Introduction

So many organizations hold a piece of the outdoor industry, each with a different tolerance for risk, standard of training, and required certification and operating differently. This begs the question: whose standard is the industry standard for the outdoor field?

Beneficial Risk

Risks associated with outdoor recreation are integral to programming, as highlighted in Steve Smith’s book, Beneficial Risks. Risk in outdoor recreation has significant benefits, such as teaching people to engage with and navigate risk meaningfully (risk literacy) that can be transferred to life outside recreational programs. Additionally, the development gained through outdoor education opportunities can often outweigh the risks. This can be most significantly highlighted through programming for at-risk youth, such as wilderness therapy. A student joins a program due to parental concern about drug use or a judge assigns wilderness therapy as an option for a youth who otherwise would be sent to a juvenile penitentiary. This experience may very well save their life, providing them the necessary tools to succeed in life. Suddenly the beneficial risks of rock climbing or backpacking seem quite worthwhile when compared to heavy drug use or prison. Outdoor education does this on many scales, helping students grow and develop, manage their emotions, and communicate, and has been shown to have significant impacts on mental health.

Range of Standards

The range of standards is a significant issue the outdoor industry faces. For example, the camp industry has a standard that has some rigorous components, primarily those required by the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). The non-profit industry holds a large piece of outdoor education ranging from Scouts programs to those dedicated to identity groups. Private and public High Schools, Colleges, and Universities have a standard that anecdotally often changes based on the person(s) in leadership roles. Then comes the National Outdoor Leadership School (NOLS) and Outward Bound (OB) standards, which undoubtedly hold some of the highest standards in the outdoor education industry and are considered to be the founders of modern outdoor education within the United States. Lastly, we have the guiding industry, a growing contingent in the United States, and the example requiring the highest technical standards outdoors but only sometimes prioritizing some of the developmental, educational, and facilitation standards.

Some may argue that each section of the outdoor industry is different and requires its own set of benchmark standards; however, many of these industries overlap in sport, values, programming locations, and even staffing. So, whose standard is appropriate for our industry?

Appropriateness and Barriers

The American Mountain Guides Association (AMGA) asserts that their membership must follow the “Scope of Practice”, a document identifying which terrain is acceptable based on AMGA training and certification. Thus one might conclude that if a guide or instructor falls outside of scope, they may not be following the industry’s standard. However, the standards outlined in the scope of practice are anecdotally beyond 90% of those operating in the greater outdoor industry due to a high standard for physical and technical competence and financial investment that is difficult to recoup. This begs the question; Is it a reasonable standard? James Moss of Recreation Law asserts this is not the case in his letter to the editor after an article published on Wilderness Medicine standards, “In law, the standard is the lowest acceptable level of doing or not doing something that a reasonable person would accept. It may not be the median or average. As such, stating that something other than the lowest acceptable level is the “standard” creates a path for a lawsuit against anyone or anything performing below the median but above the lowest acceptable level.” (Moss, 2010, p.79). The Professional Climbing Instructor Association (PCIA) has worked to address this by breaking certifications into more manageable certificates that could span the industry. Still, certifications have not been deemed the definitive source of standards.

Currently, the industry standard needs to be narrower, resulting in program managers needing a better understanding of what operating procedures to use as a benchmark. This also leads to passionate discussions in the workplace that need clear resolution. Imagine this; a camping professional, an Outward Bound instructor, and a guide are all hired as a university’s leadership team. This group would have much potential as they have an incredibly diverse skill set; however, with three different standards they are working to meet, the leadership team will inevitably need help concluding how to operate. Without a clear direction forward and a great deal of compromise, the team would struggle to make decisions on staff training, risk management procedures, group size/ratios, and many more organizational decisions. This could cause financial and organizational distress in the outdoor program and undermine its success. Every time leadership changes, significant time will be spent determining the appropriate standards the program chooses to follow.

One question often asked is; why don’t all programs just meet the highest standards in the industry? Unfortunately, accreditation, standards, and certifications are expensive and can become financially burdensome for organizations. This financial burden is often transferred to participants and staff increasing the barriers and creating exclusivity in outdoor recreation and education. Additionally, organizations are stuck in a catch-22; how can you constantly achieve the highest standard if you fail once with an injury, you will most likely have a lawsuit.

