to explore the course at their own pace and to choose their level of challenge. While participants are often faced with challenges and forced to confront adversity, their experience is left to speak for itself and time is not structured for reflection or dialogue.

3) Courses are largely self‐guided. Staff serve as monitors and provide basic instruction, occasional coaching, coordinate course flow, and manage basic rescues and assists. Monitors are rarely trained in facilitation techniques and time is not allotted to goal setting and reflection. Following a short briefing on policies and use of equipment, participants are let loose to explore the course at their own pace. With the exception of continuous‐belay systems and track systems, most courses require that participants manage their own equipment transfers.

4) User‐input required. Participants move through the course under their own power and volition. While some gravity‐fed elements might be included, many advocate that aerial adventure courses are different from amusement park devices because of the level of input and participation required from the participant.

5) Elements. In addition to horizontal challenge elements, park often include zip lines, climbs, ladders, jumps, and other elements which allow participants to move vertically and horizontally through the course.

Commercialization first reached Quebec around 2000 and has quickly spread to the United States. New hardware, belay systems, and installation techniques, funded by commercial growth and private equity have led to larger parks, increased visitation, and increased regulation. Growth trends for aerial adventure parks in the U.S. are expected to exceed zip line canopy tours for the foreseeable future in part due the difficulty of finding large tracks of land required for the installation of zip line tours and zip line canopy tours.

Zip Rides & Zip Coasters

New zip line concepts are emerging that test the very definition of a zip line. From rides that span more than one mile to systems which utilize hybrid trolleys to propel riders along a span of cable with zero or positive slope, it is no longer clear whether the term zip line requires a flexible lifeline


system (rope or wire rope), or that the rider must descend by means of gravity.

Further adding confusion are a new evolution of zip lines referred to as zip coasters in which harnessed riders descend a length of bent rail or steel tube allowing for designs with drops, climbs, articulated turns, and spirals.

While some designs allow riders more control of their speed and direction, others have been designed to remove rider input from the system altogether. The lack of user input and popularity of such rides has further anchored zip lines in the category of amusement park device.

Free Fall/Swing/Jump Concepts

A variety of new swing, free fall and jump concepts have entered the market in recent years. Propelled by new technology that allows for a controlled descent of the participant following a free fall experience, the size and scope of many of the new designs are beyond concepts previously imagined.

While jumps and free fall concepts are often found on aerial courses and zip line tours as a means of egress from the course, they are also designed as stand‐alone events, sometimes with drops as high as 100’ or more.

Giant swings continue to be popular in the challenge course market, although many States have now firmly confined them to status as an amusement park device.

Climbing Adventures and New Climbing Concepts

The introduction of auto‐belay and other mechanic devices has led to a variety of new climbing concepts. Concepts include highly imaginative structures, trees climbs, and variations of traditional elements.

With the belay removed from the hands of the belayer (a time consuming and often laborious task), new concepts have greatly reduced the number of staff and allowed for higher throughput and volume.

STANDARDS FOR CHALLENGE COURSES Early high element courses “borrowed” the hardware and installation

practices of utility companies, builders quickly realized that the forces imposed on challenge courses created unique stresses, and the industry has since developed a body of knowledge that incorporate leading practices, new hardware, and guidelines for design, installation, and testing of the materials.

The Association for Challenge Couse Technology was formally organized in 1993 by a group practitioners, builders, and educators to set minimum standards for challenge course installation, operation, and management. Previously defined by incremental volumes, the most recent standard is titled “ANSI/ACCT 03‐2016 Standard”. The ACCT Standards remain the most widely accepted in the U.S., although several other standards have emerged in recent years.

There are many standards that exist that could apply to challenge course design, installation, inspection, and operation in the United States or Canada. The selection of the appropriate standard could largely depend on the type of course, focus of the organization and programming, and legislation in the jurisdiction of operation. The task of outlining all available standards and jurisdictional requirements is beyond the scope of this report. Here are a few of the most common standards that guide design, installation, inspection, and operation.

