- Home
- Recreation and Leisure
- Outdoor Sports and Activities
- Aerial Adventure Environments
Aerial Adventure Environments
The Theory and Practice of the Challenge Course, Zip Line, and Canopy Tour Industry
by Elizabeth A. Speelman, Mark Wagstaff, Scott H. Jordan and Kathy Haras
304 Pages
Written by leading experts with both practical experience and theoretical knowledge in the field and endorsed by the Association for Challenge Course Technology (ACCT), the Professional Ropes Course Association (PRCA), and the European Ropes Course Association (ERCA), this complete resource contains the foundational information needed to understand the industry of aerial adventure environments. It provides practitioners with the tools they need to lead successful adventure experiences whether they are working directly with participants, designing and building structures, training staff, or conducting operational and marketing activities.
Readers will learn about the historical beginnings and global development of the industry, the theory and fundamentals behind aerial adventure programming, facility and equipment management, personnel training, and operational guidelines. The text presents practical information on understanding the desired outcomes of a variety of clients and how to design and deliver safe, effective, and inclusive adventure experiences with consideration for self-directed, guided, and facilitated experiences. The discussions of professional competencies and current industry issues and trends, as well as tips on how to obtain training, equip readers for success in the profession.
Chapter objectives, summaries, and review questions reinforce learning, and Putting It Into Practice elements illustrate practical applications of the content. Related online materials delivered via HKPropel include 21 checklists and forms that provide real-world value and include sample participant evaluation forms, job descriptions, challenge course questionnaires, program plans, and more. Special features throughout the book highlight four themes critical to the aerial adventure environment profession:
- Risk Management sidebars demonstrate how the management of risk must be embedded in every stage of the experience.
- Active Participatory Experience sidebars emphasize the hands-on nature of aerial adventures, whereby participants choose their level of challenge and their own adventures.
- Industry Standards sidebars cover best practices for subjects such as equipment selection, facility development, practitioner competencies, and management decisions.
- Social Justice and Human Diversity sidebars focus on the recent expansion of participants in aerial adventure experiences and the importance of inclusivity.
Note: A code for accessing HKPropel is included with all print books.
Chapter 1. Introduction to the Aerial Adventure Industry
What Is an Aerial Adventure Environment?
A Different Outdoor Industry
Aerial Adventure Professionals
Professional Associations
Summary
Review Questions
Chapter 2. History of Aerial Adventure Environments
A Common History
Development in the United States
Development in Canada
Development in Europe
Development in Japan
Development in Costa Rica
Facility Changes
Understanding What Was Happening
Summary
Review Questions
Chapter 3. Purpose of Aerial Adventure Environments
Goal Orientations
Organizational Alignment
Summary
Review Questions
Chapter 4. Fundamentals of Aerial Adventure Operating Systems
Low Activities
High Activities
Summary
Review Questions
Part II. Learning the Ropes
Chapter 5. Facility Design, Installation, Inspection, and Maintenance
Design
Installation
Inspection
Maintenance
Summary
Review Questions
Chapter 6. Equipment Systems
Equipment in AAEs
Systems Approach
Selection
Use
Care
Summary
Review Questions
Chapter 7. Personnel
Who Are the Personnel?
Understanding the Participant
Preparing Aerial Adventure Leaders
Summary
Review Questions
Chapter 8. Operations
Layers of Operational Guidelines
Nodes of Operational Management
Summary
Review Questions
Part III. Delivering the Experience
Chapter 9. Knowing Your Audience
Mead’s Stages of a Recreational Experience
Obtaining Participant Information
Risk Management and Legal Information
Providing Inclusive Programming
Summary
Review Questions
Chapter 10. Designing the Experience
Symbolic Interaction Theory
Program Outcomes
Understanding Domains for Participant Success
Sequencing
Program Plan
Summary
Review Questions
Chapter 11. Facilitating the Experience
Common Theory and Concepts of Facilitation
Facilitator Techniques
Summary
Review Questions
Chapter 12. Evaluation and Post-Experience Operations
Role of Evaluation
How Evaluation Is Done in AAEs
Levels of Evaluation
AAE Evaluation in Today’s World
Follow-Up
Summary
Review Questions
Part IV. Professional Preparation
Chapter 13. Professional Competencies
AAP Competencies
Summary
Review Questions
Chapter 14. Career Preparation
Career Development Model
Career Overview
Professional Preparation
Summary
Review Questions
Chapter 15. State of the Profession
Supporting Research
Current Issues
Summary
Review Questions
Elizabeth (Liz) Speelman, PhD, is a senior lecturer in the outdoor education program at Georgia College and State University, and she teaches challenge course, group development, and facilitation classes. She is also the director of the Outdoor Center at Georgia College, where she works with both university and community groups on the challenge course.
Speelman has facilitated and managed challenge courses since 2002. She earned her PhD with her meta-analysis on challenge course research, and she continues to focus on the current state of outcome-based challenge course research. She earned her Challenge Course Manager certification in 2018. She is a member of the Association for Challenge Course Technology (ACCT) and served on the research committee from 2010 to 2016. She is also a current member and former board member of the Association for Experiential Education (AEE).
Mark Wagstaff, EdD, is a professor of recreation, parks, and tourism at Radford University. He teaches a challenge course leadership class and oversees the Radford University challenge course program, which he founded in 2004. Wagstaff has managed and worked on challenge courses since 1988.
Wagstaff has conducted research and published articles on various challenge course topics. He has coauthored and coedited numerous publications, including Outdoor Leadership: Theory and Practice, Controversial Issues in Adventure Programming, and Technical Skills for Adventure Programming. He is currently a member of the Association for Challenge Course Technology (ACCT) and serves on their research committee. He is also a member of the Association of Outdoor Recreation and Education (AORE).
Scott Jordan, PhD, is an associate professor in the Northern Michigan University outdoor recreation leadership and management degree program. Jordan has 16 years of experience managing challenge course programs and consulting in the challenge course industry, encompassing zipline canopy tours, aerial adventure park construction, and operational standards. Jordan is a former board member for the Professional Ropes Course Association (PRCA) and assisted in the development of the Ropes Challenge Course Installation, Operation and Training Standards (ANSI/PRCA 1.0-.3-2014).
Kathy Haras, PhD, is the vice president of Adventureworks! Associates in Dundas, Ontario, where she is responsible for risk management, quality assurance, and inspection services. She is a licensed zip line mechanic in the province of Ontario and an Association for Challenge Course Technology (ACCT) level 2 professional inspector (with supervisor endorsement). She provides challenge course programming, installation, inspection, training, certification, and consulting services at approximately 80 sites annually and presents extensively on challenge course topics. Haras is currently the chair of the ACCT Design, Performance, and Inspection Standards Writing Committee.
Goal orientations of aerial adventure experiences
Potential participants who come to AAEs typically have a particular goal in mind, whether or not they can articulate it. They are seeking an experience that will present something new or change their lives. They want to have a fun experience with friends, learn about the natural environment, improve their group's ability to work with each other, or build confidence in their own abilities. In fact, two participants who come to the same program may not have the same expectations of themselves for the experience.
The goal orientation of a given experience relates to its intended outcome—the primary objective or takeaway of the participant's experience. Three broad goal orientations of AAEs are recreation, education, and therapy. Individuals who participate in a recreational experience do so in their free time; their intention may be to experience pleasure, personal fulfillment, or positive engagement with nature. Educational experiences cover a wide variety of intentional opportunities for growth and development in individuals or groups; participants focus on developing their skills, knowledge, and dispositions. Therapeutic experiences are intended to enhance participants' physical, social, and emotional well-being; these experiences typically serve as one among several kinds of treatment employed with an individual. Although each of these goal orientations can be defined, even experiences within the same category don't always align. Therefore, these categories should be viewed as existing on a continuum. For example, due to their distinctive intentions, a birthday party at an aerial adventure park creates a much different recreational experience than a family outing to spend quality time with each other on a canopy tour. In addition, participants in an aerial adventure experience may have outcomes beyond those intended; for instance, an experience might be educational by design yet still enable participants to feel a sense of personal fulfillment.
Figure 3.2 shows a layered continuum model for aerial adventure experiences. This model is an adaptation of Wagstaff's (2016) challenge course program continuum. Each category—recreational, educational, therapeutic—includes a continuum that overlaps to some degree with the others. In addition, a layering effect occurs with outcomes that may not be the primary outcome. This layering is more likely to occur when moving from recreational to therapeutic than in the reverse; in other words, recreational outcomes are more likely to be experienced by participants in educational or therapeutic activities than therapeutic outcomes are to be experienced during recreational events. The model also depicts several other continuums as we move from recreational to educational to therapeutic experiences. For example, the focus shifts from the activity to the individual. That is, a purely recreational experience is more about completing the novel task, such as participating in a new zip line or free-fall jump. In contrast, a therapeutic experience is more about changes in the individual resulting from the experience; in this case, choosing one zip line over another makes less difference in the outcome. Finally, the model includes two continuums related to staff engagement in the process of the experience. This aspect will be discussed further as we explore each of the goal orientations.
The differences described here are determined by program outcomes rather than participants. For example, a school-based program is not necessarily bound to an educational program. Certainly, group members could participate in an educational program to learn about the environment or to learn how to stand up for each other to prevent bullying, but they could also participate in a recreational program to celebrate upcoming graduates. Thus the fact that it is a school-based group does not in itself define the aerial adventure experience.
Table 3.1 provides examples of services provided in each of the goal orientations for the six types of AAEs as defined in chapter 1. Due to significant overlap, low and high challenge courses are grouped together, as are zip lines and canopy tours. Again, the categories are defined here in terms of outcomes. We will explore each of these goal orientations further because each type comes with its own implications, both for program managers and (most important) for participant's expectations.
Participant evaluation of programs
One of the best ways to know how well your programs are doing is to implement a participant evaluation process. Participant evaluations allow operators to question people after they have taken part in an aerial adventure experience. The questions can be tailored to meet the needs of the organization. For instance, AAEs with recreational outcomes may explore what participants feel they have gained from the experience. Figure 12.6 presents an example of a participant evaluation used for a recreational zip line canopy tour.
Some participant evaluations ask more questions in order to enable a deeper understanding of the participant experience and may be given directly to the leader of the participating group either at the end of the experience or digitally in the days that follow. Figure 12.7 shows a participant questionnaire for a challenge course program that provides educational outcomes. This questionnaire asks for more detailed information about the experience and is intended for the main representative of the group.
Figure 12.6 Participant evaluation for a zip line canopy tour.
Adapted by permission from North Georgia Canopy Tours, LLC.
What is an aerial adventure environment?
Haras (2012) unpacks the term aerial adventure environment by defining each word. Aerial refers to the fact that the experience occurs above the ground, whether by only a few inches or at great height, and therefore requires specialized skills and equipment. The experience also involves adventure (individual or in a group) and is chosen because it poses a challenge and entails at least a perception of uncertainty. Finally, the word environment refers to both the physical structures and the delivery method of the experience. Using this broad idea of AAEs, we can now explore what this type of experience encompasses.
In order to do so, we need to define another term—challenge course, which is given two widely known definitions in the industry. Rohnke, Rogers, Wall, & Tait (2007) define a challenge course in terms of the ropes, cables, metal, synthetics, and poles used to build structures that challenge participants in a manner that mimics that of a natural setting. Alternatively, Attarian (2005) views challenge courses in terms of their similarity and relationship to other activities, such as group initiatives, team-building activities, and low and high ropes courses. Although both of these definitions address the physical structure of at least some of the activities, they differ in the scope of what they might include. The definition from Rohnke et al. includes the materials that the challenge course can be made from and implies that they are relatively permanent in design. However, as the industry grows and changes, so do the technologies and materials used in assembling challenge courses. In contrast, Attarian's (2005) inclusion of terms such as group initiative and team-building activities enables a broader interpretation of the activities that can be used in challenge course programming.
This broader definition is used in most educational settings. For instance, even if a program takes place predominantly on a low or high challenge course, facilitators typically initiate the course by incorporating some activities that require little or no equipment. But what if these team-building activities are used without inclusion of more permanent structures? Does the overall activity still constitute a challenge course program? Thus begins again the debate about what is and what is not included in an AAE.
When talking about what is included in an AAE, it is helpful to understand the difference between an environment and an element. The environment consists of the overall structure and structural style, which carry implications for the type of delivery system one can use. Elements, on the other hand, are the individual components of an AAE that are used to enable specific experiences. An incredible number of elements already exist for AAEs, and more are being designed even as you read this book. Indeed, it would be impossible to list, much less explain, all of the elements that have been installed in AAEs, and any such list would very quickly fall out of date; therefore, no such list is included here. Instead, we address selected elements as they relate to various operating systems or experiences.
It is crucial to understand the varying environments in order to grasp all that is included in our definition of an AAE. The aerial adventure industry has grown beyond the previously stated definitions of a challenge course, and we now determine what to include in the definition of AAEs by considering programmatic uses, structural designs, operating systems, and even standards and regulations. Figure 1.1 shows how AAEs can be divided into six major categories. Each of these categories has some unique features and programmatic uses that will be highlighted throughout this textbook. The term aerial adventure environment,or AAE, is used when the reference is common to all of these categories.
Figure 1.1 Aerial adventure environments.
Used with permission of Adventureworks! Associates, Inc.
Professional associations bring together like-minded professionals
The development of professional associations brings together individuals who want to ensure that the industry is able to grow in an appropriate and healthy manner. These associations provide professional development opportunities such as annual conferences and training workshops. They also tend to offer credentialing through certification and accreditation processes that include the development of standards for holding professionals and organizations accountable. Such credentials also enable organizations in the industry to seek and acquire appropriate levels of insurance, which may be required in their country. In addition, the development of industry standards enables professional associations to advocate for the industry and develop relationships with regional, national, and international regulatory agencies. In these ways, professional associations strive to serve as the voice of the industry.
Professional associations come in a variety of forms and sizes. Some pursue a specific mission related to a certain type of activity. For instance, the International Adventure Park Association, which focuses on aerial adventure activities, was developed in Germany to bring together manufacturers, builders, operators, and members of the public. Similarly, the African Ropes Course Association serves zip line and ropes course operators in South Africa and requires members to abide by its code of practice. And the Malaysia Challenge Course Association sets industry guidelines for challenge course installation, inspection, maintenance, and training in its home country.