If every new organization is required to interpret the standards on their own and determine what standard(s) to follow, we are doing a real disservice to the health and growth of the outdoor industry. Despite this, the outdoor recreation and education industry is seeing significant growth. This work of professionalization will also break down entry barriers, creating space for specialized programs like OutdoorAfro or She Jumps. These programs are leading our industry to a more diverse and inclusive future; however, the industry must give them the tools needed for success. Without a well-defined standard, we are further perpetuating the barrier to entry, but now on a programmatic scale.

Programmatic Goals and Tolerance for Risk

Each sector of the outdoor industry has a different tolerance for risk, and in many cases, different programs within each subsection also will have a different risk tolerance. “Risk is defined as the potential to lose something of value as a result of a negative event — physical injury, emotional trauma, or financial loss… …However, risk also has been defined in terms of what a person stands to gain due to engaging in uncertain endeavors.” (Martin et al., 2017, P.299). Each organization will have different tolerance for loss and motivation for gain and, as a result, will operate a bit differently. For example, a guiding company may be contracted to lead an expedition up Denali, a mountain known for having some fairly significant inherent risk. This may be appropriate given that the guide service is likely working with an adult-aged population that has been informed of the risks associated with the mountaineering objective. Now imagine a kid’s summer camp writing home to parents asking for permission to lead their students up Denali; you can imagine this might not go over well with parents. This example of differing clientele highlights one of many factors incorporated in determining an organization’s risk profile. Other factors may be insurance, the mission/vision of the organization, the experience of instructors/guides, administrative/risk management support, and many more.

Literature Review of Industry Standard
Law and Standards

After an incident occurs in the outdoor industry, the organization will need to follow their incident response protocol, as well as analyze the incident (potentially alongside an external consultant), collect all documentation that informs staff training, medical notes, risk management plans, lesson and facilitation plans, and likely much more. All of this will assist in analyzing the incident and prepare the organization for potential litigation. If the organization is brought to court, the organization or the plaintiff may subpoena an industry leader to provide testimony about the industry standard concerning the organization’s actions that led to the incident. The plaintiff seeking damages for the incident often works to prove negligence; if the organization does not meet the standard, they may be found negligent, which is why a clear standard is essential to our industry’s health. Or just the opposite. Without a clear standard, it is difficult to prove that it was not met, and lawsuits are harder to prove. It is worth noting that legal statute is the only definitive standard (Moss, 2015). Without a statute, standards will remain open to interpretation; some states, such as the State of Maine’s Educational Trip Leader Permit, have regulations to determine the minimum qualifications of leaders in the outdoors, but standards and regulations are different. Standards have legal leeway, while governmental regulations do not.

To be found negligent, the defendant must meet four conditions; duty to act, breach of duty, proximate cause, and actual loss. “Duty to act refers to the duty of outdoor leaders to provide a certain level of care to program participants. It also refers to the duty of outdoor leaders to meet the standard of care in the industry or to act as other reasonable and prudent professionals would in similar situations.” (Martin et al., 2017, P. 311). This duty of leaders and organizations in the outdoors likely makes programs most vulnerable to litigation. It is determined by the court’s interpretation of the industry standard concerning the organization’s actions. “Breach of duty refers to the failure of a leader to meet the industry’s standard of care in providing services. If the leader fails to meet the standard of care and consequently fails to prevent a foreseeable accident, then the leader could be found negligent. Breach of duty can result from acts of omission or a failure to perform duties that should have been performed. Breach of duty also can result from acts of commission, in which leaders do something they should not have done or perform a particular duty incorrectly. Proximate Cause means that the breach of duty was the cause of the accident.” (Martin et al., 2017, P. 311). While litigation should not be the primary motivating factor for meeting industry standards, it often becomes the motivation because it is balanced with the desire to make programming financially accessible to participants and profitable for organizations.

“Whether an outdoor leader offers program participants an adequate level of care is determined according to the general standard of care offered by other professionals in the industry. For instance, most commercial rafting companies require their clients to wear helmets to protect against head injuries that could occur if a client falls out of a raft and hits their head on a rock. A rafting company that fails to require its clients to wear helmets risks being held liable or accountable for such an injury. The standard of care in a particular industry is determined according to what other reasonable and prudent professionals would do in similar situations. The court relies on other professionals or expert witnesses to determine what a professional should have done in a particular situation. The standard of care in an industry is sometimes called the industry standard or industry norm” (Martin, et al., 2017, p. 310).

This excerpt from Outdoor Leadership Theory and Practice (2017) begins to articulate some factors in determining the industry standard; wearing a helmet is a clear example of a standard; however, leader experience, training, and certification are much less clear. The example of leadership experience is further stressed by the court relying on the “other professionals” they are asking to decide what the leader should have done and what experience they should have. If the industry cannot conclude what our standards are, then litigation will remain a primary concern of our industry.