ANSI/ACCT Standard (03‐2016 at time of writing) ASTM F2959 (‐16 at time of writing)

ASTM 770 ASTM 2291 ASTM 1159


ANSI Z359 ANSI/PRCA ANS (1.0‐.3‐2014 at time of writing) OSHA ONTARIO REG 223/01 Building codes and jurisdictional requirements

The scope of ASTM F2959 is limited to zip lines, ropes courses, challenge courses, aerial trekking courses, canopy tours, and manufactured climbing walls when operated for concession and commercial recreation. The F2959 standards expressly excludes these devices when they are operated exclusively under the following applications: educational curriculum, physical fitness purposes, organized competitive events, therapeutic purposes, and team and confidence building

For answers to common questions regarding standards, I recommend reviewing ACCT Standards FAQs (published in November 2014). The document is a little outdated but provides useful information.

TERMS AND DEFINITIONS An entire research paper could be written on the evolution of

definitions in the challenge course and adventure education market. Here is a list of commonly defined terms.

Adventure Challenge Programming: a branch of adventure education that makes use of artificial environments like climbing towers, high and low ropes courses, and group initiative activities as tools for interpersonal and intrapersonal growth.

Adventure Education: the branch of outdoor education concerned primarily with interpersonal relationship and intrapersonal growth. The process of adventure education involves the use of adventure activities that provide a group or an individual with challenging tasks to accomplish (Priest and Gass, 1997, p. 17).

Adventure Park: a challenge course facility open to the general public, often consisting of a combination of ropes challenge course elements, zip lines, climbs, and traverses. May make use of continuous or intermittent belays or be designed to protect guests from falls by other means including nets or water.

Aerial Adventure Course: a defining term adopted by the F24.60 committee of ASTM in 2012 to include challenge course structures, high ropes courses, aerial trekking, climbing walls and zip lines, primary intended for commercial operation. Redefined in ANSI/ACCT 03‐2016 as Aerial Adventure/Trekking Park.

Aerial Adventure/Trekking Park: a self‐guided challenge course that is supervised and open to the public. Access is controlled (ANSI/ACCT 03‐2016).

Challenge Course: A facility or facilities consisting of one or more elements that challenge participants including zip line tours, canopy tours or aerial adventure/trekking parks (ANSI/ACCT 03‐2016).

Corporate Adventure Training (CAT): common term used through the 1990’s, primarily in North America, for adventure programs designed to enhance human performance systems and to improve corporate effectiveness. Also referred to as Outdoor Experiential Training (Laabs, 1991; Tarullo, 1992, Barker, 1995; White, 1995), Outdoor Based Experiential Training (Wagner and Campbell, 1994), Outdoor Development (Burnett and James, 1994), Outdoor Management Development (Holden, 1994; Ibbetson and Newell, 1999), Executive Challenge (Tarullo, 1992)

Environmental Education: the branch of outdoor education concerned primarily with ecosystems and the relationship between people and nature (Priest and Gass, 1997, p. 18).

Experience‐Based Training and Development (EBTD): the purposeful use of active learning opportunities to enhance organizational change through personnel learning.


High Element: An element installed at a height that requires a participant to be connected to a life safety system (ANSI/ACCT 03‐2016).

Low Element: An element installed below the height that would require the use of a life safety system (ANSI/ACCT 03‐2016).

Outdoor Education: an experiential method of learning with the use of all senses. It takes place primarily, but not exclusively, through exposure to the natural environment. Historically, there are two branches of outdoor education: environmental education and adventure education (Miles and Priest, 1999).

Zip Line Canopy Tour: a guided exploration or transit of the forest canopy, most commonly by means of a series of zip lines or aerial walkways with platforms (ANSI/ACCT 03‐2016). [The focus of such tours is generally educational and interpretive, but it may also be primarily recreational.] The term zip line has been appended to the definition of canopy tour found in ACCT Standards because canopy tours may or may not include zip lines. The scope of this document shall reference courses which include zip lines.]