Other associations address a broader scope of activities by advocating for the recreation and tourism industry more generally. In Costa Rica, for example, the Asociación de Operadores de Aventura (Association of Adventure Operators) advocates for all adventure tour operators in the country. Similarly, in France, the Syndicat National des Exploitants de Parcours Aventure advocates for various leisure activities, including aerial adventure parks. In addition, the Association for Experiential Education includes standards for challenge courses in its accreditation standards for adventure programs, and multiple camping associations (e.g., American Camping Association, Australian Camping Association, Canadian Camping Association) advocate for standards and best practices in the AAI because their facilities often include AAEs.
This list is simply a sampling of associations that support the AAI from around the world. The three main associations that will be referred to most frequently in this text are the Association for Challenge Course Technology (ACCT), the Professional Ropes Course Association (PRCA), and the European Ropes Course Association (ERCA). Let us take a quick look at each one.
Association for Challenge Course Technology
Founded in 1993, ACCT is an international trade organization dedicated to standards, government relations, credentialing, professional development, and member advancement (Association for Challenge Course Technology, 2019). For its mission, this U.S.-based association seeks to “establish and promote the standard of care and measure of excellence that defines professional practice and effective challenge course programs.” ACCT has developed and continues to update standards for the installation, maintenance, and management of AAEs. In addition, it holds an annual international conference to facilitate connection and development among its members and industry professionals; it also advocates for the profession through regional, national, and international networks.
Professional Ropes Course Association
PRCA was founded in 2003 as an “industry association that supports the development and regulation of the ropes challenge course, canopy zip lines, and aerial adventure parks industry” (Professional Ropes Course Association, 2019). It is a U.S.-based organization with a mission to “develop end-user applicable” standards and documents and “define, document, and outline the construction/operational practices for the Ropes Challenge Course, Zipline, and Aerial Adventure Parks industry.” In 2014, PRCA developed the first set of American National Standards Institute (ANSI) safety standards for the industry-ANSI/PRCA 1.0-.3 -2014 American National Safety Standards for Challenge Courses, Adventure Parks, Canopy Tours and Zip Lines: Design, Performance, Inspection, Installation, Equipment, Operations, Training and Certification. Its holds an annual conference and advocates for improvement in the industry.
European Ropes Course Association
Unlike ACCT and PRCA, ERCA is not based in one country. As a result, a part of its mission is to “foster professional exchange within Europe and strive for the harmonization of professional standards on a European level,” and this work includes standards development, training, and research (European Ropes Course Association, 2019). ERCA provides accreditation for both trainers and inspectors.
Putting It Into Practice
Find Your Place in an Association
Whether you are new to the profession or have been working in the industry for some time, there is a place for you in an association. Networking with others who are doing the same type of work, either in your area or abroad, can expand your perspectives on what you do. In addition, learning from others who work in different parts of the industry can challenge your knowledge and maybe even your assumptions! Taking part in workshops or even leading a workshop at an association conference can provide you with an opportunity for growth. Perhaps you can even share your experience and knowledge through service on an association committee.
Goal orientations of aerial adventure experiences
Potential participants who come to AAEs typically have a particular goal in mind, whether or not they can articulate it. They are seeking an experience that will present something new or change their lives. They want to have a fun experience with friends, learn about the natural environment, improve their group's ability to work with each other, or build confidence in their own abilities. In fact, two participants who come to the same program may not have the same expectations of themselves for the experience.
The goal orientation of a given experience relates to its intended outcome—the primary objective or takeaway of the participant's experience. Three broad goal orientations of AAEs are recreation, education, and therapy. Individuals who participate in a recreational experience do so in their free time; their intention may be to experience pleasure, personal fulfillment, or positive engagement with nature. Educational experiences cover a wide variety of intentional opportunities for growth and development in individuals or groups; participants focus on developing their skills, knowledge, and dispositions. Therapeutic experiences are intended to enhance participants' physical, social, and emotional well-being; these experiences typically serve as one among several kinds of treatment employed with an individual. Although each of these goal orientations can be defined, even experiences within the same category don't always align. Therefore, these categories should be viewed as existing on a continuum. For example, due to their distinctive intentions, a birthday party at an aerial adventure park creates a much different recreational experience than a family outing to spend quality time with each other on a canopy tour. In addition, participants in an aerial adventure experience may have outcomes beyond those intended; for instance, an experience might be educational by design yet still enable participants to feel a sense of personal fulfillment.
Figure 3.2 shows a layered continuum model for aerial adventure experiences. This model is an adaptation of Wagstaff's (2016) challenge course program continuum. Each category—recreational, educational, therapeutic—includes a continuum that overlaps to some degree with the others. In addition, a layering effect occurs with outcomes that may not be the primary outcome. This layering is more likely to occur when moving from recreational to therapeutic than in the reverse; in other words, recreational outcomes are more likely to be experienced by participants in educational or therapeutic activities than therapeutic outcomes are to be experienced during recreational events. The model also depicts several other continuums as we move from recreational to educational to therapeutic experiences. For example, the focus shifts from the activity to the individual. That is, a purely recreational experience is more about completing the novel task, such as participating in a new zip line or free-fall jump. In contrast, a therapeutic experience is more about changes in the individual resulting from the experience; in this case, choosing one zip line over another makes less difference in the outcome. Finally, the model includes two continuums related to staff engagement in the process of the experience. This aspect will be discussed further as we explore each of the goal orientations.
The differences described here are determined by program outcomes rather than participants. For example, a school-based program is not necessarily bound to an educational program. Certainly, group members could participate in an educational program to learn about the environment or to learn how to stand up for each other to prevent bullying, but they could also participate in a recreational program to celebrate upcoming graduates. Thus the fact that it is a school-based group does not in itself define the aerial adventure experience.
Table 3.1 provides examples of services provided in each of the goal orientations for the six types of AAEs as defined in chapter 1. Due to significant overlap, low and high challenge courses are grouped together, as are zip lines and canopy tours. Again, the categories are defined here in terms of outcomes. We will explore each of these goal orientations further because each type comes with its own implications, both for program managers and (most important) for participant's expectations.
Participant evaluation of programs
One of the best ways to know how well your programs are doing is to implement a participant evaluation process. Participant evaluations allow operators to question people after they have taken part in an aerial adventure experience. The questions can be tailored to meet the needs of the organization. For instance, AAEs with recreational outcomes may explore what participants feel they have gained from the experience. Figure 12.6 presents an example of a participant evaluation used for a recreational zip line canopy tour.
Some participant evaluations ask more questions in order to enable a deeper understanding of the participant experience and may be given directly to the leader of the participating group either at the end of the experience or digitally in the days that follow. Figure 12.7 shows a participant questionnaire for a challenge course program that provides educational outcomes. This questionnaire asks for more detailed information about the experience and is intended for the main representative of the group.
Figure 12.6 Participant evaluation for a zip line canopy tour.
Adapted by permission from North Georgia Canopy Tours, LLC.
What is an aerial adventure environment?
Haras (2012) unpacks the term aerial adventure environment by defining each word. Aerial refers to the fact that the experience occurs above the ground, whether by only a few inches or at great height, and therefore requires specialized skills and equipment. The experience also involves adventure (individual or in a group) and is chosen because it poses a challenge and entails at least a perception of uncertainty. Finally, the word environment refers to both the physical structures and the delivery method of the experience. Using this broad idea of AAEs, we can now explore what this type of experience encompasses.
In order to do so, we need to define another term—challenge course, which is given two widely known definitions in the industry. Rohnke, Rogers, Wall, & Tait (2007) define a challenge course in terms of the ropes, cables, metal, synthetics, and poles used to build structures that challenge participants in a manner that mimics that of a natural setting. Alternatively, Attarian (2005) views challenge courses in terms of their similarity and relationship to other activities, such as group initiatives, team-building activities, and low and high ropes courses. Although both of these definitions address the physical structure of at least some of the activities, they differ in the scope of what they might include. The definition from Rohnke et al. includes the materials that the challenge course can be made from and implies that they are relatively permanent in design. However, as the industry grows and changes, so do the technologies and materials used in assembling challenge courses. In contrast, Attarian's (2005) inclusion of terms such as group initiative and team-building activities enables a broader interpretation of the activities that can be used in challenge course programming.
This broader definition is used in most educational settings. For instance, even if a program takes place predominantly on a low or high challenge course, facilitators typically initiate the course by incorporating some activities that require little or no equipment. But what if these team-building activities are used without inclusion of more permanent structures? Does the overall activity still constitute a challenge course program? Thus begins again the debate about what is and what is not included in an AAE.
When talking about what is included in an AAE, it is helpful to understand the difference between an environment and an element. The environment consists of the overall structure and structural style, which carry implications for the type of delivery system one can use. Elements, on the other hand, are the individual components of an AAE that are used to enable specific experiences. An incredible number of elements already exist for AAEs, and more are being designed even as you read this book. Indeed, it would be impossible to list, much less explain, all of the elements that have been installed in AAEs, and any such list would very quickly fall out of date; therefore, no such list is included here. Instead, we address selected elements as they relate to various operating systems or experiences.
It is crucial to understand the varying environments in order to grasp all that is included in our definition of an AAE. The aerial adventure industry has grown beyond the previously stated definitions of a challenge course, and we now determine what to include in the definition of AAEs by considering programmatic uses, structural designs, operating systems, and even standards and regulations. Figure 1.1 shows how AAEs can be divided into six major categories. Each of these categories has some unique features and programmatic uses that will be highlighted throughout this textbook. The term aerial adventure environment,or AAE, is used when the reference is common to all of these categories.
Figure 1.1 Aerial adventure environments.
Used with permission of Adventureworks! Associates, Inc.
Professional associations bring together like-minded professionals
The development of professional associations brings together individuals who want to ensure that the industry is able to grow in an appropriate and healthy manner. These associations provide professional development opportunities such as annual conferences and training workshops. They also tend to offer credentialing through certification and accreditation processes that include the development of standards for holding professionals and organizations accountable. Such credentials also enable organizations in the industry to seek and acquire appropriate levels of insurance, which may be required in their country. In addition, the development of industry standards enables professional associations to advocate for the industry and develop relationships with regional, national, and international regulatory agencies. In these ways, professional associations strive to serve as the voice of the industry.
Professional associations come in a variety of forms and sizes. Some pursue a specific mission related to a certain type of activity. For instance, the International Adventure Park Association, which focuses on aerial adventure activities, was developed in Germany to bring together manufacturers, builders, operators, and members of the public. Similarly, the African Ropes Course Association serves zip line and ropes course operators in South Africa and requires members to abide by its code of practice. And the Malaysia Challenge Course Association sets industry guidelines for challenge course installation, inspection, maintenance, and training in its home country.
Other associations address a broader scope of activities by advocating for the recreation and tourism industry more generally. In Costa Rica, for example, the Asociación de Operadores de Aventura (Association of Adventure Operators) advocates for all adventure tour operators in the country. Similarly, in France, the Syndicat National des Exploitants de Parcours Aventure advocates for various leisure activities, including aerial adventure parks. In addition, the Association for Experiential Education includes standards for challenge courses in its accreditation standards for adventure programs, and multiple camping associations (e.g., American Camping Association, Australian Camping Association, Canadian Camping Association) advocate for standards and best practices in the AAI because their facilities often include AAEs.
This list is simply a sampling of associations that support the AAI from around the world. The three main associations that will be referred to most frequently in this text are the Association for Challenge Course Technology (ACCT), the Professional Ropes Course Association (PRCA), and the European Ropes Course Association (ERCA). Let us take a quick look at each one.
Association for Challenge Course Technology
Founded in 1993, ACCT is an international trade organization dedicated to standards, government relations, credentialing, professional development, and member advancement (Association for Challenge Course Technology, 2019). For its mission, this U.S.-based association seeks to “establish and promote the standard of care and measure of excellence that defines professional practice and effective challenge course programs.” ACCT has developed and continues to update standards for the installation, maintenance, and management of AAEs. In addition, it holds an annual international conference to facilitate connection and development among its members and industry professionals; it also advocates for the profession through regional, national, and international networks.
Professional Ropes Course Association
PRCA was founded in 2003 as an “industry association that supports the development and regulation of the ropes challenge course, canopy zip lines, and aerial adventure parks industry” (Professional Ropes Course Association, 2019). It is a U.S.-based organization with a mission to “develop end-user applicable” standards and documents and “define, document, and outline the construction/operational practices for the Ropes Challenge Course, Zipline, and Aerial Adventure Parks industry.” In 2014, PRCA developed the first set of American National Standards Institute (ANSI) safety standards for the industry-ANSI/PRCA 1.0-.3 -2014 American National Safety Standards for Challenge Courses, Adventure Parks, Canopy Tours and Zip Lines: Design, Performance, Inspection, Installation, Equipment, Operations, Training and Certification. Its holds an annual conference and advocates for improvement in the industry.
European Ropes Course Association
Unlike ACCT and PRCA, ERCA is not based in one country. As a result, a part of its mission is to “foster professional exchange within Europe and strive for the harmonization of professional standards on a European level,” and this work includes standards development, training, and research (European Ropes Course Association, 2019). ERCA provides accreditation for both trainers and inspectors.
Putting It Into Practice
Find Your Place in an Association
Whether you are new to the profession or have been working in the industry for some time, there is a place for you in an association. Networking with others who are doing the same type of work, either in your area or abroad, can expand your perspectives on what you do. In addition, learning from others who work in different parts of the industry can challenge your knowledge and maybe even your assumptions! Taking part in workshops or even leading a workshop at an association conference can provide you with an opportunity for growth. Perhaps you can even share your experience and knowledge through service on an association committee.
Goal orientations of aerial adventure experiences
Potential participants who come to AAEs typically have a particular goal in mind, whether or not they can articulate it. They are seeking an experience that will present something new or change their lives. They want to have a fun experience with friends, learn about the natural environment, improve their group's ability to work with each other, or build confidence in their own abilities. In fact, two participants who come to the same program may not have the same expectations of themselves for the experience.