Knowing litigation is a primary concern, why doesn’t the industry come to a consensus on the certifications, qualifications, and experience needed to be a leader in the outdoors? The most tangible of these is likely certification which has a history of being a contentious debate topic in the outdoor industry. “Great Britain was the first nation to institute a formal training program for outdoor leaders, and the program’s evolution had three distinct phases: certification, qualification, and occupational standards.” – 1961 Mountain Leadership Training Board – Priest and Gass (2005, p. 31). In 1961 the Mountain Leadership Training Board began to lay the groundwork for this; however, the concept of standardized training and certification was not unanimously accepted. A recent study sought to understand the industry’s perception of credentialing in the industry; “All respondents identified similar challenges to a credentialing system: cost versus benefit, assessing and evaluating the qualifications, and a lack of value-added (a sense that there are already too many credentials in the industry). Although credentialing can signal a unified profession that agrees on the professional competencies required for effective professional practice, our findings indicate the outdoor industry is not yet there” (Marchand et al., 2019, p.352). New Zealand does have a standard, licensing, a baseline of data, and maybe even a road map for others to follow, but there is one major caveat that differs. Unlike other countries, New Zealand does not have tort law, so one cannot be sued there.

Certification

The number of organizations and stakeholders offering certification and accreditation is quite long (see Table 1). While the industry may not be “ready” to agree upon professional competencies encompassing the entirety of outdoor recreation and education program types, the certification has some clear advantages that have led to the wide acceptance of certifications in the industry. Priest and Gass (2005) stated over 15 years ago that certifications can protect the consumer and the environment, maintain public safety, establish a caliber of excellence, motivate outdoor leaders to higher standards, lower insurance premiums, and provide support in case of litigation Which has been seen today.

Demonstrated competency and knowledge are critical in establishing a culture of excellence and professionalism in the outdoor industry. In addition, professional certifications can provide an additional layer of security for an organization, supporting the documentation of leader competence in the event of litigation. They can even lower insurance costs by furthering the list of benefits for employers hiring certified individuals.

Certifications are also incredibly valuable for consumers who may need to learn to assess the appropriateness of the experience of the leader they hire. It can assist with informing consumers as they determine if a program is safe, well-trained, and meets a professional standard. If educated properly, consumers may choose to hire only certified individuals or accredited programs, increasing marketability for organizations.

While certifications have many benefits, they also have some significant drawbacks. Priest and Gass (2005) pointed out that certifications are costly and time-consuming, establish a ‘closed-shop monopoly’ by excluding experienced but uncertified people, test only specific skills, and exclude the most crucial component of a leader’s capacity for judgment. Additionally, it may attract the wrong people for the wrong motives to the field. The outdoor industry has a long history of poor compensation and demanding significant time from professionals, coupled with the significant expense and time associated with certification. Our industry quickly becomes an exclusive space for those with a wealth of time and financial resources. An example of this is the American Mountain Guides Association Mountain Guide Certification. Becoming certified requires over $40,000 not including associated expenses and often takes a minimum of seven years. The organization is not an accredited educational institution, thus making it nearly impossible to receive federal financial assistance and loans, with a few exceptions. These barriers are limiting the growth of our industry and further fostering an exclusive environment in the outdoors.

Time, expense, and exclusivity are not the only drawbacks to using certification as a determining factor for industry standards. It is well known that certifications need to include many of the skills required to be a professional in the industry. Proponents and opponents agreed that the technical skills or “hard skills” were certifiable, however it is challenging to measure and certify “soft skills” (Priest & Gass, 2005). Examples of “soft” or “meta” skills are vast, but some examples are leadership ability, facilitation skills, emotional intelligence, nature interpretation, teaching, crisis reaction, and conflict resolution. These skills are essential to the effectiveness of a professional, and their exclusion in certification programs may result in a lack of breadth required to be an effective leader. “Competency refers to the condition of being qualified to perform an act… The competence of a supervisor is measured by several components, which include, but are not limited to, knowledge, age, experience, credentials, and attentiveness to duty” (Gaskin & Batista, 2007, p. 122). Any review of industry standards, certifications, or accreditation should not fall into the trap of only assessing some of the criteria.