Zip Line: A lifeline suspended between support structures that enables a person attached to a pulley to traverse from one point to another propelled only by the force of gravity (ANSI/ACCT 03‐2016).

Zip Line Tour: A guided aerial exploration or transit of a landscape by means of a series of zip lines and platforms generally supported by man‐made structures (ANSI/ACCT 03‐2016).

CURRENT & FUTURE TRENDS Although it is impossible to know the future of the industry, several

predictions can be made based on current trends.

Adventure challenge programs will continue to grow in popularity. Increased demand for leisure activities and opportunities to address society’s problems will lead the way to increased participant numbers and more revenue. Growth rates for large‐scale commercial zip line canopy

tours and aerial adventure parks have ranged between 20‐30% in the U.S. and Canada for the past decade. Growth of the commercial market will begin to slow until replaced with a new variant. Current trends would suggest that the new drivers will be 1) programs located in densely populated urban areas, 2) more extreme variants like American Ninja Warrior, 3) an increase of more expansive indoor courses that can be operated year‐round and brought to the masses at lower cost.

Programs will be brought to the user. While users will continue to frequent desirable destinations and high‐quality, fixed‐site programs, programs will be brought closer to centers of population and, as they become more mainstream, certain adventure experiences will be manufactured and presented in new ways as to make them more accessible to the masses. Rather than venturing to remote rock faces, climbing gyms will appear in homes, offices, shopping centers, and portably at events, fairs, and schools. More expansive aerial courses will be constructed inside urban areas and in populous locations including indoors in manufactured environments to allow year‐round use. Just as low rope events and group initiative props have become ubiquitous in physical education classes; aerial adventure courses will become more common place, visit with similar frequency to family entertainment centers or even fitness gyms.

Popularity will result in increased numbers of amateur courses. Popularity will result in an increasing number of courses being built in backyards and on private and/or unmonitored public lands which will result in high numbers of serious accidents and subsequent knee‐jerk regulation.

The size and number of organizations will increase. With the popularization of outdoor programming and increased media attention, the number of challenge course providers will increase. Informal estimates made by polling professional builders, suggested the total number of challenge courses in the United States and Canada in 2012 was somewhere between 18,000 and 20,000. That estimate is up from those made by James Neill, author of Wilderdom (an online resource for experiential and adventure education) in 2000 of 6,000 to 12,000 courses worldwide with the


vast majority being located in North America (Neill, n.d.) and the estimate of 7,750 programs in the U.S. made by Project Adventure in 2002 (Welch, 2002). Current growth rates will eventually slow and the market will enter a period of consolidation.

The profession will mature through self‐examination. Increased fear of litigation and fear of loss of funding will force continuing research into industry‐accepted practices. This trend will continue as risk management practices evolve and trade associations make use of new technologies to collect and disseminate data. Commercial pay‐to‐play structures will follow a similar path pressured by highly‐publicized accidents and the incorporation of zip lines and aerial adventures parks into the amusement park industry. Growth will be accelerated by the adoption of aerial adventure courses and zip lines into other, more mature markets. This has already started to happen with the amusement park industry and construction trades. We have already seen this in certain market segmentations.

The environment will become more regulated. Increased popularity, a rise in publicized accidents, and increased exposure of recreational challenge course programs to liable claims will result in greater scrutiny by government regulators and policy makers. Industry‐accepted practices and standards will be looked at more closely by government agencies, programs will become subject to increased government regulation, and design and installation standards will be subject to stricter design and engineering specifications. As an example of this, OSHA published 3845 Zip‐Line Safety: Protecting Zip‐Line Workers in 2016 to identify the responsibilities and requirements of zip line owners and operators in protecting their employes.