The goal orientation of a given experience relates to its intended outcome—the primary objective or takeaway of the participant's experience. Three broad goal orientations of AAEs are recreation, education, and therapy. Individuals who participate in a recreational experience do so in their free time; their intention may be to experience pleasure, personal fulfillment, or positive engagement with nature. Educational experiences cover a wide variety of intentional opportunities for growth and development in individuals or groups; participants focus on developing their skills, knowledge, and dispositions. Therapeutic experiences are intended to enhance participants' physical, social, and emotional well-being; these experiences typically serve as one among several kinds of treatment employed with an individual. Although each of these goal orientations can be defined, even experiences within the same category don't always align. Therefore, these categories should be viewed as existing on a continuum. For example, due to their distinctive intentions, a birthday party at an aerial adventure park creates a much different recreational experience than a family outing to spend quality time with each other on a canopy tour. In addition, participants in an aerial adventure experience may have outcomes beyond those intended; for instance, an experience might be educational by design yet still enable participants to feel a sense of personal fulfillment.
Figure 3.2 shows a layered continuum model for aerial adventure experiences. This model is an adaptation of Wagstaff's (2016) challenge course program continuum. Each category—recreational, educational, therapeutic—includes a continuum that overlaps to some degree with the others. In addition, a layering effect occurs with outcomes that may not be the primary outcome. This layering is more likely to occur when moving from recreational to therapeutic than in the reverse; in other words, recreational outcomes are more likely to be experienced by participants in educational or therapeutic activities than therapeutic outcomes are to be experienced during recreational events. The model also depicts several other continuums as we move from recreational to educational to therapeutic experiences. For example, the focus shifts from the activity to the individual. That is, a purely recreational experience is more about completing the novel task, such as participating in a new zip line or free-fall jump. In contrast, a therapeutic experience is more about changes in the individual resulting from the experience; in this case, choosing one zip line over another makes less difference in the outcome. Finally, the model includes two continuums related to staff engagement in the process of the experience. This aspect will be discussed further as we explore each of the goal orientations.
The differences described here are determined by program outcomes rather than participants. For example, a school-based program is not necessarily bound to an educational program. Certainly, group members could participate in an educational program to learn about the environment or to learn how to stand up for each other to prevent bullying, but they could also participate in a recreational program to celebrate upcoming graduates. Thus the fact that it is a school-based group does not in itself define the aerial adventure experience.
Table 3.1 provides examples of services provided in each of the goal orientations for the six types of AAEs as defined in chapter 1. Due to significant overlap, low and high challenge courses are grouped together, as are zip lines and canopy tours. Again, the categories are defined here in terms of outcomes. We will explore each of these goal orientations further because each type comes with its own implications, both for program managers and (most important) for participant's expectations.
Participant evaluation of programs
One of the best ways to know how well your programs are doing is to implement a participant evaluation process. Participant evaluations allow operators to question people after they have taken part in an aerial adventure experience. The questions can be tailored to meet the needs of the organization. For instance, AAEs with recreational outcomes may explore what participants feel they have gained from the experience. Figure 12.6 presents an example of a participant evaluation used for a recreational zip line canopy tour.
Some participant evaluations ask more questions in order to enable a deeper understanding of the participant experience and may be given directly to the leader of the participating group either at the end of the experience or digitally in the days that follow. Figure 12.7 shows a participant questionnaire for a challenge course program that provides educational outcomes. This questionnaire asks for more detailed information about the experience and is intended for the main representative of the group.
Figure 12.6 Participant evaluation for a zip line canopy tour.
Adapted by permission from North Georgia Canopy Tours, LLC.
What is an aerial adventure environment?
Haras (2012) unpacks the term aerial adventure environment by defining each word. Aerial refers to the fact that the experience occurs above the ground, whether by only a few inches or at great height, and therefore requires specialized skills and equipment. The experience also involves adventure (individual or in a group) and is chosen because it poses a challenge and entails at least a perception of uncertainty. Finally, the word environment refers to both the physical structures and the delivery method of the experience. Using this broad idea of AAEs, we can now explore what this type of experience encompasses.
In order to do so, we need to define another term—challenge course, which is given two widely known definitions in the industry. Rohnke, Rogers, Wall, & Tait (2007) define a challenge course in terms of the ropes, cables, metal, synthetics, and poles used to build structures that challenge participants in a manner that mimics that of a natural setting. Alternatively, Attarian (2005) views challenge courses in terms of their similarity and relationship to other activities, such as group initiatives, team-building activities, and low and high ropes courses. Although both of these definitions address the physical structure of at least some of the activities, they differ in the scope of what they might include. The definition from Rohnke et al. includes the materials that the challenge course can be made from and implies that they are relatively permanent in design. However, as the industry grows and changes, so do the technologies and materials used in assembling challenge courses. In contrast, Attarian's (2005) inclusion of terms such as group initiative and team-building activities enables a broader interpretation of the activities that can be used in challenge course programming.
This broader definition is used in most educational settings. For instance, even if a program takes place predominantly on a low or high challenge course, facilitators typically initiate the course by incorporating some activities that require little or no equipment. But what if these team-building activities are used without inclusion of more permanent structures? Does the overall activity still constitute a challenge course program? Thus begins again the debate about what is and what is not included in an AAE.
When talking about what is included in an AAE, it is helpful to understand the difference between an environment and an element. The environment consists of the overall structure and structural style, which carry implications for the type of delivery system one can use. Elements, on the other hand, are the individual components of an AAE that are used to enable specific experiences. An incredible number of elements already exist for AAEs, and more are being designed even as you read this book. Indeed, it would be impossible to list, much less explain, all of the elements that have been installed in AAEs, and any such list would very quickly fall out of date; therefore, no such list is included here. Instead, we address selected elements as they relate to various operating systems or experiences.
It is crucial to understand the varying environments in order to grasp all that is included in our definition of an AAE. The aerial adventure industry has grown beyond the previously stated definitions of a challenge course, and we now determine what to include in the definition of AAEs by considering programmatic uses, structural designs, operating systems, and even standards and regulations. Figure 1.1 shows how AAEs can be divided into six major categories. Each of these categories has some unique features and programmatic uses that will be highlighted throughout this textbook. The term aerial adventure environment,or AAE, is used when the reference is common to all of these categories.
Figure 1.1 Aerial adventure environments.
Used with permission of Adventureworks! Associates, Inc.
Professional associations bring together like-minded professionals
The development of professional associations brings together individuals who want to ensure that the industry is able to grow in an appropriate and healthy manner. These associations provide professional development opportunities such as annual conferences and training workshops. They also tend to offer credentialing through certification and accreditation processes that include the development of standards for holding professionals and organizations accountable. Such credentials also enable organizations in the industry to seek and acquire appropriate levels of insurance, which may be required in their country. In addition, the development of industry standards enables professional associations to advocate for the industry and develop relationships with regional, national, and international regulatory agencies. In these ways, professional associations strive to serve as the voice of the industry.
Professional associations come in a variety of forms and sizes. Some pursue a specific mission related to a certain type of activity. For instance, the International Adventure Park Association, which focuses on aerial adventure activities, was developed in Germany to bring together manufacturers, builders, operators, and members of the public. Similarly, the African Ropes Course Association serves zip line and ropes course operators in South Africa and requires members to abide by its code of practice. And the Malaysia Challenge Course Association sets industry guidelines for challenge course installation, inspection, maintenance, and training in its home country.
Other associations address a broader scope of activities by advocating for the recreation and tourism industry more generally. In Costa Rica, for example, the Asociación de Operadores de Aventura (Association of Adventure Operators) advocates for all adventure tour operators in the country. Similarly, in France, the Syndicat National des Exploitants de Parcours Aventure advocates for various leisure activities, including aerial adventure parks. In addition, the Association for Experiential Education includes standards for challenge courses in its accreditation standards for adventure programs, and multiple camping associations (e.g., American Camping Association, Australian Camping Association, Canadian Camping Association) advocate for standards and best practices in the AAI because their facilities often include AAEs.
This list is simply a sampling of associations that support the AAI from around the world. The three main associations that will be referred to most frequently in this text are the Association for Challenge Course Technology (ACCT), the Professional Ropes Course Association (PRCA), and the European Ropes Course Association (ERCA). Let us take a quick look at each one.
Association for Challenge Course Technology
Founded in 1993, ACCT is an international trade organization dedicated to standards, government relations, credentialing, professional development, and member advancement (Association for Challenge Course Technology, 2019). For its mission, this U.S.-based association seeks to “establish and promote the standard of care and measure of excellence that defines professional practice and effective challenge course programs.” ACCT has developed and continues to update standards for the installation, maintenance, and management of AAEs. In addition, it holds an annual international conference to facilitate connection and development among its members and industry professionals; it also advocates for the profession through regional, national, and international networks.
Professional Ropes Course Association
PRCA was founded in 2003 as an “industry association that supports the development and regulation of the ropes challenge course, canopy zip lines, and aerial adventure parks industry” (Professional Ropes Course Association, 2019). It is a U.S.-based organization with a mission to “develop end-user applicable” standards and documents and “define, document, and outline the construction/operational practices for the Ropes Challenge Course, Zipline, and Aerial Adventure Parks industry.” In 2014, PRCA developed the first set of American National Standards Institute (ANSI) safety standards for the industry-ANSI/PRCA 1.0-.3 -2014 American National Safety Standards for Challenge Courses, Adventure Parks, Canopy Tours and Zip Lines: Design, Performance, Inspection, Installation, Equipment, Operations, Training and Certification. Its holds an annual conference and advocates for improvement in the industry.
European Ropes Course Association
Unlike ACCT and PRCA, ERCA is not based in one country. As a result, a part of its mission is to “foster professional exchange within Europe and strive for the harmonization of professional standards on a European level,” and this work includes standards development, training, and research (European Ropes Course Association, 2019). ERCA provides accreditation for both trainers and inspectors.
Putting It Into Practice
Find Your Place in an Association
Whether you are new to the profession or have been working in the industry for some time, there is a place for you in an association. Networking with others who are doing the same type of work, either in your area or abroad, can expand your perspectives on what you do. In addition, learning from others who work in different parts of the industry can challenge your knowledge and maybe even your assumptions! Taking part in workshops or even leading a workshop at an association conference can provide you with an opportunity for growth. Perhaps you can even share your experience and knowledge through service on an association committee.
Goal orientations of aerial adventure experiences
Potential participants who come to AAEs typically have a particular goal in mind, whether or not they can articulate it. They are seeking an experience that will present something new or change their lives. They want to have a fun experience with friends, learn about the natural environment, improve their group's ability to work with each other, or build confidence in their own abilities. In fact, two participants who come to the same program may not have the same expectations of themselves for the experience.
The goal orientation of a given experience relates to its intended outcome—the primary objective or takeaway of the participant's experience. Three broad goal orientations of AAEs are recreation, education, and therapy. Individuals who participate in a recreational experience do so in their free time; their intention may be to experience pleasure, personal fulfillment, or positive engagement with nature. Educational experiences cover a wide variety of intentional opportunities for growth and development in individuals or groups; participants focus on developing their skills, knowledge, and dispositions. Therapeutic experiences are intended to enhance participants' physical, social, and emotional well-being; these experiences typically serve as one among several kinds of treatment employed with an individual. Although each of these goal orientations can be defined, even experiences within the same category don't always align. Therefore, these categories should be viewed as existing on a continuum. For example, due to their distinctive intentions, a birthday party at an aerial adventure park creates a much different recreational experience than a family outing to spend quality time with each other on a canopy tour. In addition, participants in an aerial adventure experience may have outcomes beyond those intended; for instance, an experience might be educational by design yet still enable participants to feel a sense of personal fulfillment.
Figure 3.2 shows a layered continuum model for aerial adventure experiences. This model is an adaptation of Wagstaff's (2016) challenge course program continuum. Each category—recreational, educational, therapeutic—includes a continuum that overlaps to some degree with the others. In addition, a layering effect occurs with outcomes that may not be the primary outcome. This layering is more likely to occur when moving from recreational to therapeutic than in the reverse; in other words, recreational outcomes are more likely to be experienced by participants in educational or therapeutic activities than therapeutic outcomes are to be experienced during recreational events. The model also depicts several other continuums as we move from recreational to educational to therapeutic experiences. For example, the focus shifts from the activity to the individual. That is, a purely recreational experience is more about completing the novel task, such as participating in a new zip line or free-fall jump. In contrast, a therapeutic experience is more about changes in the individual resulting from the experience; in this case, choosing one zip line over another makes less difference in the outcome. Finally, the model includes two continuums related to staff engagement in the process of the experience. This aspect will be discussed further as we explore each of the goal orientations.
The differences described here are determined by program outcomes rather than participants. For example, a school-based program is not necessarily bound to an educational program. Certainly, group members could participate in an educational program to learn about the environment or to learn how to stand up for each other to prevent bullying, but they could also participate in a recreational program to celebrate upcoming graduates. Thus the fact that it is a school-based group does not in itself define the aerial adventure experience.
Table 3.1 provides examples of services provided in each of the goal orientations for the six types of AAEs as defined in chapter 1. Due to significant overlap, low and high challenge courses are grouped together, as are zip lines and canopy tours. Again, the categories are defined here in terms of outcomes. We will explore each of these goal orientations further because each type comes with its own implications, both for program managers and (most important) for participant's expectations.
Participant evaluation of programs
One of the best ways to know how well your programs are doing is to implement a participant evaluation process. Participant evaluations allow operators to question people after they have taken part in an aerial adventure experience. The questions can be tailored to meet the needs of the organization. For instance, AAEs with recreational outcomes may explore what participants feel they have gained from the experience. Figure 12.6 presents an example of a participant evaluation used for a recreational zip line canopy tour.
Some participant evaluations ask more questions in order to enable a deeper understanding of the participant experience and may be given directly to the leader of the participating group either at the end of the experience or digitally in the days that follow. Figure 12.7 shows a participant questionnaire for a challenge course program that provides educational outcomes. This questionnaire asks for more detailed information about the experience and is intended for the main representative of the group.
Figure 12.6 Participant evaluation for a zip line canopy tour.
