[et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ _builder_version=”3.22″ global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_row _builder_version=”3.25″ background_size=”initial” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”3.25″ custom_padding=”|||” global_colors_info=”{}” custom_padding__hover=”|||”][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.13.1″ background_size=”initial” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat” text_orientation=”justified” global_colors_info=”{}”]<\/p>\n
These thoughts are a direct result of a course titled \u2018Risk Management for Outdoor Programs\u2019 conducted by \u201cViristar<\/a>\u201d which I attended in June 2021 and a subsequent discussion initiated by Jeff Baierlein, the creator of the course and our facilitator on the course. It has resulted in this attempt on my part to objectively look at some of my experiences which have deeply impacted me as well as certain developments that have happened in the world of \u2018Outdoor Programs\u2019 (programs organised by experts for participants, distinguished from ventures undertaken by adventurers on their own responsibility) in Maharashtra, my home state, and a few other regions in India till today.<\/p>\n Drawing from elements of the \u2018Risk Management for Outdoor Programs\u2019 Model, this article considers aspects like, to name but a few here, facets of outdoors culture as it existed at various points of time, societal awareness of adventure and Outdoor Programs, effects of growing numbers of people taking to the outdoors, possible milestones in advancement of concepts in outdoor education, evolution of government policies and regulations, and a few \u2018human factors\u2019. In the process, these thoughts helped me figure out almost a progression of things that led to greater and greater safety in Outdoor Programs.<\/p>\n The \u2018Risk Management for Outdoor Programs\u2019 Model adopts a standards-approach and looks at risk systemically, focusing beyond immediate causes of an incident. This \u2018big picture\u2019 framework helped me a) articulate quite a few thoughts I have had about the why and how of things with respect to events and happenings, b) perceive more of the myriad factors that potentially lay behind specific incidents and events c) discern some forces that influenced a succession of changes involving the evolution of \u2018Outdoor Programs\u2019 and safety therein.<\/p>\n To that extent, this contemplation becomes largely my \u2018point of view\u2019 or opinion. Any misrepresentation\/misinterpretation of what happened and why is solely due to the limitations of my perception and thoughts. My aim is not to draw conclusions but to use concepts of risk management to explore wide ranging developments that affect populations undertaking adventure activities in various formats, and possible lessons to be learnt from same. This narration may serve as a case study to see parallels in other parts of India as well as in other countries, and perhaps help speed things up in efforts that aim at maximising safety in Outdoor Programs.<\/p>\n The Risk Management for Outdoor Programs Model (RMOP), very briefly <\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n RMOP describes risks as residing in eight risk domains: equipment, activities-and-program-areas, transportation, subcontractors, business-administration, participants, staff and culture. Influencing these domains are four underlying risk domains: government, society, outdoor-industry and business.<\/p>\n To reduce the number of critical incidents and their severity RMOP advocates managing risk by one of the four ways: eliminate, reduce, transfer and accept risk. Risks in risk domains can be managed with specific \u2018policies, procedures, values and systems\u2019. And risks across multiple risk domains can be managed with the help of \u2018risk management instruments\u2019 that deal with areas of risk transfer and legalities, incident handling, incident reporting, incident review, documentation and a systemic consideration w.r.t. incidents.<\/p>\n [\/et_pb_text][et_pb_image src=”https:\/\/outdoorpandit.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/11\/1-Diagram-1-RMOP-Model.png” alt=”Outdoor Leadership, NOLS, Shantanu Pandit, Outdoor Pandit, outdoorpandit.com” title_text=”1 Diagram-1 RMOP Model” align=”center” _builder_version=”4.13.1″ _module_preset=”default” filter_brightness=”107%” global_colors_info=”{}”][\/et_pb_image][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.13.1″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}”]<\/p>\n In the following content, I will<\/p>\n \n It may be noted that I write this based only on the information that is available with me, and with the knowledge and understanding that I have gained through direct association in some aspects of these developments referred to above. Any change that is as sweeping as one that embraces government policy and regulation, outdoor community and outdoor field practices spread over many regions in a country will require a concerted effort involving much more data and study.<\/p>\n [\/et_pb_text][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.13.1″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}”]<\/p>\n [\/et_pb_text][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.13.1″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}”]<\/p>\n Background <\/strong><\/p>\n It was in the 1980s that I took to rock climbing on the ancient basalt of \u2018Western\u00a0 Ghats\u2019, the mountain range that runs parallel to the western coast of India. As most Indian hikers and climbers do, I too soon ventured into the Himalaya. My home state, Maharashtra, has always had a strong \u2018club culture\u2019 where rookies gather experience under the mentorship of senior club members. Growing up in this culture, I was fortunate to have gotten involved with some dynamic and enterprising individuals who were to play crucial roles in some significant developments that started since then and are still going on.