All course types will be regulated to the highest standards. While some jurisdictions and standards (i.e. ASTM F2959) have made exemptions for some educational‐use/traditional‐use courses, all course types will be regulated in the future to the highest standard. The cost of meeting the new standards will put many long‐standing programs out of business and will

raise the cost of entry and maintenance for others. This will prompt more mergers, acquisitions and drop off.

Technology will become a driving force to mitigate risk. New technologies and design techniques including but not limited to the use of steel columns and structures, auto‐belay devices, self‐retracting lanyards, smart‐belay lanyards, and continuous belay systems seek to reduce the manufactured and inherent risks associated with challenge courses. New technology will evolve to address existing challenges and new challenges created by the design and development of larger, more ambitious projects that serve significantly greater volumes of users.

Increased popularity of pay‐to‐play courses will change the field. The use of steel structures, smart belay and auto‐belays in the design of challenge courses have made the field accessible to greater volumes of participants. Traditional practitioners, whose use of the challenge course structure was to help groups and individuals reach educational, development, and therapeutic goals, will need to be more creative in their approach as the novelty of the experience is reduced and more people experience similar structures with different focuses.

Big brands will emerge. Until recently, challenge courses have traditionally been an amenity or offering of summer camps and outdoor education centers, integrated into school and university curriculum, or part of treatment programs. It is only in the past ten or so years that we have seen the emergence of business models which on the challenge course as the sole or principal attraction. The stiffening of industry practices, combined with increased fear of litigation and rising operational expenses (wages, insurance, reporting), will accelerate the development of big brand business models. Some companies will grow organically over time. Other brands will seem to emerge overnight, the result of mergers and acquisitions. There are currently a handful of companies with six or more parks and many more on the way. While current operators with excellent location and common operating systems will be targets for consolidation, other operations with


less than premier locations and/or systems not easily converted to match the consolidator will be challenged by increased competition.

Increases to labor wages will be a disruptor. Increased labor costs will burden traditional programs which are staff intensive and will popularize systems which reduce or even eliminate the need for highly qualified instructors. Increased labor costs will accelerate several trends: popularity of self‐guided versus fully‐guided adventures, the development of courses in more densely populated areas, and increase in mergers and acquisitions. Ironically, increasing labor costs might be the main catalysts to falling ticket prices.

FACTS AND FIGURES There is currently no comprehensive directory or database of challenge

courses and/or aerial adventure courses in the United States or Canada. The information presented herein has been collected through internet research, data collected by trade associations, conversations with professional vendors and operators, and the author’s personal experience.

The slides which I have inserted here focus solely on the commercial market. Attempts to document and research the traditional market have been highly unsuccessful as most programs do not market their courses or programs directly to the public. Instead, they are schools, universities, camps, hospitals, local recreation departments, and corporations whose program are often designed to serve a very specific market segment. That said, rough estimates for the traditional market can be made based on the number of professional inspections conducted annually, by extrapolating data from jurisdictions which regulate courses, and by randomly sampling camps and educational institutions. Based on rough assumption made by the author, the estimate of 16,000 to 20,000 traditional courses – high ropes, low ropes, or group initiative courses – is probably very reasonable. Many of these courses fall into the low ropes and group initiatives category.

Slides 1& 2‐ Growth Trend ofr Commercial Courses in the U.S. and Canadian Markets


COMMECIAL MARKET GROWTH TRENDS Zip line canopy tours developed most rapidly between 2010 and 2012.