Adapted by permission from North Georgia Canopy Tours, LLC.
What is an aerial adventure environment?
Haras (2012) unpacks the term aerial adventure environment by defining each word. Aerial refers to the fact that the experience occurs above the ground, whether by only a few inches or at great height, and therefore requires specialized skills and equipment. The experience also involves adventure (individual or in a group) and is chosen because it poses a challenge and entails at least a perception of uncertainty. Finally, the word environment refers to both the physical structures and the delivery method of the experience. Using this broad idea of AAEs, we can now explore what this type of experience encompasses.
In order to do so, we need to define another term—challenge course, which is given two widely known definitions in the industry. Rohnke, Rogers, Wall, & Tait (2007) define a challenge course in terms of the ropes, cables, metal, synthetics, and poles used to build structures that challenge participants in a manner that mimics that of a natural setting. Alternatively, Attarian (2005) views challenge courses in terms of their similarity and relationship to other activities, such as group initiatives, team-building activities, and low and high ropes courses. Although both of these definitions address the physical structure of at least some of the activities, they differ in the scope of what they might include. The definition from Rohnke et al. includes the materials that the challenge course can be made from and implies that they are relatively permanent in design. However, as the industry grows and changes, so do the technologies and materials used in assembling challenge courses. In contrast, Attarian's (2005) inclusion of terms such as group initiative and team-building activities enables a broader interpretation of the activities that can be used in challenge course programming.
This broader definition is used in most educational settings. For instance, even if a program takes place predominantly on a low or high challenge course, facilitators typically initiate the course by incorporating some activities that require little or no equipment. But what if these team-building activities are used without inclusion of more permanent structures? Does the overall activity still constitute a challenge course program? Thus begins again the debate about what is and what is not included in an AAE.
When talking about what is included in an AAE, it is helpful to understand the difference between an environment and an element. The environment consists of the overall structure and structural style, which carry implications for the type of delivery system one can use. Elements, on the other hand, are the individual components of an AAE that are used to enable specific experiences. An incredible number of elements already exist for AAEs, and more are being designed even as you read this book. Indeed, it would be impossible to list, much less explain, all of the elements that have been installed in AAEs, and any such list would very quickly fall out of date; therefore, no such list is included here. Instead, we address selected elements as they relate to various operating systems or experiences.
It is crucial to understand the varying environments in order to grasp all that is included in our definition of an AAE. The aerial adventure industry has grown beyond the previously stated definitions of a challenge course, and we now determine what to include in the definition of AAEs by considering programmatic uses, structural designs, operating systems, and even standards and regulations. Figure 1.1 shows how AAEs can be divided into six major categories. Each of these categories has some unique features and programmatic uses that will be highlighted throughout this textbook. The term aerial adventure environment,or AAE, is used when the reference is common to all of these categories.
Figure 1.1 Aerial adventure environments.
Used with permission of Adventureworks! Associates, Inc.
Professional associations bring together like-minded professionals
The development of professional associations brings together individuals who want to ensure that the industry is able to grow in an appropriate and healthy manner. These associations provide professional development opportunities such as annual conferences and training workshops. They also tend to offer credentialing through certification and accreditation processes that include the development of standards for holding professionals and organizations accountable. Such credentials also enable organizations in the industry to seek and acquire appropriate levels of insurance, which may be required in their country. In addition, the development of industry standards enables professional associations to advocate for the industry and develop relationships with regional, national, and international regulatory agencies. In these ways, professional associations strive to serve as the voice of the industry.
Professional associations come in a variety of forms and sizes. Some pursue a specific mission related to a certain type of activity. For instance, the International Adventure Park Association, which focuses on aerial adventure activities, was developed in Germany to bring together manufacturers, builders, operators, and members of the public. Similarly, the African Ropes Course Association serves zip line and ropes course operators in South Africa and requires members to abide by its code of practice. And the Malaysia Challenge Course Association sets industry guidelines for challenge course installation, inspection, maintenance, and training in its home country.
Other associations address a broader scope of activities by advocating for the recreation and tourism industry more generally. In Costa Rica, for example, the Asociación de Operadores de Aventura (Association of Adventure Operators) advocates for all adventure tour operators in the country. Similarly, in France, the Syndicat National des Exploitants de Parcours Aventure advocates for various leisure activities, including aerial adventure parks. In addition, the Association for Experiential Education includes standards for challenge courses in its accreditation standards for adventure programs, and multiple camping associations (e.g., American Camping Association, Australian Camping Association, Canadian Camping Association) advocate for standards and best practices in the AAI because their facilities often include AAEs.
This list is simply a sampling of associations that support the AAI from around the world. The three main associations that will be referred to most frequently in this text are the Association for Challenge Course Technology (ACCT), the Professional Ropes Course Association (PRCA), and the European Ropes Course Association (ERCA). Let us take a quick look at each one.
Association for Challenge Course Technology
Founded in 1993, ACCT is an international trade organization dedicated to standards, government relations, credentialing, professional development, and member advancement (Association for Challenge Course Technology, 2019). For its mission, this U.S.-based association seeks to “establish and promote the standard of care and measure of excellence that defines professional practice and effective challenge course programs.” ACCT has developed and continues to update standards for the installation, maintenance, and management of AAEs. In addition, it holds an annual international conference to facilitate connection and development among its members and industry professionals; it also advocates for the profession through regional, national, and international networks.
Professional Ropes Course Association
PRCA was founded in 2003 as an “industry association that supports the development and regulation of the ropes challenge course, canopy zip lines, and aerial adventure parks industry” (Professional Ropes Course Association, 2019). It is a U.S.-based organization with a mission to “develop end-user applicable” standards and documents and “define, document, and outline the construction/operational practices for the Ropes Challenge Course, Zipline, and Aerial Adventure Parks industry.” In 2014, PRCA developed the first set of American National Standards Institute (ANSI) safety standards for the industry-ANSI/PRCA 1.0-.3 -2014 American National Safety Standards for Challenge Courses, Adventure Parks, Canopy Tours and Zip Lines: Design, Performance, Inspection, Installation, Equipment, Operations, Training and Certification. Its holds an annual conference and advocates for improvement in the industry.
European Ropes Course Association
Unlike ACCT and PRCA, ERCA is not based in one country. As a result, a part of its mission is to “foster professional exchange within Europe and strive for the harmonization of professional standards on a European level,” and this work includes standards development, training, and research (European Ropes Course Association, 2019). ERCA provides accreditation for both trainers and inspectors.
Putting It Into Practice
Find Your Place in an Association
Whether you are new to the profession or have been working in the industry for some time, there is a place for you in an association. Networking with others who are doing the same type of work, either in your area or abroad, can expand your perspectives on what you do. In addition, learning from others who work in different parts of the industry can challenge your knowledge and maybe even your assumptions! Taking part in workshops or even leading a workshop at an association conference can provide you with an opportunity for growth. Perhaps you can even share your experience and knowledge through service on an association committee.
Goal orientations of aerial adventure experiences
Potential participants who come to AAEs typically have a particular goal in mind, whether or not they can articulate it. They are seeking an experience that will present something new or change their lives. They want to have a fun experience with friends, learn about the natural environment, improve their group's ability to work with each other, or build confidence in their own abilities. In fact, two participants who come to the same program may not have the same expectations of themselves for the experience.
The goal orientation of a given experience relates to its intended outcome—the primary objective or takeaway of the participant's experience. Three broad goal orientations of AAEs are recreation, education, and therapy. Individuals who participate in a recreational experience do so in their free time; their intention may be to experience pleasure, personal fulfillment, or positive engagement with nature. Educational experiences cover a wide variety of intentional opportunities for growth and development in individuals or groups; participants focus on developing their skills, knowledge, and dispositions. Therapeutic experiences are intended to enhance participants' physical, social, and emotional well-being; these experiences typically serve as one among several kinds of treatment employed with an individual. Although each of these goal orientations can be defined, even experiences within the same category don't always align. Therefore, these categories should be viewed as existing on a continuum. For example, due to their distinctive intentions, a birthday party at an aerial adventure park creates a much different recreational experience than a family outing to spend quality time with each other on a canopy tour. In addition, participants in an aerial adventure experience may have outcomes beyond those intended; for instance, an experience might be educational by design yet still enable participants to feel a sense of personal fulfillment.
Figure 3.2 shows a layered continuum model for aerial adventure experiences. This model is an adaptation of Wagstaff's (2016) challenge course program continuum. Each category—recreational, educational, therapeutic—includes a continuum that overlaps to some degree with the others. In addition, a layering effect occurs with outcomes that may not be the primary outcome. This layering is more likely to occur when moving from recreational to therapeutic than in the reverse; in other words, recreational outcomes are more likely to be experienced by participants in educational or therapeutic activities than therapeutic outcomes are to be experienced during recreational events. The model also depicts several other continuums as we move from recreational to educational to therapeutic experiences. For example, the focus shifts from the activity to the individual. That is, a purely recreational experience is more about completing the novel task, such as participating in a new zip line or free-fall jump. In contrast, a therapeutic experience is more about changes in the individual resulting from the experience; in this case, choosing one zip line over another makes less difference in the outcome. Finally, the model includes two continuums related to staff engagement in the process of the experience. This aspect will be discussed further as we explore each of the goal orientations.
The differences described here are determined by program outcomes rather than participants. For example, a school-based program is not necessarily bound to an educational program. Certainly, group members could participate in an educational program to learn about the environment or to learn how to stand up for each other to prevent bullying, but they could also participate in a recreational program to celebrate upcoming graduates. Thus the fact that it is a school-based group does not in itself define the aerial adventure experience.
Table 3.1 provides examples of services provided in each of the goal orientations for the six types of AAEs as defined in chapter 1. Due to significant overlap, low and high challenge courses are grouped together, as are zip lines and canopy tours. Again, the categories are defined here in terms of outcomes. We will explore each of these goal orientations further because each type comes with its own implications, both for program managers and (most important) for participant's expectations.
Participant evaluation of programs
One of the best ways to know how well your programs are doing is to implement a participant evaluation process. Participant evaluations allow operators to question people after they have taken part in an aerial adventure experience. The questions can be tailored to meet the needs of the organization. For instance, AAEs with recreational outcomes may explore what participants feel they have gained from the experience. Figure 12.6 presents an example of a participant evaluation used for a recreational zip line canopy tour.
Some participant evaluations ask more questions in order to enable a deeper understanding of the participant experience and may be given directly to the leader of the participating group either at the end of the experience or digitally in the days that follow. Figure 12.7 shows a participant questionnaire for a challenge course program that provides educational outcomes. This questionnaire asks for more detailed information about the experience and is intended for the main representative of the group.
Figure 12.6 Participant evaluation for a zip line canopy tour.
Adapted by permission from North Georgia Canopy Tours, LLC.
What is an aerial adventure environment?
Haras (2012) unpacks the term aerial adventure environment by defining each word. Aerial refers to the fact that the experience occurs above the ground, whether by only a few inches or at great height, and therefore requires specialized skills and equipment. The experience also involves adventure (individual or in a group) and is chosen because it poses a challenge and entails at least a perception of uncertainty. Finally, the word environment refers to both the physical structures and the delivery method of the experience. Using this broad idea of AAEs, we can now explore what this type of experience encompasses.
In order to do so, we need to define another term—challenge course, which is given two widely known definitions in the industry. Rohnke, Rogers, Wall, & Tait (2007) define a challenge course in terms of the ropes, cables, metal, synthetics, and poles used to build structures that challenge participants in a manner that mimics that of a natural setting. Alternatively, Attarian (2005) views challenge courses in terms of their similarity and relationship to other activities, such as group initiatives, team-building activities, and low and high ropes courses. Although both of these definitions address the physical structure of at least some of the activities, they differ in the scope of what they might include. The definition from Rohnke et al. includes the materials that the challenge course can be made from and implies that they are relatively permanent in design. However, as the industry grows and changes, so do the technologies and materials used in assembling challenge courses. In contrast, Attarian's (2005) inclusion of terms such as group initiative and team-building activities enables a broader interpretation of the activities that can be used in challenge course programming.
This broader definition is used in most educational settings. For instance, even if a program takes place predominantly on a low or high challenge course, facilitators typically initiate the course by incorporating some activities that require little or no equipment. But what if these team-building activities are used without inclusion of more permanent structures? Does the overall activity still constitute a challenge course program? Thus begins again the debate about what is and what is not included in an AAE.
When talking about what is included in an AAE, it is helpful to understand the difference between an environment and an element. The environment consists of the overall structure and structural style, which carry implications for the type of delivery system one can use. Elements, on the other hand, are the individual components of an AAE that are used to enable specific experiences. An incredible number of elements already exist for AAEs, and more are being designed even as you read this book. Indeed, it would be impossible to list, much less explain, all of the elements that have been installed in AAEs, and any such list would very quickly fall out of date; therefore, no such list is included here. Instead, we address selected elements as they relate to various operating systems or experiences.
It is crucial to understand the varying environments in order to grasp all that is included in our definition of an AAE. The aerial adventure industry has grown beyond the previously stated definitions of a challenge course, and we now determine what to include in the definition of AAEs by considering programmatic uses, structural designs, operating systems, and even standards and regulations. Figure 1.1 shows how AAEs can be divided into six major categories. Each of these categories has some unique features and programmatic uses that will be highlighted throughout this textbook. The term aerial adventure environment,or AAE, is used when the reference is common to all of these categories.
Figure 1.1 Aerial adventure environments.
Used with permission of Adventureworks! Associates, Inc.
Professional associations bring together like-minded professionals
The development of professional associations brings together individuals who want to ensure that the industry is able to grow in an appropriate and healthy manner. These associations provide professional development opportunities such as annual conferences and training workshops. They also tend to offer credentialing through certification and accreditation processes that include the development of standards for holding professionals and organizations accountable. Such credentials also enable organizations in the industry to seek and acquire appropriate levels of insurance, which may be required in their country. In addition, the development of industry standards enables professional associations to advocate for the industry and develop relationships with regional, national, and international regulatory agencies. In these ways, professional associations strive to serve as the voice of the industry.