<\/p>\n Our experience in Maharashtra has been that from the 1950s till about mid-1990s, \u2018adventure\u2019 was largely undertaken by very few individuals. Society tended to see this activity as very esoteric if not downright eccentric. It was around 1990 that things started changing: in addition to \u2018Adventure Projects\u2019 undertaken by adventure enthusiasts we started seeing increased numbers of \u2018Outdoor Programs\u2019 where experienced and trained adventurers started taking novices to the outdoors for various purposes including recreation and developmental goals.<\/p>\n [\/et_pb_text][et_pb_image src=”https:\/\/outdoorpandit.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/11\/2-Raft-building.jpg” alt=”Absarokas, Rocky Mountains, NOLS, NOLS Course, Shantanu Pandit, Outdoor Pandit, Outdoorpandit.com, Outdoor Leadership” title_text=”2 Raft building” align=”center” _builder_version=”4.13.1″ _module_preset=”default” filter_brightness=”110%” filter_contrast=”106%” global_colors_info=”{}”][\/et_pb_image][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.13.1″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}”]<\/p>\n To examine developments in the field of \u2018Outdoor Programs\u2019 in my home state, it would be appropriate to identify a pertinent time from where things seem to have changed fast and significantly, at least in my perspective. To do this I<\/p>\n Event<\/u>: PEAK CLIMBING EXPEDITION IN 1988<\/strong>\u00a0<\/p>\n In the spring of 1988, I was a part of an expedition that attempted the SW Face of Mt. Kangchenjunga, India\u2019s highest and the world\u2019s third highest mountain at 8,586 m. \/ 28,169 ft. This was the first expedition to an eight thousander fully organised by civilians in India. The team had both, veteran mountaineers with experience from multiple peak climbing expeditions including to six thousanders and some also a seven thousander, and relatively lesser experienced members. We used the \u2018expedition style\u2019 to make our attempt, a style that is also referred to as \u2018siege tactic\u2019. To get an idea of the environment that existed in those days, it would be informative to have a quick look at some key aspects of the expedition.<\/p>\n [\/et_pb_text][et_pb_image src=”https:\/\/outdoorpandit.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/11\/3-Kangchenjunga-from-Yalung-Glacier.jpg” alt=”Absarokas, Rocky Mountains, NOLS, NOLS Course, Shantanu Pandit, Outdoor Pandit, Outdoorpandit.com, Outdoor Leadership, Lightning” title_text=”3 Kangchenjunga from Yalung Glacier” align=”center” _builder_version=”4.13.1″ _module_preset=”default” filter_saturate=”88%” filter_brightness=”99%” filter_contrast=”126%” global_colors_info=”{}”][\/et_pb_image][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.13.1″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}”]<\/p>\n A lot of things about this venture were completely new for us, including a gargantuan budget, public relations and fund raising, equipment procurement, food planning, selection criteria for members, choosing a guiding agency from Nepal, etc. Just to take a couple of examples:<\/p>\n Preparation for any mountaineering expedition is at best a tedious undertaking. Juggling time doing regular jobs\/businesses and attending to expedition work, we took more than 18 months to get the venture off the ground. As was the norm then in India for civilian mountaineers (and largely continues to be), we contracted a guiding agency in Nepal for Sherpa guides, a few of whom had been on the SW Face of the mountain.<\/p>\n [\/et_pb_text][et_pb_image src=”https:\/\/outdoorpandit.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/11\/4-Kangchenjunga-route-sketch.jpg” title_text=”4 Kangchenjunga route sketch” align=”center” _builder_version=”4.13.1″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}”][\/et_pb_image][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.13.1″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}”]<\/p>\n The Climb<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n Our base camp (BC) was at 5,486 m. \/ 18,000 ft. Above BC our expedition had the help of 11 guides (9 Sherpas and 2 Indian locals from the Himalaya). We put up six camps on the face, building up the classic \u2018pyramid\u2019 of equipment, food and people up the mountain. Eventually we managed to mount two summit attempts, each composed of one team member and two Sherpa guides. Both attempts were unsuccessful, for various reasons. While the four Sherpas returned with frost-nip on some fingers the two team members suffered frostbite on fingers and toes. With immediate care by the two expedition doctors and further medical treatment in Mumbai, both completely recovered. The Sherpas too fully recovered much earlier. On retrospection, we believe that both summit teams took the right decision to turn back at the right time.<\/p>\n [\/et_pb_text][et_pb_image src=”https:\/\/outdoorpandit.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/11\/5-Camp-3.jpg” title_text=”5 Camp 3″ align=”center” _builder_version=”4.13.1″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}”][\/et_pb_image][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.14.2″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}”]<\/p>\n Critical incident on the expedition<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n At the crucial stage around the two successive summit attempts, several factors came together to contribute to a critical incident.