Since that time, growth appears to have slowed. There are several likely reasons for this trend. First, there are a limited number of professional builders in the marketplace and capacity is somewhat limited. Second, increased standards, design requirements for further and faster zip lines, and regulatory requirements in some jurisdictions have greatly increased the cost of installation and have extended the time necessary to bring a project to market, in effect reducing the number of courses builders can bring to market per annum. Lastly, many builders who previously designed and installed zip line canopy tours are now focusing aerial trekking courses. Data indicates that the number of commercial zip rides and aerial trekking courses built year‐over‐year is increasing. I believe the numbers of courses illustrated here are understated. It is highly likely that the number of aerial trekking courses and zip lines have increased more dramatically in the past two years than my data illustrates. I attribute this margin of error to the increased production of steel courses, mobile zip lines, and modular kits which have made zip lines and aerial trekking courses much more accessible to the buyers. In recent years, many zip rides and aerial trekking courses have been added as amenities to family entertainment centers, zoos, museums, attractions, and resorts. No longer the sole attraction with a dedicated website, new courses can be much more challenging to locate.

In collecting data, mobile zip lines, temporary‐use structures, and aerial trekking courses that had less than 20 elements were purposefully omitted.

COMMECIAL COURSE TICKET PRICES Ticket price data was collected in late 2013 through internet research

and calls placed to tour operators. While some markets have experienced pricing pressure from increased competition, most parks appear to be holding their prices.

In general, guided tours are ticketed at a premium to self‐guided tours. Analysis reveals a wide range of pricing strategies. The leading factor in price differentiation, however, is not the number of elements or length of lines. It is much more reflective of the location and whether the activity is operated as a stand‐alone attraction or part of a larger facility with many attractions.

Further research is needed in this area.

ECONOMIC IMPACT Calculating economic impact of a market is well beyond the scope of

the author’s expertise. Presented here are simple calculations based on the estimated number of tours multiplied by the average ticket price. Ancillary revenue from tour merchandise, apparel, photo sales, and food and beverage has also been included. Rough calculations place total revenue


from the commercial tours at $742 million in 2015. Based on these figures and recent growth trends, annual revenues from commercial operations will exceed $1 billion by 2017. Keep in mind, this does not include the revenue from an estimated 20,000 traditional challenge courses or factor in sales tax and other fees which might be added in to the cost.

These figures can be extrapolated to generate the following estimates:

13 million – the number of individuals who participated in commercial aerial adventure courses in the U.S. and Canada in 2015

16‐17 million – the number of individuals who participated in challenge course related activities in the U.S. and Canada in 2015 that included elements which require life safety systems

70 million – the number of zip line descents which occurred in the U.S. in Canada in 2015. Includes individual participant descents, as well as, employee descents.

17,000 – the number of workers employed as guides and monitors in the commercial challenge course industry.

65,000 – 75,000 – the number of practitioners leading high ropes, low ropes and group initiative programs

ACCIDENTS AND INCIDENTS (U.S. & CANADA) There is no commonly recognized database for the reporting of zip line

or aerial adventure park accidents. As such, there have been few studies in recent years that are applicable to the current market or which provide adequate information to make meaningful conclusions about the U.S. market as a whole.

Two of the more commonly cited reports are “Zipline‐related injuries treated in US EDs, 1997‐2012” which appeared in the American Journal of Emergency Medicine in 2015 and “Sudden Unexpected Death on Challenge Courses” authored by Dr. Thomas Welch and Bob Ryan and presented Wilderness and Environmental Medicine in 2002. Both peer‐reviewed, the studies take very different approaches. The findings of both are highly relevant as discussion points. They both the need for additional study and the challenges inherent in the study of accidents on challenge courses.

Study 1: Zipline‐related injuries treated in US EDs, 1997‐2012

Like most recent accidents, this study was greatly sensationalized by the media when it was first published in 2015. It’s primary findings include: 1) zip line related injuries increased between 1997 and 2015, 2) falls were the most common mechanism of injury, and 3) where location information was present, approximately 31% of accidents occurred in a residential setting with the remainder in public places.

