IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v36y2016i6p1251-1261.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Board Diving Regulations in Public Swimming Pools and Risk of Injury

Author

Listed:
  • David Williams
  • Louise Odin

Abstract

Public session access to diving boards is one of the stepping stones for those wishing to develop their skills in the sport of diving. The extent to which certain dive forms are considered risky (forward/backward/rotations) and therefore not permitted is a matter for local pool managers. In Study 1, 20 public pools with diving facilities responded to a U.K. survey concerning their diving regulation policy and related injury incidence in the previous year. More restrictive regulation of dive forms was not associated with a decrease in injuries (rs[42] = –0.20, p = 0.93). In Study 2, diving risk perception and attitudes towards regulation were compared between experienced club divers (N = 22) and nondivers (N = 22). Risk was perceived to be lower for those with experience, and these people favored less regulation. The findings are interpreted in terms of a risk thermostat model, where for complex physical performance activities such as diving, individuals may exercise caution in proportion to their ability and previous experience of success and failure related to the activity. Though intuitively appealing, restrictive regulation of public pool diving may be ineffective in practice because risk is not simplistically associated with dive forms, and divers are able to respond flexibly to risk by exercising caution where appropriate.

Suggested Citation

  • David Williams & Louise Odin, 2016. "Board Diving Regulations in Public Swimming Pools and Risk of Injury," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(6), pages 1251-1261, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:36:y:2016:i:6:p:1251-1261
    DOI: 10.1111/risa.12523
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12523
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/risa.12523?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Laurence Ball‐King & John Watt & David J. Ball, 2013. "The Rise and Fall of a Regulator: Adventure Sports in the United Kingdom," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(1), pages 15-23, January.
    2. Paul Slovic & Melissa L. Finucane & Ellen Peters & Donald G. MacGregor, 2004. "Risk as Analysis and Risk as Feelings: Some Thoughts about Affect, Reason, Risk, and Rationality," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(2), pages 311-322, April.
    3. David J. Ball & Laurence Ball‐King, 2013. "Safety Management and Public Spaces: Restoring Balance," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(5), pages 763-771, May.
    4. Slovic, Paul & Finucane, Melissa L. & Peters, Ellen & MacGregor, Donald G., 2007. "The affect heuristic," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 177(3), pages 1333-1352, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Robinson, Angela & Covey, Judith & Spencer, Anne & Loomes, Graham, 2010. "Are some deaths worse than others? The effect of 'labelling' on people's perceptions," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 444-455, June.
    2. Lynn J. Frewer, 2017. "Consumer acceptance and rejection of emerging agrifood technologies and their applications," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 44(4), pages 683-704.
    3. Rita Saleh & Angela Bearth & Michael Siegrist, 2019. "“Chemophobia” Today: Consumers’ Knowledge and Perceptions of Chemicals," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(12), pages 2668-2682, December.
    4. Cousse, Julia, 2021. "Still in love with solar energy? Installation size, affect, and the social acceptance of renewable energy technologies," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 145(C).
    5. Liu, Peng & Xu, Zhigang & Zhao, Xiangmo, 2019. "Road tests of self-driving vehicles: Affective and cognitive pathways in acceptance formation," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 354-369.
    6. Verteramo Chiu, Leslie J. & Turvey, Calum G., 2015. "Perception and Action in a Conflict Zone: a Study of Rural Economy and Rural Life amidst Narcos in Northeastern Mexico," 2015 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 26-28, San Francisco, California 205447, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    7. Sanya Carley & Stephen Ansolabehere & David M Konisky, 2019. "Are all electrons the same? Evaluating support for local transmission lines through an experiment," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(7), pages 1-16, July.
    8. Myoungsoon You & Youngkee Ju, 2020. "The Outrage Effect of Personal Stake, Familiarity, Effects on Children, and Fairness on Climate Change Risk Perception Moderated by Political Orientation," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(18), pages 1-14, September.
    9. Aven, Terje, 2018. "How the integration of System 1-System 2 thinking and recent risk perspectives can improve risk assessment and management," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 237-244.
    10. Garret Ridinger & Richard S. John & Michael McBride & Nicholas Scurich, 2016. "Attacker Deterrence and Perceived Risk in a Stackelberg Security Game," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(8), pages 1666-1681, August.
    11. Rianne Duinen & Tatiana Filatova & Wander Jager & Anne Veen, 2016. "Going beyond perfect rationality: drought risk, economic choices and the influence of social networks," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 57(2), pages 335-369, November.
    12. Michael Greenberg & Charles Haas & Anthony Cox & Karen Lowrie & Katherine McComas & Warner North, 2012. "Ten Most Important Accomplishments in Risk Analysis, 1980–2010," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(5), pages 771-781, May.
    13. Robert Tobias, 2016. "Communication About Micropollutants in Drinking Water: Effects of the Presentation and Psychological Processes," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(10), pages 2011-2026, October.
    14. Megan M. Callahan & Alejandra Echeverri & David Ng & Jiaying Zhao & Terre Satterfield, 2019. "Using the Phylo Card Game to advance biodiversity conservation in an era of Pokémon," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 5(1), pages 1-10, December.
    15. Jaap Sok & Egil A J Fischer, 2020. "Farmers' heterogeneous motives, voluntary vaccination and disease spread: an agent-based model," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 47(3), pages 1201-1222.
    16. Bart de Langhe & Stefano Puntoni, 2015. "Bang for the Buck: Gain-Loss Ratio as a Driver of Judgment and Choice," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 61(5), pages 1137-1163, May.
    17. Robinson, Angela & Covey, Judith & Spencer, Anne & Loomes, Graham, 2010. "Are some deaths worse than others? The effect of 'labelling' on people's perceptions," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 444-455, June.
    18. Clark, Ephraim & Lahiani, Amine & Mefteh-Wali, Salma, 2023. "Cryptocurrency return predictability: What is the role of the environment?," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 189(C).
    19. Michael Siegrist & Joseph Árvai, 2020. "Risk Perception: Reflections on 40 Years of Research," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(S1), pages 2191-2206, November.
    20. Jinshu Cui & Heather Rosoff & Richard S. John, 2016. "Cumulative Response to Sequences of Terror Attacks Varying in Frequency and Trajectory," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(12), pages 2272-2284, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:36:y:2016:i:6:p:1251-1261. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.