Alternative Benchmarking

Alternative measures for benchmarking often include more of the meta-skills which has led to decades of debate on program accreditation vs. individual certification. Accreditation provides an organization with a stamp of approval from a particular organization, such as the Association for Experiential Education (AEE). AEE’s accreditation process set the standards for risk management, safety, program success, and sound practices and published the 7^th edition Manual of Accreditation for Adventure Program (Austin et al., 2022). These accreditations are intended to increase the professional standard, however the effect of them may be working to the benefit of the plaintiffs and not the outdoor industry in court. As an example, if an organization has to meet 80% of best practices listed in the manual to become accredited, but has a lawsuit involving something in the other 20% of the listed best practices the organization did not meet, the plaintiff can easily point to their not meeting the standard.

Accreditation is not necessarily required to meet best practices. However, it does come with many of the same benefits of certification, an additional layer of security in the event of litigation, reduced insurance premiums, and increased branding and marketing with the stamp of approval from the accrediting body.

Certification and accreditation are optional to meet best practices; organizations can compare their practices to that of similar organizations. Several books on best practices exist and the industry holds a conference regularly where organizations publish or present their practices, which smaller organizations often see as best practices (Ewert & Sibthorp, 2014).

Benchmarking is often the most financially feasible way to determine if your organization meets the best practices; however, it can be cumbersome in time to review programmatic standards and does not come with the benefits that are associated with accreditation and certification. In addition, as mentioned earlier, you must take care to benchmark with appropriate comparisons to stay within the standard. For example, whitewater boating is usually viewed as riskier than flatwater boating (Priest & Gass, 2018). Therefore, if you benchmark your training hours, certifications, and experience of instructors with that of another program, but you are leading whitewater canoe programs rather than flatwater canoe programs, you will likely fall short of the standard of another whitewater canoe outfit.

Any combination of benchmarking, accreditation, and/or certification may lead an organization to meet industry standards. However, it is essential that the program use like programs as benchmarks and ensure they assess all components of the program, technical and meta-skills, and experience of instructors.

Summary

The outdoor industry is rapidly growing and changing. What it means to be an outdoor professional is also changing rapidly to meet the changing needs of participants. Our industry needs to find common ground and agree on an acceptable baseline. While a nationwide certification may not be feasible at this time, it would be plausible to survey the industry and publish guidelines for professional practice that may suggest minimum qualifications for each leadership tier in the outdoor industry and may incorporate existing certifications, accreditation, previous experience, mentorship/apprenticeship, as well as staff training. Determining the standard for the industry is critical to increasing professionalism, adjusting the perception of the outdoor industry, and transitioning from outdoor recreation positions being summer jobs to roles that exemplify that of a career professional.

Table 1

Certification and Accreditation Stakeholders List

References

Austin, J., Funnell, A., Hirsch, J., Lindsey, M., Nordquist, J., Pace, S., & Wolf, P. (2022). Association of Experiential Education: Manual of accreditation standards for adventure programs (7th ed.).

Ewert, A. W., & Sibthorp, J. (2014). Outdoor adventure education: Foundations, theory, and research. Human Kinetics. https://doi.org/10.5040/9781492595663

Gaskin, L. P., & Batista, P. J. (2007). Supervision. In D. J. Cotton & J. T. Wolohan (Eds.), Law for recreation and sport managers (4th ed., pp. 119–132). Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company.

Marchand, G., McMahan, K., Hester, H. D., Lewis, P., Friesen, P. Zook, H. W. (2019). Outdoor industry credential: Exploring perspectives within the profession. Journal of Outdoor Recreation, Education, and Leadership, 11(4), 352–358. https://doi.org/10.18666/JOREL-2019-V11-I4-9633

Martin, B., Breunig, M., Wagstaff, M., & Goldenberg, M. (2017). Outdoor leadership: Theory and practice. Human Kinetics. https://doi.org/10.1080/14729670802214594

Moss, J. (2015). Outdoor recreation risk management, insurance & law. Sagamore Publishing.

Moss, J. (2010). Response to “Wilderness first aid: Is there an ‘industry standard?’” Wilderness & Environmental Medicine, 21(1), 79–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wem.2009.12.014

Moss, J. (2023, June 23). Personal communication.

Priest, S., & Gass, M. (2005). Effective leadership in adventure programming (2nd ed.). Human Kinetics.

Priest, S., & Gass, M. (2018). Effective leadership in adventure programming (3rd ed.). Human Kinetics.

Sibthorp, J., & Ewert, A. (2014). Outdoor adventure education: Foundations, theory, and research. Human Kinetics. https://doi.org/10.5040/9781492595663

Smith, S. (2021). Beneficial risks. Sagamore Venture Publishing.