Professional associations come in a variety of forms and sizes. Some pursue a specific mission related to a certain type of activity. For instance, the International Adventure Park Association, which focuses on aerial adventure activities, was developed in Germany to bring together manufacturers, builders, operators, and members of the public. Similarly, the African Ropes Course Association serves zip line and ropes course operators in South Africa and requires members to abide by its code of practice. And the Malaysia Challenge Course Association sets industry guidelines for challenge course installation, inspection, maintenance, and training in its home country.
Other associations address a broader scope of activities by advocating for the recreation and tourism industry more generally. In Costa Rica, for example, the Asociación de Operadores de Aventura (Association of Adventure Operators) advocates for all adventure tour operators in the country. Similarly, in France, the Syndicat National des Exploitants de Parcours Aventure advocates for various leisure activities, including aerial adventure parks. In addition, the Association for Experiential Education includes standards for challenge courses in its accreditation standards for adventure programs, and multiple camping associations (e.g., American Camping Association, Australian Camping Association, Canadian Camping Association) advocate for standards and best practices in the AAI because their facilities often include AAEs.
This list is simply a sampling of associations that support the AAI from around the world. The three main associations that will be referred to most frequently in this text are the Association for Challenge Course Technology (ACCT), the Professional Ropes Course Association (PRCA), and the European Ropes Course Association (ERCA). Let us take a quick look at each one.
Association for Challenge Course Technology
Founded in 1993, ACCT is an international trade organization dedicated to standards, government relations, credentialing, professional development, and member advancement (Association for Challenge Course Technology, 2019). For its mission, this U.S.-based association seeks to “establish and promote the standard of care and measure of excellence that defines professional practice and effective challenge course programs.” ACCT has developed and continues to update standards for the installation, maintenance, and management of AAEs. In addition, it holds an annual international conference to facilitate connection and development among its members and industry professionals; it also advocates for the profession through regional, national, and international networks.
Professional Ropes Course Association
PRCA was founded in 2003 as an “industry association that supports the development and regulation of the ropes challenge course, canopy zip lines, and aerial adventure parks industry” (Professional Ropes Course Association, 2019). It is a U.S.-based organization with a mission to “develop end-user applicable” standards and documents and “define, document, and outline the construction/operational practices for the Ropes Challenge Course, Zipline, and Aerial Adventure Parks industry.” In 2014, PRCA developed the first set of American National Standards Institute (ANSI) safety standards for the industry-ANSI/PRCA 1.0-.3 -2014 American National Safety Standards for Challenge Courses, Adventure Parks, Canopy Tours and Zip Lines: Design, Performance, Inspection, Installation, Equipment, Operations, Training and Certification. Its holds an annual conference and advocates for improvement in the industry.
European Ropes Course Association
Unlike ACCT and PRCA, ERCA is not based in one country. As a result, a part of its mission is to “foster professional exchange within Europe and strive for the harmonization of professional standards on a European level,” and this work includes standards development, training, and research (European Ropes Course Association, 2019). ERCA provides accreditation for both trainers and inspectors.
Putting It Into Practice
Find Your Place in an Association
Whether you are new to the profession or have been working in the industry for some time, there is a place for you in an association. Networking with others who are doing the same type of work, either in your area or abroad, can expand your perspectives on what you do. In addition, learning from others who work in different parts of the industry can challenge your knowledge and maybe even your assumptions! Taking part in workshops or even leading a workshop at an association conference can provide you with an opportunity for growth. Perhaps you can even share your experience and knowledge through service on an association committee.
Goal orientations of aerial adventure experiences
Potential participants who come to AAEs typically have a particular goal in mind, whether or not they can articulate it. They are seeking an experience that will present something new or change their lives. They want to have a fun experience with friends, learn about the natural environment, improve their group's ability to work with each other, or build confidence in their own abilities. In fact, two participants who come to the same program may not have the same expectations of themselves for the experience.
The goal orientation of a given experience relates to its intended outcome—the primary objective or takeaway of the participant's experience. Three broad goal orientations of AAEs are recreation, education, and therapy. Individuals who participate in a recreational experience do so in their free time; their intention may be to experience pleasure, personal fulfillment, or positive engagement with nature. Educational experiences cover a wide variety of intentional opportunities for growth and development in individuals or groups; participants focus on developing their skills, knowledge, and dispositions. Therapeutic experiences are intended to enhance participants' physical, social, and emotional well-being; these experiences typically serve as one among several kinds of treatment employed with an individual. Although each of these goal orientations can be defined, even experiences within the same category don't always align. Therefore, these categories should be viewed as existing on a continuum. For example, due to their distinctive intentions, a birthday party at an aerial adventure park creates a much different recreational experience than a family outing to spend quality time with each other on a canopy tour. In addition, participants in an aerial adventure experience may have outcomes beyond those intended; for instance, an experience might be educational by design yet still enable participants to feel a sense of personal fulfillment.
Figure 3.2 shows a layered continuum model for aerial adventure experiences. This model is an adaptation of Wagstaff's (2016) challenge course program continuum. Each category—recreational, educational, therapeutic—includes a continuum that overlaps to some degree with the others. In addition, a layering effect occurs with outcomes that may not be the primary outcome. This layering is more likely to occur when moving from recreational to therapeutic than in the reverse; in other words, recreational outcomes are more likely to be experienced by participants in educational or therapeutic activities than therapeutic outcomes are to be experienced during recreational events. The model also depicts several other continuums as we move from recreational to educational to therapeutic experiences. For example, the focus shifts from the activity to the individual. That is, a purely recreational experience is more about completing the novel task, such as participating in a new zip line or free-fall jump. In contrast, a therapeutic experience is more about changes in the individual resulting from the experience; in this case, choosing one zip line over another makes less difference in the outcome. Finally, the model includes two continuums related to staff engagement in the process of the experience. This aspect will be discussed further as we explore each of the goal orientations.
The differences described here are determined by program outcomes rather than participants. For example, a school-based program is not necessarily bound to an educational program. Certainly, group members could participate in an educational program to learn about the environment or to learn how to stand up for each other to prevent bullying, but they could also participate in a recreational program to celebrate upcoming graduates. Thus the fact that it is a school-based group does not in itself define the aerial adventure experience.
Table 3.1 provides examples of services provided in each of the goal orientations for the six types of AAEs as defined in chapter 1. Due to significant overlap, low and high challenge courses are grouped together, as are zip lines and canopy tours. Again, the categories are defined here in terms of outcomes. We will explore each of these goal orientations further because each type comes with its own implications, both for program managers and (most important) for participant's expectations.
Participant evaluation of programs
One of the best ways to know how well your programs are doing is to implement a participant evaluation process. Participant evaluations allow operators to question people after they have taken part in an aerial adventure experience. The questions can be tailored to meet the needs of the organization. For instance, AAEs with recreational outcomes may explore what participants feel they have gained from the experience. Figure 12.6 presents an example of a participant evaluation used for a recreational zip line canopy tour.
Some participant evaluations ask more questions in order to enable a deeper understanding of the participant experience and may be given directly to the leader of the participating group either at the end of the experience or digitally in the days that follow. Figure 12.7 shows a participant questionnaire for a challenge course program that provides educational outcomes. This questionnaire asks for more detailed information about the experience and is intended for the main representative of the group.
Figure 12.6 Participant evaluation for a zip line canopy tour.
Adapted by permission from North Georgia Canopy Tours, LLC.
What is an aerial adventure environment?
Haras (2012) unpacks the term aerial adventure environment by defining each word. Aerial refers to the fact that the experience occurs above the ground, whether by only a few inches or at great height, and therefore requires specialized skills and equipment. The experience also involves adventure (individual or in a group) and is chosen because it poses a challenge and entails at least a perception of uncertainty. Finally, the word environment refers to both the physical structures and the delivery method of the experience. Using this broad idea of AAEs, we can now explore what this type of experience encompasses.
In order to do so, we need to define another term—challenge course, which is given two widely known definitions in the industry. Rohnke, Rogers, Wall, & Tait (2007) define a challenge course in terms of the ropes, cables, metal, synthetics, and poles used to build structures that challenge participants in a manner that mimics that of a natural setting. Alternatively, Attarian (2005) views challenge courses in terms of their similarity and relationship to other activities, such as group initiatives, team-building activities, and low and high ropes courses. Although both of these definitions address the physical structure of at least some of the activities, they differ in the scope of what they might include. The definition from Rohnke et al. includes the materials that the challenge course can be made from and implies that they are relatively permanent in design. However, as the industry grows and changes, so do the technologies and materials used in assembling challenge courses. In contrast, Attarian's (2005) inclusion of terms such as group initiative and team-building activities enables a broader interpretation of the activities that can be used in challenge course programming.
This broader definition is used in most educational settings. For instance, even if a program takes place predominantly on a low or high challenge course, facilitators typically initiate the course by incorporating some activities that require little or no equipment. But what if these team-building activities are used without inclusion of more permanent structures? Does the overall activity still constitute a challenge course program? Thus begins again the debate about what is and what is not included in an AAE.
When talking about what is included in an AAE, it is helpful to understand the difference between an environment and an element. The environment consists of the overall structure and structural style, which carry implications for the type of delivery system one can use. Elements, on the other hand, are the individual components of an AAE that are used to enable specific experiences. An incredible number of elements already exist for AAEs, and more are being designed even as you read this book. Indeed, it would be impossible to list, much less explain, all of the elements that have been installed in AAEs, and any such list would very quickly fall out of date; therefore, no such list is included here. Instead, we address selected elements as they relate to various operating systems or experiences.
It is crucial to understand the varying environments in order to grasp all that is included in our definition of an AAE. The aerial adventure industry has grown beyond the previously stated definitions of a challenge course, and we now determine what to include in the definition of AAEs by considering programmatic uses, structural designs, operating systems, and even standards and regulations. Figure 1.1 shows how AAEs can be divided into six major categories. Each of these categories has some unique features and programmatic uses that will be highlighted throughout this textbook. The term aerial adventure environment,or AAE, is used when the reference is common to all of these categories.
Figure 1.1 Aerial adventure environments.
Used with permission of Adventureworks! Associates, Inc.
Professional associations bring together like-minded professionals
The development of professional associations brings together individuals who want to ensure that the industry is able to grow in an appropriate and healthy manner. These associations provide professional development opportunities such as annual conferences and training workshops. They also tend to offer credentialing through certification and accreditation processes that include the development of standards for holding professionals and organizations accountable. Such credentials also enable organizations in the industry to seek and acquire appropriate levels of insurance, which may be required in their country. In addition, the development of industry standards enables professional associations to advocate for the industry and develop relationships with regional, national, and international regulatory agencies. In these ways, professional associations strive to serve as the voice of the industry.
Professional associations come in a variety of forms and sizes. Some pursue a specific mission related to a certain type of activity. For instance, the International Adventure Park Association, which focuses on aerial adventure activities, was developed in Germany to bring together manufacturers, builders, operators, and members of the public. Similarly, the African Ropes Course Association serves zip line and ropes course operators in South Africa and requires members to abide by its code of practice. And the Malaysia Challenge Course Association sets industry guidelines for challenge course installation, inspection, maintenance, and training in its home country.
Other associations address a broader scope of activities by advocating for the recreation and tourism industry more generally. In Costa Rica, for example, the Asociación de Operadores de Aventura (Association of Adventure Operators) advocates for all adventure tour operators in the country. Similarly, in France, the Syndicat National des Exploitants de Parcours Aventure advocates for various leisure activities, including aerial adventure parks. In addition, the Association for Experiential Education includes standards for challenge courses in its accreditation standards for adventure programs, and multiple camping associations (e.g., American Camping Association, Australian Camping Association, Canadian Camping Association) advocate for standards and best practices in the AAI because their facilities often include AAEs.
This list is simply a sampling of associations that support the AAI from around the world. The three main associations that will be referred to most frequently in this text are the Association for Challenge Course Technology (ACCT), the Professional Ropes Course Association (PRCA), and the European Ropes Course Association (ERCA). Let us take a quick look at each one.
Association for Challenge Course Technology
Founded in 1993, ACCT is an international trade organization dedicated to standards, government relations, credentialing, professional development, and member advancement (Association for Challenge Course Technology, 2019). For its mission, this U.S.-based association seeks to “establish and promote the standard of care and measure of excellence that defines professional practice and effective challenge course programs.” ACCT has developed and continues to update standards for the installation, maintenance, and management of AAEs. In addition, it holds an annual international conference to facilitate connection and development among its members and industry professionals; it also advocates for the profession through regional, national, and international networks.
Professional Ropes Course Association
PRCA was founded in 2003 as an “industry association that supports the development and regulation of the ropes challenge course, canopy zip lines, and aerial adventure parks industry” (Professional Ropes Course Association, 2019). It is a U.S.-based organization with a mission to “develop end-user applicable” standards and documents and “define, document, and outline the construction/operational practices for the Ropes Challenge Course, Zipline, and Aerial Adventure Parks industry.” In 2014, PRCA developed the first set of American National Standards Institute (ANSI) safety standards for the industry-ANSI/PRCA 1.0-.3 -2014 American National Safety Standards for Challenge Courses, Adventure Parks, Canopy Tours and Zip Lines: Design, Performance, Inspection, Installation, Equipment, Operations, Training and Certification. Its holds an annual conference and advocates for improvement in the industry.
European Ropes Course Association
Unlike ACCT and PRCA, ERCA is not based in one country. As a result, a part of its mission is to “foster professional exchange within Europe and strive for the harmonization of professional standards on a European level,” and this work includes standards development, training, and research (European Ropes Course Association, 2019). ERCA provides accreditation for both trainers and inspectors.
Putting It Into Practice
Find Your Place in an Association
Whether you are new to the profession or have been working in the industry for some time, there is a place for you in an association. Networking with others who are doing the same type of work, either in your area or abroad, can expand your perspectives on what you do. In addition, learning from others who work in different parts of the industry can challenge your knowledge and maybe even your assumptions! Taking part in workshops or even leading a workshop at an association conference can provide you with an opportunity for growth. Perhaps you can even share your experience and knowledge through service on an association committee.
Goal orientations of aerial adventure experiences
Potential participants who come to AAEs typically have a particular goal in mind, whether or not they can articulate it. They are seeking an experience that will present something new or change their lives. They want to have a fun experience with friends, learn about the natural environment, improve their group's ability to work with each other, or build confidence in their own abilities. In fact, two participants who come to the same program may not have the same expectations of themselves for the experience.