The report provides some interesting insights, but professionals in the aerial adventure course industry are likely to find its value questionable because of the studies significant limitations. Notably, the data fails to separate professionally‐designed/commercial courses which make use of


life safety systems from DYI and backyard zip lines which may or may not make use of life safety systems and are frequently installed and operated by individuals who lack training in the design and installation of zip lines, zip line operations and risk management. Further, the study does not include fatalities in its findings. Scrutiny of the study produces numerous other questions regarding the database and validity of data. This is not to undercut the authors findings, but rather to explain the limitations in applying this study to anything other than emergency medicine trends.

There are several observations which I found notable and am compelled to address. First, the authors report that they believe the numbers of accidents presented in their findings are very conservative. I would agree. Basic calculations suggest the number of accidents on zip lines in the U.S. when DYI and backyard zip lines are included are greater and growing. Second, the authors’ choice to present the data in terms of accidents per million US households, while likely relevant in the emergency medicine field, is not particularly useful in terms of tracking whether accidents are increasing or decreasing in relationship to the growth of the market and number of people participating or in helping regulators, standards authors, and end users in assessing the risk of injury to a rider. Since no comparisons are made to other adventure sports, the numbers can seem very high and would suggest zip lines are exceedingly dangerous. The numbers are put more into perspective when comparisons are made to other sports or, even, extreme sports. For example, approximately 8,000 youth are treated in U.S. emergency rooms every day for sports‐related injuries (Wier 2009). That’s nearly 3,000,000 million emergency rooms visits per year due to sports‐related injuries as compared to the 3,653 emergency room visits from zip line accidents in 2012 (Billock 2015). The study reports a total of 16,850 accidents on zip lines from 1997 to 2012. Compare this to a similar study of extreme sports which used the same database and reported nearly 4 million injuries from 2000 through 2011. Obviously, neither of these provide a fair comparison of incident rate per user hour or day, but they do provide additional context.

I will allow the reader to draw their own conclusions regarding the recommendations of the authors.

Study 2: Sudden Unexpected Death on Challenge Courses

The study, conducted by Dr. Thomas Welch and Bob Ryan, examines concerns of sudden unexpected deaths on challenge courses. Data was compiled from a registry of accidents, injuries and fatalities maintained by Project Adventure, a leader in the industry. This same registry has formed the database for other reports including the Project Adventure 20‐Year Study published in 1995. Studying a total of 17 deaths (15 which met the criteria of the study) from 1986 to 2000, the study reported five deaths from trauma, each from a fall from heights. The other ten deaths were classified as sudden cardiac death. Of the five deaths resulting from trauma, four were staff members involved in the setup and operation of the challenge course and all appeared to be the result of a failure to follow standard operation or installation procedures. Four of the five trauma deaths occurred on zip lines.

The study highlights two findings which I believe to be very relevant today. First, the number of accidents to staff, and secondly, the number of accidents which occurred during programming but were not trauma related.

Other Reports

Two other documents worth reviewing are the Alpine Tower 10‐Year Safety Study (Alpine Towers, 1999) and Challenge Course Safety: A Study of Manageable Factors Contributing to Incidents on High Elements by Jon‐Scott Godsey (Godsey 1994).

Research Findings

A study of existing literature and research confirms the needs for further research and identifies some of the hurdles inherent in tracking accidents and producing research. First, the increasing popularity of zip lining and year‐over‐year growth of zip lines in the U.S. is likely to result in


an increasing number of accidents to participants and workers. Second, there are many different types of zip lines and operating systems. The types of accidents which are likely to occur from the use of backyard zip lines which do not generally utilize life safety systems are very different from the types of accidents which are most likely to occur on engineered, commercial structures. These accident types are further differentiated from those likely to occur on traditional challenge courses, aerial trekking courses, freefall/jump activities and giant swings. Thirdly, many of the accidents which occur at aerial adventure courses and challenge courses are not trauma related. The Welch and Ryan study highlights the importance of thorough screening and continued assessment of both staff and participants. It also identifies the need to carefully classify accidents and fatalities by the activity at time of occurrence and to study causation.

