We're doing risk management for play, recreation, and sport wrong
A bit clickbaity but chances are this title is accurate and I'll explain why in the article.
Earlier this year a new international standard was published: ISO 4980:2023 Benefit-risk assessment for sports and recreational facilities, activities and equipment and I couldn't be more pleased! My 2021 article on the health and safety rabbit hole made a range of recommendations to improve the health and safety/risk management situation for play, active recreation, and sport (I'll say play as a catch all term for the rest of the article) in New Zealand and benefit-risk (a.k.a risk-benefit) was one of those key tools.
In short, benefit-risk assessment (BRA) is the practice of including the benefits of an activity (whether it's for a product, facility/infrastructure, or activity delivery) as part of the health and safety (H&S) / risk management (RM) documentation and decision-making process. This is crucial for the play, active recreation, and sport sector in New Zealand. BRA practices are increasingly common within playwork, especially in the UK, and it's something we adopted at Parkour NZ several years ago, thanks in part to the research and advocacy of Tim Gill (one of his assesment tools is an annex in the standard) and Eugene Minogue.
I've just finished reviewing the standard for my work in advocating for play within local government and here are some highlights that I wanted to share. These are my interpretations and my own examples.
Workplace and play H&S/RM are not identical
ISO 4980:2023 recognises that there are different characteristics between occupational H&S relating to employees, and H&S relating to the public participation in play. This is significant.
The key difference between these concepts are the inherent benefits associated with play related risks that are not present with work-related activities.
Workplace: H&S risk within the workplace is typically unacceptable and so all focus is on risk-reduction (whether this is for the actual protection of employees or for liability/compliance reasons is up for debate).
Example: An arborist should expect to receive the proper training, have access to quality equipment, be given clear direction by their management, and work for an organisation with sound H&S policies and procedures in place. Injury from falling out of a tree is a risk, but the mitigations in place should prevent this in most, if not all, circumstances. If they fell out of a tree and broke their leg, that is a concern and requires investigation.
Play: There is always a trade-off between benefit and risk when participating in any form of play. However, because of the benefits of participation in play, these activities are recognised as providing a public good, despite (and sometimes because of) the inherent risks involved. Yet, risk-reduction is still the main focus taken by most organisations, borrowing from the workplace H&S culture and practices.
Example: A child who likes climbing trees just needs the time, space, and permission to do it. Injury from falling out of the tree is a risk, but the developmental benefits of the experience are highly important. If they fell out of a tree and broke their leg, that is unfortunate, but even the learning that might come from an accident is an important parts of the play experience.
ISO 4980:2023 identifies that the presence of the benefits within play requires new approaches to H&S/RM, and benefits should take precedence, hence benefit-risk.
Competing Goals
ISO 4980:2023 provides a helpful reminder that in the context of play, risks and benefits can impact different domains of health status. For instance, making a choice to play may come with a risk of physical injury whilst providing a benefit of psychological well-being. This means that injury prevention is only one goal of participation in these pursuits. Pursuit of well-being (even if it's just the pure joy of the experience - which is usually the case for children, they don't tend to analyse/make their choices based on the myriad of benefits that we know exist from play research) is another goal. Consequently, preventing an activity in order to preserve one domain of health may negatively impact another.
In case it's not quite clear, there are two groups and their goals that we're considering at the same time:
The user - who undoubtedly has a goal of preventing injury to themselves whilst receiving health benefits, even when they engage in play with higher levels of risk risk, and
The organisation - who is overseeing the product, site, or delivery of play and their goals of injury prevention and benefit provision.
Injury prevention is the priority within traditional H&S/RM, but in so doing, it neglects the other goals of play participation, which may often be to the detriment of the user in other domains of health. BRA recognises this and creates a more thorough process to ensure that more goals, and even conflicting goals, are appropriately considered.
Risks and Hazards in Play
Risk in play is something that can be managed by the user (e.g. height, speed, elements, etc.) and is an inherent part of play, so it makes sense that the bigger focus in H&S/RM for play should be on harm that users cannot evaluate themselves (i.e. the hazards).
When discussing hazards, ISO 4980:2023 identifies that hazards can always include conventional concepts.
Traditional Play Hazard: A swing with rusting foundations that could collapse under certain conditions (e.g. too much weight).
It also indicates that hazards can include “the prevention of participation in activities that bring benefit to the user” (pg 23). In other words, the prevention of play because of risk (or other) fears is itself a type of hazard.
Play Prevention Hazard: Consistently cutting off lower limb branches on trees to prevent tree climbing because of a fear of falls (i.e. because it reduces opportunities for physical activity, growing upper body strength, and learning risk management strategies, ultimately contributing to ill-health).
It's always been clear to me that acute safety concerns have outweighed long-term health impact when it comes to H&S/RM within play. ISO 4980:2023 helps to demonstrate that organisations need to carefully consider their actions when it comes to both the provision of play, as they would traditionally do, but also the removal or prevention of play. Even if current practice that prevents certain play activities is conducted to try and protect users, it may be hazardous when considering the benefits that that opportunity may provide.
Conclusion
The consideration of benefits within H&S/RM adds a necessary layer of complexity that, to date, has not been part of most conversations, procedures, or decision-making regarding play opportunities in New Zealand. ISO 4980:2023 recommends that no decision should be made for or against a play opportunity without first balancing the benefits and the risks. BRA therefore enables a more thorough and thoughtful health and safety analysis of play activities to support accurate decision-making.
P.S. Scott Duncan and I should have a book chapter coming out next year on the impact of the 2015 health and safety reforms on play in schools. Once again, BRA is a tool we recommend to help schools make sense of how to provide for/enable self-directed play whilst still doing organisational H&S/RM due diligence.
There is also a call to action regarding a policy clarification with the HSWA that we believe is needed to account for the clear difference between workplace H&S and that of play, where risk is essential for healthy child development.
ISO 4980:2023 is a tool in the arsenal to ensure best practice in this space.
WorkSafe New Zealand, Recreation Aotearoa | Te Whai Oranga, Sport New Zealand, Play Aotearoa, Ministry of Education New Zealand, please take note!