The goal orientation of a given experience relates to its intended outcome—the primary objective or takeaway of the participant's experience. Three broad goal orientations of AAEs are recreation, education, and therapy. Individuals who participate in a recreational experience do so in their free time; their intention may be to experience pleasure, personal fulfillment, or positive engagement with nature. Educational experiences cover a wide variety of intentional opportunities for growth and development in individuals or groups; participants focus on developing their skills, knowledge, and dispositions. Therapeutic experiences are intended to enhance participants' physical, social, and emotional well-being; these experiences typically serve as one among several kinds of treatment employed with an individual. Although each of these goal orientations can be defined, even experiences within the same category don't always align. Therefore, these categories should be viewed as existing on a continuum. For example, due to their distinctive intentions, a birthday party at an aerial adventure park creates a much different recreational experience than a family outing to spend quality time with each other on a canopy tour. In addition, participants in an aerial adventure experience may have outcomes beyond those intended; for instance, an experience might be educational by design yet still enable participants to feel a sense of personal fulfillment.
Figure 3.2 shows a layered continuum model for aerial adventure experiences. This model is an adaptation of Wagstaff's (2016) challenge course program continuum. Each category—recreational, educational, therapeutic—includes a continuum that overlaps to some degree with the others. In addition, a layering effect occurs with outcomes that may not be the primary outcome. This layering is more likely to occur when moving from recreational to therapeutic than in the reverse; in other words, recreational outcomes are more likely to be experienced by participants in educational or therapeutic activities than therapeutic outcomes are to be experienced during recreational events. The model also depicts several other continuums as we move from recreational to educational to therapeutic experiences. For example, the focus shifts from the activity to the individual. That is, a purely recreational experience is more about completing the novel task, such as participating in a new zip line or free-fall jump. In contrast, a therapeutic experience is more about changes in the individual resulting from the experience; in this case, choosing one zip line over another makes less difference in the outcome. Finally, the model includes two continuums related to staff engagement in the process of the experience. This aspect will be discussed further as we explore each of the goal orientations.
The differences described here are determined by program outcomes rather than participants. For example, a school-based program is not necessarily bound to an educational program. Certainly, group members could participate in an educational program to learn about the environment or to learn how to stand up for each other to prevent bullying, but they could also participate in a recreational program to celebrate upcoming graduates. Thus the fact that it is a school-based group does not in itself define the aerial adventure experience.
Table 3.1 provides examples of services provided in each of the goal orientations for the six types of AAEs as defined in chapter 1. Due to significant overlap, low and high challenge courses are grouped together, as are zip lines and canopy tours. Again, the categories are defined here in terms of outcomes. We will explore each of these goal orientations further because each type comes with its own implications, both for program managers and (most important) for participant's expectations.
Participant evaluation of programs
One of the best ways to know how well your programs are doing is to implement a participant evaluation process. Participant evaluations allow operators to question people after they have taken part in an aerial adventure experience. The questions can be tailored to meet the needs of the organization. For instance, AAEs with recreational outcomes may explore what participants feel they have gained from the experience. Figure 12.6 presents an example of a participant evaluation used for a recreational zip line canopy tour.
Some participant evaluations ask more questions in order to enable a deeper understanding of the participant experience and may be given directly to the leader of the participating group either at the end of the experience or digitally in the days that follow. Figure 12.7 shows a participant questionnaire for a challenge course program that provides educational outcomes. This questionnaire asks for more detailed information about the experience and is intended for the main representative of the group.
Figure 12.6 Participant evaluation for a zip line canopy tour.
Adapted by permission from North Georgia Canopy Tours, LLC.
What is an aerial adventure environment?
Haras (2012) unpacks the term aerial adventure environment by defining each word. Aerial refers to the fact that the experience occurs above the ground, whether by only a few inches or at great height, and therefore requires specialized skills and equipment. The experience also involves adventure (individual or in a group) and is chosen because it poses a challenge and entails at least a perception of uncertainty. Finally, the word environment refers to both the physical structures and the delivery method of the experience. Using this broad idea of AAEs, we can now explore what this type of experience encompasses.
In order to do so, we need to define another term—challenge course, which is given two widely known definitions in the industry. Rohnke, Rogers, Wall, & Tait (2007) define a challenge course in terms of the ropes, cables, metal, synthetics, and poles used to build structures that challenge participants in a manner that mimics that of a natural setting. Alternatively, Attarian (2005) views challenge courses in terms of their similarity and relationship to other activities, such as group initiatives, team-building activities, and low and high ropes courses. Although both of these definitions address the physical structure of at least some of the activities, they differ in the scope of what they might include. The definition from Rohnke et al. includes the materials that the challenge course can be made from and implies that they are relatively permanent in design. However, as the industry grows and changes, so do the technologies and materials used in assembling challenge courses. In contrast, Attarian's (2005) inclusion of terms such as group initiative and team-building activities enables a broader interpretation of the activities that can be used in challenge course programming.
This broader definition is used in most educational settings. For instance, even if a program takes place predominantly on a low or high challenge course, facilitators typically initiate the course by incorporating some activities that require little or no equipment. But what if these team-building activities are used without inclusion of more permanent structures? Does the overall activity still constitute a challenge course program? Thus begins again the debate about what is and what is not included in an AAE.
When talking about what is included in an AAE, it is helpful to understand the difference between an environment and an element. The environment consists of the overall structure and structural style, which carry implications for the type of delivery system one can use. Elements, on the other hand, are the individual components of an AAE that are used to enable specific experiences. An incredible number of elements already exist for AAEs, and more are being designed even as you read this book. Indeed, it would be impossible to list, much less explain, all of the elements that have been installed in AAEs, and any such list would very quickly fall out of date; therefore, no such list is included here. Instead, we address selected elements as they relate to various operating systems or experiences.
It is crucial to understand the varying environments in order to grasp all that is included in our definition of an AAE. The aerial adventure industry has grown beyond the previously stated definitions of a challenge course, and we now determine what to include in the definition of AAEs by considering programmatic uses, structural designs, operating systems, and even standards and regulations. Figure 1.1 shows how AAEs can be divided into six major categories. Each of these categories has some unique features and programmatic uses that will be highlighted throughout this textbook. The term aerial adventure environment,or AAE, is used when the reference is common to all of these categories.
Figure 1.1 Aerial adventure environments.
Used with permission of Adventureworks! Associates, Inc.
Professional associations bring together like-minded professionals
The development of professional associations brings together individuals who want to ensure that the industry is able to grow in an appropriate and healthy manner. These associations provide professional development opportunities such as annual conferences and training workshops. They also tend to offer credentialing through certification and accreditation processes that include the development of standards for holding professionals and organizations accountable. Such credentials also enable organizations in the industry to seek and acquire appropriate levels of insurance, which may be required in their country. In addition, the development of industry standards enables professional associations to advocate for the industry and develop relationships with regional, national, and international regulatory agencies. In these ways, professional associations strive to serve as the voice of the industry.
Professional associations come in a variety of forms and sizes. Some pursue a specific mission related to a certain type of activity. For instance, the International Adventure Park Association, which focuses on aerial adventure activities, was developed in Germany to bring together manufacturers, builders, operators, and members of the public. Similarly, the African Ropes Course Association serves zip line and ropes course operators in South Africa and requires members to abide by its code of practice. And the Malaysia Challenge Course Association sets industry guidelines for challenge course installation, inspection, maintenance, and training in its home country.
Other associations address a broader scope of activities by advocating for the recreation and tourism industry more generally. In Costa Rica, for example, the Asociación de Operadores de Aventura (Association of Adventure Operators) advocates for all adventure tour operators in the country. Similarly, in France, the Syndicat National des Exploitants de Parcours Aventure advocates for various leisure activities, including aerial adventure parks. In addition, the Association for Experiential Education includes standards for challenge courses in its accreditation standards for adventure programs, and multiple camping associations (e.g., American Camping Association, Australian Camping Association, Canadian Camping Association) advocate for standards and best practices in the AAI because their facilities often include AAEs.
This list is simply a sampling of associations that support the AAI from around the world. The three main associations that will be referred to most frequently in this text are the Association for Challenge Course Technology (ACCT), the Professional Ropes Course Association (PRCA), and the European Ropes Course Association (ERCA). Let us take a quick look at each one.
Association for Challenge Course Technology
Founded in 1993, ACCT is an international trade organization dedicated to standards, government relations, credentialing, professional development, and member advancement (Association for Challenge Course Technology, 2019). For its mission, this U.S.-based association seeks to “establish and promote the standard of care and measure of excellence that defines professional practice and effective challenge course programs.” ACCT has developed and continues to update standards for the installation, maintenance, and management of AAEs. In addition, it holds an annual international conference to facilitate connection and development among its members and industry professionals; it also advocates for the profession through regional, national, and international networks.
Professional Ropes Course Association
PRCA was founded in 2003 as an “industry association that supports the development and regulation of the ropes challenge course, canopy zip lines, and aerial adventure parks industry” (Professional Ropes Course Association, 2019). It is a U.S.-based organization with a mission to “develop end-user applicable” standards and documents and “define, document, and outline the construction/operational practices for the Ropes Challenge Course, Zipline, and Aerial Adventure Parks industry.” In 2014, PRCA developed the first set of American National Standards Institute (ANSI) safety standards for the industry-ANSI/PRCA 1.0-.3 -2014 American National Safety Standards for Challenge Courses, Adventure Parks, Canopy Tours and Zip Lines: Design, Performance, Inspection, Installation, Equipment, Operations, Training and Certification. Its holds an annual conference and advocates for improvement in the industry.
European Ropes Course Association
Unlike ACCT and PRCA, ERCA is not based in one country. As a result, a part of its mission is to “foster professional exchange within Europe and strive for the harmonization of professional standards on a European level,” and this work includes standards development, training, and research (European Ropes Course Association, 2019). ERCA provides accreditation for both trainers and inspectors.
Putting It Into Practice
Find Your Place in an Association
Whether you are new to the profession or have been working in the industry for some time, there is a place for you in an association. Networking with others who are doing the same type of work, either in your area or abroad, can expand your perspectives on what you do. In addition, learning from others who work in different parts of the industry can challenge your knowledge and maybe even your assumptions! Taking part in workshops or even leading a workshop at an association conference can provide you with an opportunity for growth. Perhaps you can even share your experience and knowledge through service on an association committee.
Goal orientations of aerial adventure experiences
Potential participants who come to AAEs typically have a particular goal in mind, whether or not they can articulate it. They are seeking an experience that will present something new or change their lives. They want to have a fun experience with friends, learn about the natural environment, improve their group's ability to work with each other, or build confidence in their own abilities. In fact, two participants who come to the same program may not have the same expectations of themselves for the experience.
The goal orientation of a given experience relates to its intended outcome—the primary objective or takeaway of the participant's experience. Three broad goal orientations of AAEs are recreation, education, and therapy. Individuals who participate in a recreational experience do so in their free time; their intention may be to experience pleasure, personal fulfillment, or positive engagement with nature. Educational experiences cover a wide variety of intentional opportunities for growth and development in individuals or groups; participants focus on developing their skills, knowledge, and dispositions. Therapeutic experiences are intended to enhance participants' physical, social, and emotional well-being; these experiences typically serve as one among several kinds of treatment employed with an individual. Although each of these goal orientations can be defined, even experiences within the same category don't always align. Therefore, these categories should be viewed as existing on a continuum. For example, due to their distinctive intentions, a birthday party at an aerial adventure park creates a much different recreational experience than a family outing to spend quality time with each other on a canopy tour. In addition, participants in an aerial adventure experience may have outcomes beyond those intended; for instance, an experience might be educational by design yet still enable participants to feel a sense of personal fulfillment.
Figure 3.2 shows a layered continuum model for aerial adventure experiences. This model is an adaptation of Wagstaff's (2016) challenge course program continuum. Each category—recreational, educational, therapeutic—includes a continuum that overlaps to some degree with the others. In addition, a layering effect occurs with outcomes that may not be the primary outcome. This layering is more likely to occur when moving from recreational to therapeutic than in the reverse; in other words, recreational outcomes are more likely to be experienced by participants in educational or therapeutic activities than therapeutic outcomes are to be experienced during recreational events. The model also depicts several other continuums as we move from recreational to educational to therapeutic experiences. For example, the focus shifts from the activity to the individual. That is, a purely recreational experience is more about completing the novel task, such as participating in a new zip line or free-fall jump. In contrast, a therapeutic experience is more about changes in the individual resulting from the experience; in this case, choosing one zip line over another makes less difference in the outcome. Finally, the model includes two continuums related to staff engagement in the process of the experience. This aspect will be discussed further as we explore each of the goal orientations.
The differences described here are determined by program outcomes rather than participants. For example, a school-based program is not necessarily bound to an educational program. Certainly, group members could participate in an educational program to learn about the environment or to learn how to stand up for each other to prevent bullying, but they could also participate in a recreational program to celebrate upcoming graduates. Thus the fact that it is a school-based group does not in itself define the aerial adventure experience.
Table 3.1 provides examples of services provided in each of the goal orientations for the six types of AAEs as defined in chapter 1. Due to significant overlap, low and high challenge courses are grouped together, as are zip lines and canopy tours. Again, the categories are defined here in terms of outcomes. We will explore each of these goal orientations further because each type comes with its own implications, both for program managers and (most important) for participant's expectations.
Participant evaluation of programs
One of the best ways to know how well your programs are doing is to implement a participant evaluation process. Participant evaluations allow operators to question people after they have taken part in an aerial adventure experience. The questions can be tailored to meet the needs of the organization. For instance, AAEs with recreational outcomes may explore what participants feel they have gained from the experience. Figure 12.6 presents an example of a participant evaluation used for a recreational zip line canopy tour.
Some participant evaluations ask more questions in order to enable a deeper understanding of the participant experience and may be given directly to the leader of the participating group either at the end of the experience or digitally in the days that follow. Figure 12.7 shows a participant questionnaire for a challenge course program that provides educational outcomes. This questionnaire asks for more detailed information about the experience and is intended for the main representative of the group.