CONCLUSIONS The aerial adventure course and challenge course markets present a

wonderful story of growth, innovation, entrepreneurship, educational theory, and leadership development.

Evolving from the emergence of unlikely fields, the marketplace finds itself in a period of unrest and immense growth. In the coming years, there will be many chances for sects of the market to branch off or resolve to come together. Probably most important in this dialogue (which should be a public discourse as it will involve education of the public, regulators, policy makers, designers and operators) is the need to differentiate between the challenge course and aerial adventure course structure and the programming that is behind it.

Without further research and clear definitions, the marketplace is bound to face turbulence. Highly‐publicized accidents and fatalities will continue to lead news headlines and will pressure policy makers, regulators, and standards authoring agencies to lead reactively. It is the concern of this author that this type of regulation and reaction might lead to an increase in

accidents and restrict commerce rather than protect the public good. Given current trends, it is not unreasonable to think that the escalation of standards and regulation will result in course designs that:

limit or eliminate user interaction with the safety systems, limit or eliminate staff control of the safety system, and substitute the opportunity for participants to learn and practice a skill

(i.e. how to control their speed on a zip line or transfer lanyards) with the sole opportunity to be a rider.

These concerns are shared by many in adventure education who fear that the adventure is being removed from the adventure.

Ultimately, it is this author’s concern that in attempts to regulate and reduce risk that courses will become boring and designers will be required to introduce additional risk by increasing ride speed and level of difficulty. Further, much of the opportunity for personal growth and education will be removed from the system and replaced by superficial thrills. Without mindful regulation and education, challenge courses will be sanitized in much the same way that playgrounds have been over the past twenty years and a powerful catalyst for team and leadership development, interpersonal growth, and education will be lost.

Despite these concerns, I am highly optimistic about the future of the marketplace, constantly “wowed” by the experiences and structures which are being imagined and created by my peers, and regularly reminded by the smiles (and sometimes screams or tears) of those participants who experience and delight in the power of novel adventure experiences.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR Michael has 22 years of experience in the challenge course industry as

a facilitator, builder, trainer, manager, owner/operator and business consultant and holds degrees in Wilderness Leadership and Master of Training and Development. He has worked with numerous companies as a


business consultant, trained hundreds of facilitators and zip line guides, authored and published climbing guides, and worked as a field instructor for the Outward Bound School.

Michael currently serves as the President of ArborTrek Canopy Adventures, LLC, an eco‐adventure tour provider with multiple locations and AdventureSmith, Inc., a niche consultancy focused on business consulting, marketing, and program management for eco‐adventure parks. He is a passionate educator dedicated to providing high‐value, small group and family experiences that foster an appreciation for the natural world, inspire and rejuvenate the mind, and lead to a greater sense of self and place. Michael currently serves as a Board Member at the Association for Challenge Course Technology (ACCT).

FOR MORE INFORMATION My love for adventure education is rooted in childhood, the exploration

of the woods behind my house, and the great adventures my parents took my brother and me on. That passion was further focused during the summer after my first year in college when a chance opportunity to work as a camp counselor introduced me and a bunk of rowdy adolescents to a challenge courses in Southeastern Michigan. My passion for education and novel adventure experiences has not dwindled and I continue to find great pleasure in participating in courses and vending services which helps others grow and deliver unique programming.

My interest in statistics, history, and willingness to share information is a growth of this passion. This document is subject to my faults, personal opinions, and 22 years of experience. Amazingly, it was started 20 years ago and has been added to over the years. If there is one thing I have learned in field, it’s that there’s a lot more to learn. I welcome any feedback, critical or otherwise, and look forward to further discussion and debate.

Please send any comments or concerns to [email protected].


REFERENCES Alpine Towers, I. (1999). ATI 10‐year safety study (Report). Jonas Ridge:

Alpine Towers, Inc. Association of Experiential Education. (1977). Articles of Incorporation file

June 17, 1977, State of Colorado. Barker, J. (1994). The great outdoors. Successful Meetings, 44(11), 91‐94. Billock, Rachel M. et al. (2015). Zipline‐related injuries treated in US EDS,

1997‐2012. The American Journal of Emergency Medicine, 33(12), 1745‐1749.

Burnett, D. and James K. (1994). Using the outdoors to facilitate personal change in managers. Journal of Management Development, 13( 9), 14‐24.

Colorado Outward Bound School (2004). Retrieved from http://www.cobs.org/ on October 31, 2004.

Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York, NY: Collier Books. Furlong, L., Jillings, A., LaRhette, M., and Ryan, R. (1995) Project Adventure

20‐Year Safety Study. Massachusetts. Project Adventure, Inc. Hogan, J.M. (1968). Impelled into experiences: The story of the Outward

Bound schools. Huddersfield, England. E.P. Publishing Company. Hunt, J. S. (1990). Philosophy of adventure education. In J. Miles & S. Priest

(Eds.), Adventure education, 4(1) 17‐20. Ibbetson, Adrian, & Newell, Sue. (1999). A comparison of a competitive and

non‐competitive outdoor management development programme. [Electronic Version]. Personnel Review, 28(1/2), 58‐76.

James, W. (1949). Essays on faith and morals. New York, NY: Longman, Green and Co.

Laabs, J.J. (1991). Team training goes outdoors. Personnel Journal, 70(6), 56‐63.

Miles, J.C. and Priest, S. (Eds.). (1999). Adventure programming. State College, PA: Venture Publishing, Inc.

Miner, J. L. (1999). The creation of outward bound. In J.C. Miles & S. Priest (Eds.), Adventure programming (pp. 55‐64). State College, PA: Venture Publishing, Inc.

Miner, T. (1999). Kurt Hahn. In J.C. Miles & S. Priest (Eds.), Adventure programming (pp. 65‐70). State College, PA: Venture Publishing, Inc.

Neill, J. (n.d.). History of ropes courses. Retrieved from http://www.wilderdom.com/ ropes/RopesHistory.html.

Perry, Donald, PhD. (1988). Life Above the Jungle Floor. Fireside. Priest, S. & Gass, M. (1997). Effective leadership in adventure programming.

Champaign, IL: Human Kineitcs. Priest, S. and Gass, M. (1999). Future trends and issues in adventure

programming. In J.C. Miles & S. Priest (Eds.), Adventure programming (pp. 473‐478). State College, PA: Venture Publishing, Inc.

Rhonke, K., Wall, J., Tait, C., Rogers, D. (2003). The complete ropes course manual (3rd ed.). Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt Publishing Company.

Richards, A. (1999). Kurt Hahn. In J.C. Miles & S. Priest (Eds.), Adventure programming (pp. 65‐70). State College, PA: Venture Publishing, Inc.

Ringholz, R. (1997). On belay! The life of legendary mountaineer paul petzoldt. Seattle, WA: The Mountaineers.

Tarullo, G.M. (1992). Making outdoor experiential training work. Training, 29(8), 47‐52.

Wagner, R. J. and Campbell, J. (1994). Outdoor‐based experiential training: improving transfer of training using virtual reality. Journal of Management Development, 13(7), 4‐11.

Wagstaff, M. (2006). A history of challenge courses. Retrieved from https://www.nmmi.edu/academics/leadership/documents/HistoryOfCCourses.pdf on October 1, 2016.

Welch, Thomas R. et al. (2002). Sudden Unexpected Death on Challenge Courses. Wilderness & Environmental Medicine, 13(2), 140‐142.

Wier, L., Miller, A., and Steiner, C. (2006). Sport injuries in children requiring hospital emergency care. HCUP Statistical Brief #75. June 2009.

challenge courses, zip line, and aerial adventure parks - history, trends & stats 11-2016

Documents