Figure 12.6 Participant evaluation for a zip line canopy tour.
Adapted by permission from North Georgia Canopy Tours, LLC.
What is an aerial adventure environment?
Haras (2012) unpacks the term aerial adventure environment by defining each word. Aerial refers to the fact that the experience occurs above the ground, whether by only a few inches or at great height, and therefore requires specialized skills and equipment. The experience also involves adventure (individual or in a group) and is chosen because it poses a challenge and entails at least a perception of uncertainty. Finally, the word environment refers to both the physical structures and the delivery method of the experience. Using this broad idea of AAEs, we can now explore what this type of experience encompasses.
In order to do so, we need to define another term—challenge course, which is given two widely known definitions in the industry. Rohnke, Rogers, Wall, & Tait (2007) define a challenge course in terms of the ropes, cables, metal, synthetics, and poles used to build structures that challenge participants in a manner that mimics that of a natural setting. Alternatively, Attarian (2005) views challenge courses in terms of their similarity and relationship to other activities, such as group initiatives, team-building activities, and low and high ropes courses. Although both of these definitions address the physical structure of at least some of the activities, they differ in the scope of what they might include. The definition from Rohnke et al. includes the materials that the challenge course can be made from and implies that they are relatively permanent in design. However, as the industry grows and changes, so do the technologies and materials used in assembling challenge courses. In contrast, Attarian's (2005) inclusion of terms such as group initiative and team-building activities enables a broader interpretation of the activities that can be used in challenge course programming.
This broader definition is used in most educational settings. For instance, even if a program takes place predominantly on a low or high challenge course, facilitators typically initiate the course by incorporating some activities that require little or no equipment. But what if these team-building activities are used without inclusion of more permanent structures? Does the overall activity still constitute a challenge course program? Thus begins again the debate about what is and what is not included in an AAE.
When talking about what is included in an AAE, it is helpful to understand the difference between an environment and an element. The environment consists of the overall structure and structural style, which carry implications for the type of delivery system one can use. Elements, on the other hand, are the individual components of an AAE that are used to enable specific experiences. An incredible number of elements already exist for AAEs, and more are being designed even as you read this book. Indeed, it would be impossible to list, much less explain, all of the elements that have been installed in AAEs, and any such list would very quickly fall out of date; therefore, no such list is included here. Instead, we address selected elements as they relate to various operating systems or experiences.
It is crucial to understand the varying environments in order to grasp all that is included in our definition of an AAE. The aerial adventure industry has grown beyond the previously stated definitions of a challenge course, and we now determine what to include in the definition of AAEs by considering programmatic uses, structural designs, operating systems, and even standards and regulations. Figure 1.1 shows how AAEs can be divided into six major categories. Each of these categories has some unique features and programmatic uses that will be highlighted throughout this textbook. The term aerial adventure environment,or AAE, is used when the reference is common to all of these categories.
Figure 1.1 Aerial adventure environments.
Used with permission of Adventureworks! Associates, Inc.
Professional associations bring together like-minded professionals
The development of professional associations brings together individuals who want to ensure that the industry is able to grow in an appropriate and healthy manner. These associations provide professional development opportunities such as annual conferences and training workshops. They also tend to offer credentialing through certification and accreditation processes that include the development of standards for holding professionals and organizations accountable. Such credentials also enable organizations in the industry to seek and acquire appropriate levels of insurance, which may be required in their country. In addition, the development of industry standards enables professional associations to advocate for the industry and develop relationships with regional, national, and international regulatory agencies. In these ways, professional associations strive to serve as the voice of the industry.
Professional associations come in a variety of forms and sizes. Some pursue a specific mission related to a certain type of activity. For instance, the International Adventure Park Association, which focuses on aerial adventure activities, was developed in Germany to bring together manufacturers, builders, operators, and members of the public. Similarly, the African Ropes Course Association serves zip line and ropes course operators in South Africa and requires members to abide by its code of practice. And the Malaysia Challenge Course Association sets industry guidelines for challenge course installation, inspection, maintenance, and training in its home country.
Other associations address a broader scope of activities by advocating for the recreation and tourism industry more generally. In Costa Rica, for example, the Asociación de Operadores de Aventura (Association of Adventure Operators) advocates for all adventure tour operators in the country. Similarly, in France, the Syndicat National des Exploitants de Parcours Aventure advocates for various leisure activities, including aerial adventure parks. In addition, the Association for Experiential Education includes standards for challenge courses in its accreditation standards for adventure programs, and multiple camping associations (e.g., American Camping Association, Australian Camping Association, Canadian Camping Association) advocate for standards and best practices in the AAI because their facilities often include AAEs.
This list is simply a sampling of associations that support the AAI from around the world. The three main associations that will be referred to most frequently in this text are the Association for Challenge Course Technology (ACCT), the Professional Ropes Course Association (PRCA), and the European Ropes Course Association (ERCA). Let us take a quick look at each one.
Association for Challenge Course Technology
Founded in 1993, ACCT is an international trade organization dedicated to standards, government relations, credentialing, professional development, and member advancement (Association for Challenge Course Technology, 2019). For its mission, this U.S.-based association seeks to “establish and promote the standard of care and measure of excellence that defines professional practice and effective challenge course programs.” ACCT has developed and continues to update standards for the installation, maintenance, and management of AAEs. In addition, it holds an annual international conference to facilitate connection and development among its members and industry professionals; it also advocates for the profession through regional, national, and international networks.
Professional Ropes Course Association
PRCA was founded in 2003 as an “industry association that supports the development and regulation of the ropes challenge course, canopy zip lines, and aerial adventure parks industry” (Professional Ropes Course Association, 2019). It is a U.S.-based organization with a mission to “develop end-user applicable” standards and documents and “define, document, and outline the construction/operational practices for the Ropes Challenge Course, Zipline, and Aerial Adventure Parks industry.” In 2014, PRCA developed the first set of American National Standards Institute (ANSI) safety standards for the industry-ANSI/PRCA 1.0-.3 -2014 American National Safety Standards for Challenge Courses, Adventure Parks, Canopy Tours and Zip Lines: Design, Performance, Inspection, Installation, Equipment, Operations, Training and Certification. Its holds an annual conference and advocates for improvement in the industry.
European Ropes Course Association
Unlike ACCT and PRCA, ERCA is not based in one country. As a result, a part of its mission is to “foster professional exchange within Europe and strive for the harmonization of professional standards on a European level,” and this work includes standards development, training, and research (European Ropes Course Association, 2019). ERCA provides accreditation for both trainers and inspectors.
Putting It Into Practice
Find Your Place in an Association
Whether you are new to the profession or have been working in the industry for some time, there is a place for you in an association. Networking with others who are doing the same type of work, either in your area or abroad, can expand your perspectives on what you do. In addition, learning from others who work in different parts of the industry can challenge your knowledge and maybe even your assumptions! Taking part in workshops or even leading a workshop at an association conference can provide you with an opportunity for growth. Perhaps you can even share your experience and knowledge through service on an association committee.
Goal orientations of aerial adventure experiences
Potential participants who come to AAEs typically have a particular goal in mind, whether or not they can articulate it. They are seeking an experience that will present something new or change their lives. They want to have a fun experience with friends, learn about the natural environment, improve their group's ability to work with each other, or build confidence in their own abilities. In fact, two participants who come to the same program may not have the same expectations of themselves for the experience.
The goal orientation of a given experience relates to its intended outcome—the primary objective or takeaway of the participant's experience. Three broad goal orientations of AAEs are recreation, education, and therapy. Individuals who participate in a recreational experience do so in their free time; their intention may be to experience pleasure, personal fulfillment, or positive engagement with nature. Educational experiences cover a wide variety of intentional opportunities for growth and development in individuals or groups; participants focus on developing their skills, knowledge, and dispositions. Therapeutic experiences are intended to enhance participants' physical, social, and emotional well-being; these experiences typically serve as one among several kinds of treatment employed with an individual. Although each of these goal orientations can be defined, even experiences within the same category don't always align. Therefore, these categories should be viewed as existing on a continuum. For example, due to their distinctive intentions, a birthday party at an aerial adventure park creates a much different recreational experience than a family outing to spend quality time with each other on a canopy tour. In addition, participants in an aerial adventure experience may have outcomes beyond those intended; for instance, an experience might be educational by design yet still enable participants to feel a sense of personal fulfillment.
Figure 3.2 shows a layered continuum model for aerial adventure experiences. This model is an adaptation of Wagstaff's (2016) challenge course program continuum. Each category—recreational, educational, therapeutic—includes a continuum that overlaps to some degree with the others. In addition, a layering effect occurs with outcomes that may not be the primary outcome. This layering is more likely to occur when moving from recreational to therapeutic than in the reverse; in other words, recreational outcomes are more likely to be experienced by participants in educational or therapeutic activities than therapeutic outcomes are to be experienced during recreational events. The model also depicts several other continuums as we move from recreational to educational to therapeutic experiences. For example, the focus shifts from the activity to the individual. That is, a purely recreational experience is more about completing the novel task, such as participating in a new zip line or free-fall jump. In contrast, a therapeutic experience is more about changes in the individual resulting from the experience; in this case, choosing one zip line over another makes less difference in the outcome. Finally, the model includes two continuums related to staff engagement in the process of the experience. This aspect will be discussed further as we explore each of the goal orientations.
The differences described here are determined by program outcomes rather than participants. For example, a school-based program is not necessarily bound to an educational program. Certainly, group members could participate in an educational program to learn about the environment or to learn how to stand up for each other to prevent bullying, but they could also participate in a recreational program to celebrate upcoming graduates. Thus the fact that it is a school-based group does not in itself define the aerial adventure experience.
Table 3.1 provides examples of services provided in each of the goal orientations for the six types of AAEs as defined in chapter 1. Due to significant overlap, low and high challenge courses are grouped together, as are zip lines and canopy tours. Again, the categories are defined here in terms of outcomes. We will explore each of these goal orientations further because each type comes with its own implications, both for program managers and (most important) for participant's expectations.
Participant evaluation of programs
One of the best ways to know how well your programs are doing is to implement a participant evaluation process. Participant evaluations allow operators to question people after they have taken part in an aerial adventure experience. The questions can be tailored to meet the needs of the organization. For instance, AAEs with recreational outcomes may explore what participants feel they have gained from the experience. Figure 12.6 presents an example of a participant evaluation used for a recreational zip line canopy tour.
Some participant evaluations ask more questions in order to enable a deeper understanding of the participant experience and may be given directly to the leader of the participating group either at the end of the experience or digitally in the days that follow. Figure 12.7 shows a participant questionnaire for a challenge course program that provides educational outcomes. This questionnaire asks for more detailed information about the experience and is intended for the main representative of the group.
Figure 12.6 Participant evaluation for a zip line canopy tour.
Adapted by permission from North Georgia Canopy Tours, LLC.
What is an aerial adventure environment?
Haras (2012) unpacks the term aerial adventure environment by defining each word. Aerial refers to the fact that the experience occurs above the ground, whether by only a few inches or at great height, and therefore requires specialized skills and equipment. The experience also involves adventure (individual or in a group) and is chosen because it poses a challenge and entails at least a perception of uncertainty. Finally, the word environment refers to both the physical structures and the delivery method of the experience. Using this broad idea of AAEs, we can now explore what this type of experience encompasses.
In order to do so, we need to define another term—challenge course, which is given two widely known definitions in the industry. Rohnke, Rogers, Wall, & Tait (2007) define a challenge course in terms of the ropes, cables, metal, synthetics, and poles used to build structures that challenge participants in a manner that mimics that of a natural setting. Alternatively, Attarian (2005) views challenge courses in terms of their similarity and relationship to other activities, such as group initiatives, team-building activities, and low and high ropes courses. Although both of these definitions address the physical structure of at least some of the activities, they differ in the scope of what they might include. The definition from Rohnke et al. includes the materials that the challenge course can be made from and implies that they are relatively permanent in design. However, as the industry grows and changes, so do the technologies and materials used in assembling challenge courses. In contrast, Attarian's (2005) inclusion of terms such as group initiative and team-building activities enables a broader interpretation of the activities that can be used in challenge course programming.
This broader definition is used in most educational settings. For instance, even if a program takes place predominantly on a low or high challenge course, facilitators typically initiate the course by incorporating some activities that require little or no equipment. But what if these team-building activities are used without inclusion of more permanent structures? Does the overall activity still constitute a challenge course program? Thus begins again the debate about what is and what is not included in an AAE.
When talking about what is included in an AAE, it is helpful to understand the difference between an environment and an element. The environment consists of the overall structure and structural style, which carry implications for the type of delivery system one can use. Elements, on the other hand, are the individual components of an AAE that are used to enable specific experiences. An incredible number of elements already exist for AAEs, and more are being designed even as you read this book. Indeed, it would be impossible to list, much less explain, all of the elements that have been installed in AAEs, and any such list would very quickly fall out of date; therefore, no such list is included here. Instead, we address selected elements as they relate to various operating systems or experiences.
It is crucial to understand the varying environments in order to grasp all that is included in our definition of an AAE. The aerial adventure industry has grown beyond the previously stated definitions of a challenge course, and we now determine what to include in the definition of AAEs by considering programmatic uses, structural designs, operating systems, and even standards and regulations. Figure 1.1 shows how AAEs can be divided into six major categories. Each of these categories has some unique features and programmatic uses that will be highlighted throughout this textbook. The term aerial adventure environment,or AAE, is used when the reference is common to all of these categories.
Figure 1.1 Aerial adventure environments.
Used with permission of Adventureworks! Associates, Inc.
Professional associations bring together like-minded professionals
The development of professional associations brings together individuals who want to ensure that the industry is able to grow in an appropriate and healthy manner. These associations provide professional development opportunities such as annual conferences and training workshops. They also tend to offer credentialing through certification and accreditation processes that include the development of standards for holding professionals and organizations accountable. Such credentials also enable organizations in the industry to seek and acquire appropriate levels of insurance, which may be required in their country. In addition, the development of industry standards enables professional associations to advocate for the industry and develop relationships with regional, national, and international regulatory agencies. In these ways, professional associations strive to serve as the voice of the industry.
Professional associations come in a variety of forms and sizes. Some pursue a specific mission related to a certain type of activity. For instance, the International Adventure Park Association, which focuses on aerial adventure activities, was developed in Germany to bring together manufacturers, builders, operators, and members of the public. Similarly, the African Ropes Course Association serves zip line and ropes course operators in South Africa and requires members to abide by its code of practice. And the Malaysia Challenge Course Association sets industry guidelines for challenge course installation, inspection, maintenance, and training in its home country.
Other associations address a broader scope of activities by advocating for the recreation and tourism industry more generally. In Costa Rica, for example, the Asociación de Operadores de Aventura (Association of Adventure Operators) advocates for all adventure tour operators in the country. Similarly, in France, the Syndicat National des Exploitants de Parcours Aventure advocates for various leisure activities, including aerial adventure parks. In addition, the Association for Experiential Education includes standards for challenge courses in its accreditation standards for adventure programs, and multiple camping associations (e.g., American Camping Association, Australian Camping Association, Canadian Camping Association) advocate for standards and best practices in the AAI because their facilities often include AAEs.
This list is simply a sampling of associations that support the AAI from around the world. The three main associations that will be referred to most frequently in this text are the Association for Challenge Course Technology (ACCT), the Professional Ropes Course Association (PRCA), and the European Ropes Course Association (ERCA). Let us take a quick look at each one.
Association for Challenge Course Technology
Founded in 1993, ACCT is an international trade organization dedicated to standards, government relations, credentialing, professional development, and member advancement (Association for Challenge Course Technology, 2019). For its mission, this U.S.-based association seeks to “establish and promote the standard of care and measure of excellence that defines professional practice and effective challenge course programs.” ACCT has developed and continues to update standards for the installation, maintenance, and management of AAEs. In addition, it holds an annual international conference to facilitate connection and development among its members and industry professionals; it also advocates for the profession through regional, national, and international networks.
Professional Ropes Course Association
PRCA was founded in 2003 as an “industry association that supports the development and regulation of the ropes challenge course, canopy zip lines, and aerial adventure parks industry” (Professional Ropes Course Association, 2019). It is a U.S.-based organization with a mission to “develop end-user applicable” standards and documents and “define, document, and outline the construction/operational practices for the Ropes Challenge Course, Zipline, and Aerial Adventure Parks industry.” In 2014, PRCA developed the first set of American National Standards Institute (ANSI) safety standards for the industry-ANSI/PRCA 1.0-.3 -2014 American National Safety Standards for Challenge Courses, Adventure Parks, Canopy Tours and Zip Lines: Design, Performance, Inspection, Installation, Equipment, Operations, Training and Certification. Its holds an annual conference and advocates for improvement in the industry.
European Ropes Course Association
Unlike ACCT and PRCA, ERCA is not based in one country. As a result, a part of its mission is to “foster professional exchange within Europe and strive for the harmonization of professional standards on a European level,” and this work includes standards development, training, and research (European Ropes Course Association, 2019). ERCA provides accreditation for both trainers and inspectors.
Putting It Into Practice
Find Your Place in an Association
Whether you are new to the profession or have been working in the industry for some time, there is a place for you in an association. Networking with others who are doing the same type of work, either in your area or abroad, can expand your perspectives on what you do. In addition, learning from others who work in different parts of the industry can challenge your knowledge and maybe even your assumptions! Taking part in workshops or even leading a workshop at an association conference can provide you with an opportunity for growth. Perhaps you can even share your experience and knowledge through service on an association committee.
Goal orientations of aerial adventure experiences
Potential participants who come to AAEs typically have a particular goal in mind, whether or not they can articulate it. They are seeking an experience that will present something new or change their lives. They want to have a fun experience with friends, learn about the natural environment, improve their group's ability to work with each other, or build confidence in their own abilities. In fact, two participants who come to the same program may not have the same expectations of themselves for the experience.
The goal orientation of a given experience relates to its intended outcome—the primary objective or takeaway of the participant's experience. Three broad goal orientations of AAEs are recreation, education, and therapy. Individuals who participate in a recreational experience do so in their free time; their intention may be to experience pleasure, personal fulfillment, or positive engagement with nature. Educational experiences cover a wide variety of intentional opportunities for growth and development in individuals or groups; participants focus on developing their skills, knowledge, and dispositions. Therapeutic experiences are intended to enhance participants' physical, social, and emotional well-being; these experiences typically serve as one among several kinds of treatment employed with an individual. Although each of these goal orientations can be defined, even experiences within the same category don't always align. Therefore, these categories should be viewed as existing on a continuum. For example, due to their distinctive intentions, a birthday party at an aerial adventure park creates a much different recreational experience than a family outing to spend quality time with each other on a canopy tour. In addition, participants in an aerial adventure experience may have outcomes beyond those intended; for instance, an experience might be educational by design yet still enable participants to feel a sense of personal fulfillment.
Figure 3.2 shows a layered continuum model for aerial adventure experiences. This model is an adaptation of Wagstaff's (2016) challenge course program continuum. Each category—recreational, educational, therapeutic—includes a continuum that overlaps to some degree with the others. In addition, a layering effect occurs with outcomes that may not be the primary outcome. This layering is more likely to occur when moving from recreational to therapeutic than in the reverse; in other words, recreational outcomes are more likely to be experienced by participants in educational or therapeutic activities than therapeutic outcomes are to be experienced during recreational events. The model also depicts several other continuums as we move from recreational to educational to therapeutic experiences. For example, the focus shifts from the activity to the individual. That is, a purely recreational experience is more about completing the novel task, such as participating in a new zip line or free-fall jump. In contrast, a therapeutic experience is more about changes in the individual resulting from the experience; in this case, choosing one zip line over another makes less difference in the outcome. Finally, the model includes two continuums related to staff engagement in the process of the experience. This aspect will be discussed further as we explore each of the goal orientations.
The differences described here are determined by program outcomes rather than participants. For example, a school-based program is not necessarily bound to an educational program. Certainly, group members could participate in an educational program to learn about the environment or to learn how to stand up for each other to prevent bullying, but they could also participate in a recreational program to celebrate upcoming graduates. Thus the fact that it is a school-based group does not in itself define the aerial adventure experience.
Table 3.1 provides examples of services provided in each of the goal orientations for the six types of AAEs as defined in chapter 1. Due to significant overlap, low and high challenge courses are grouped together, as are zip lines and canopy tours. Again, the categories are defined here in terms of outcomes. We will explore each of these goal orientations further because each type comes with its own implications, both for program managers and (most important) for participant's expectations.
Participant evaluation of programs
One of the best ways to know how well your programs are doing is to implement a participant evaluation process. Participant evaluations allow operators to question people after they have taken part in an aerial adventure experience. The questions can be tailored to meet the needs of the organization. For instance, AAEs with recreational outcomes may explore what participants feel they have gained from the experience. Figure 12.6 presents an example of a participant evaluation used for a recreational zip line canopy tour.
Some participant evaluations ask more questions in order to enable a deeper understanding of the participant experience and may be given directly to the leader of the participating group either at the end of the experience or digitally in the days that follow. Figure 12.7 shows a participant questionnaire for a challenge course program that provides educational outcomes. This questionnaire asks for more detailed information about the experience and is intended for the main representative of the group.
Figure 12.6 Participant evaluation for a zip line canopy tour.
Adapted by permission from North Georgia Canopy Tours, LLC.
What is an aerial adventure environment?
Haras (2012) unpacks the term aerial adventure environment by defining each word. Aerial refers to the fact that the experience occurs above the ground, whether by only a few inches or at great height, and therefore requires specialized skills and equipment. The experience also involves adventure (individual or in a group) and is chosen because it poses a challenge and entails at least a perception of uncertainty. Finally, the word environment refers to both the physical structures and the delivery method of the experience. Using this broad idea of AAEs, we can now explore what this type of experience encompasses.
In order to do so, we need to define another term—challenge course, which is given two widely known definitions in the industry. Rohnke, Rogers, Wall, & Tait (2007) define a challenge course in terms of the ropes, cables, metal, synthetics, and poles used to build structures that challenge participants in a manner that mimics that of a natural setting. Alternatively, Attarian (2005) views challenge courses in terms of their similarity and relationship to other activities, such as group initiatives, team-building activities, and low and high ropes courses. Although both of these definitions address the physical structure of at least some of the activities, they differ in the scope of what they might include. The definition from Rohnke et al. includes the materials that the challenge course can be made from and implies that they are relatively permanent in design. However, as the industry grows and changes, so do the technologies and materials used in assembling challenge courses. In contrast, Attarian's (2005) inclusion of terms such as group initiative and team-building activities enables a broader interpretation of the activities that can be used in challenge course programming.
This broader definition is used in most educational settings. For instance, even if a program takes place predominantly on a low or high challenge course, facilitators typically initiate the course by incorporating some activities that require little or no equipment. But what if these team-building activities are used without inclusion of more permanent structures? Does the overall activity still constitute a challenge course program? Thus begins again the debate about what is and what is not included in an AAE.
When talking about what is included in an AAE, it is helpful to understand the difference between an environment and an element. The environment consists of the overall structure and structural style, which carry implications for the type of delivery system one can use. Elements, on the other hand, are the individual components of an AAE that are used to enable specific experiences. An incredible number of elements already exist for AAEs, and more are being designed even as you read this book. Indeed, it would be impossible to list, much less explain, all of the elements that have been installed in AAEs, and any such list would very quickly fall out of date; therefore, no such list is included here. Instead, we address selected elements as they relate to various operating systems or experiences.
It is crucial to understand the varying environments in order to grasp all that is included in our definition of an AAE. The aerial adventure industry has grown beyond the previously stated definitions of a challenge course, and we now determine what to include in the definition of AAEs by considering programmatic uses, structural designs, operating systems, and even standards and regulations. Figure 1.1 shows how AAEs can be divided into six major categories. Each of these categories has some unique features and programmatic uses that will be highlighted throughout this textbook. The term aerial adventure environment,or AAE, is used when the reference is common to all of these categories.
Figure 1.1 Aerial adventure environments.
Used with permission of Adventureworks! Associates, Inc.
Professional associations bring together like-minded professionals
The development of professional associations brings together individuals who want to ensure that the industry is able to grow in an appropriate and healthy manner. These associations provide professional development opportunities such as annual conferences and training workshops. They also tend to offer credentialing through certification and accreditation processes that include the development of standards for holding professionals and organizations accountable. Such credentials also enable organizations in the industry to seek and acquire appropriate levels of insurance, which may be required in their country. In addition, the development of industry standards enables professional associations to advocate for the industry and develop relationships with regional, national, and international regulatory agencies. In these ways, professional associations strive to serve as the voice of the industry.
Professional associations come in a variety of forms and sizes. Some pursue a specific mission related to a certain type of activity. For instance, the International Adventure Park Association, which focuses on aerial adventure activities, was developed in Germany to bring together manufacturers, builders, operators, and members of the public. Similarly, the African Ropes Course Association serves zip line and ropes course operators in South Africa and requires members to abide by its code of practice. And the Malaysia Challenge Course Association sets industry guidelines for challenge course installation, inspection, maintenance, and training in its home country.
Other associations address a broader scope of activities by advocating for the recreation and tourism industry more generally. In Costa Rica, for example, the Asociación de Operadores de Aventura (Association of Adventure Operators) advocates for all adventure tour operators in the country. Similarly, in France, the Syndicat National des Exploitants de Parcours Aventure advocates for various leisure activities, including aerial adventure parks. In addition, the Association for Experiential Education includes standards for challenge courses in its accreditation standards for adventure programs, and multiple camping associations (e.g., American Camping Association, Australian Camping Association, Canadian Camping Association) advocate for standards and best practices in the AAI because their facilities often include AAEs.
This list is simply a sampling of associations that support the AAI from around the world. The three main associations that will be referred to most frequently in this text are the Association for Challenge Course Technology (ACCT), the Professional Ropes Course Association (PRCA), and the European Ropes Course Association (ERCA). Let us take a quick look at each one.
Association for Challenge Course Technology
Founded in 1993, ACCT is an international trade organization dedicated to standards, government relations, credentialing, professional development, and member advancement (Association for Challenge Course Technology, 2019). For its mission, this U.S.-based association seeks to “establish and promote the standard of care and measure of excellence that defines professional practice and effective challenge course programs.” ACCT has developed and continues to update standards for the installation, maintenance, and management of AAEs. In addition, it holds an annual international conference to facilitate connection and development among its members and industry professionals; it also advocates for the profession through regional, national, and international networks.
Professional Ropes Course Association
PRCA was founded in 2003 as an “industry association that supports the development and regulation of the ropes challenge course, canopy zip lines, and aerial adventure parks industry” (Professional Ropes Course Association, 2019). It is a U.S.-based organization with a mission to “develop end-user applicable” standards and documents and “define, document, and outline the construction/operational practices for the Ropes Challenge Course, Zipline, and Aerial Adventure Parks industry.” In 2014, PRCA developed the first set of American National Standards Institute (ANSI) safety standards for the industry-ANSI/PRCA 1.0-.3 -2014 American National Safety Standards for Challenge Courses, Adventure Parks, Canopy Tours and Zip Lines: Design, Performance, Inspection, Installation, Equipment, Operations, Training and Certification. Its holds an annual conference and advocates for improvement in the industry.
European Ropes Course Association
Unlike ACCT and PRCA, ERCA is not based in one country. As a result, a part of its mission is to “foster professional exchange within Europe and strive for the harmonization of professional standards on a European level,” and this work includes standards development, training, and research (European Ropes Course Association, 2019). ERCA provides accreditation for both trainers and inspectors.
Putting It Into Practice
Find Your Place in an Association
Whether you are new to the profession or have been working in the industry for some time, there is a place for you in an association. Networking with others who are doing the same type of work, either in your area or abroad, can expand your perspectives on what you do. In addition, learning from others who work in different parts of the industry can challenge your knowledge and maybe even your assumptions! Taking part in workshops or even leading a workshop at an association conference can provide you with an opportunity for growth. Perhaps you can even share your experience and knowledge through service on an association committee.
Related Books