<\/p>\n Before the two summit attempts, when I was stationed at our Camp-3 (C3) at about 6,850 m. \/ 22,500 ft., a storm hit the area, with wind-speeds that made standing impossible. It started at around midnight and abated only by early mid-morning. All tents at C3, pitched on a ledge in the middle of a feature called Upper Icefall, collapsed. Our fixed ropes on the mountain were no longer reliable and needed checking and re-fixing if necessary. That affected supply of gear and food. One effect of that was that the camps above C3 were hit with shortage of food, just when summit attempts were being planned.<\/p>\n During that period, the expedition leader was stationed at C2 to coordinate the overall movement while the deputy leader (Dy.Ldr.) moved up from C3 to C4 (located a little below 7,300 m. \/ 24,000 ft.). The latter arrived at C4 in an exhausted state. One of the two expedition doctors who was stationed at C2 kept up a conversation with C4, asking team members to check on the Dy.Ldr.\u2019s condition. Eventually the Dy.Ldr.\u2019s long time climbing partner prevailed upon him to descend to lower camps just before the second summit attempt was made. Meanwhile, I had moved down from C4 because of diarrhea that had persisted despite medication. So I was at BC when we heard that the Dy.Ldr. had had an extremely tough time descending down the Upper Icefall and across the huge plateau leading towards C2. But before he could reach C2 he succumbed to hypothermia with powder snow raining down on him from steep cliffs. The failure to reach the summit faded into insignificance against the loss of a friend.<\/p>\n [\/et_pb_text][et_pb_image src=”https:\/\/outdoorpandit.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/11\/6-Evac-route-for-hypo-patient-a.jpg” title_text=”6 Evac route for hypo patient a” align=”center” _builder_version=”4.13.1″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}”][\/et_pb_image][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.14.2″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}”]<\/p>\n A few thoughts on the critical incident in the context of the RMOP<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n The RMOP course provides an excellent framework to understand the multitude of factors and forces that affected decisions taken individually or collectively on the expedition. Or, for that matter, decisions not taken. To repeat, the framework enables us to recognise and understand things holistically, though some thoughts expressed below will point towards probable immediate causes of the critical incident.<\/p>\n RMOP reference: <\/em>risk domain: Activity Area<\/p>\n My pov<\/em>: when discussing any such case, whether from the 1980s or 2020s, I always remember what is cautioned: never judge people and their decisions taken at high altitude from a low altitude setting.<\/p>\n RMOP reference: <\/em>underlying risk domain: Outdoor Industry<\/p>\n My pov<\/em>: we had appropriate equipment and were adept in its use. I wonder if decisions that affected the Dy.Ldr.\u2019s movement could have been made differently had we had a different perspective of handling risk in changed circumstances vis-\u00e0-vis team members influencing group decisions.<\/p>\n [\/et_pb_text][et_pb_image src=”https:\/\/outdoorpandit.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/11\/7-View-from-Camp-3-a.jpg” title_text=”7 View from Camp-3 a” align=”center” _builder_version=”4.13.1″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}”][\/et_pb_image][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.14.2″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}”]<\/p>\n 3. Risk domain: Culture<\/p>\n Some members, from early on, suffered upset stomachs which affected load movement up the mountain; e.g., missed load ferries or climbers dropping down to BC for recovering from illness.<\/p>\n My pov: <\/em>without touching the topic of the celebrated Indian \u2018cast iron stomach\u2019, it is a fact that upset stomachs on hikes and climbs anywhere has never troubled us enough to merit serious attention. I have also at times heard lack of appropriate hygienic practices being glorified a bit.<\/p>\n RMOP reference<\/em>: the cognitive bias pertaining to the faulty belief that camp hygiene was not something that required deliberate and firm attention. This became critical at high altitude.<\/p>\n 4. It would be pertinent to discuss here a few \u2018human factors that can lead to incident causation\u2019<\/p>\n RMOP reference<\/em>: risk domain: People (since there is no true distinction between \u2018participants\u2019 and \u2018leaders\u2019 in this case)<\/p>\n My pov<\/em>:<\/p>\n a. The Dy.Ldr. had been exposed to very harsh weather during the 8-hour storm which we had sat through sheltering under the tatters of a damaged tent at about 6,850 m. \/ 22,500 ft.<\/p>\n b. Throughout the climb beyond BC the Dy.Ldr. had given in to his likes and dislikes of food and ended up eating less whenever a meal was not to his liking, citing how he felt nauseous if he ate (there were a couple of others too who had similar likes\/dislikes).<\/p>\n c. Normalcy bias: some climbers who went above BC seldom dropped down back to BC to rest and recoup. Sustained stay at higher and higher altitudes with diminishing appetites probably affected individual climbers, to varying extent.<\/p>\n 5. The triad of low intake of food, increased activity at very high altitude and recent exposure to harsh weather was treacherous, and the Dy.Ldr. stayed at C4 (just below 7,300 m. \/ 24,000 ft.) for two nights in his weakened state, with the camp facing food shortage.<\/p>\n [\/et_pb_text][et_pb_image src=”https:\/\/outdoorpandit.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/11\/8-Kumbhakarna-1.jpg” title_text=”8 Kumbhakarna 1″ align=”center” _builder_version=”4.13.1″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}”][\/et_pb_image][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.13.1″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}”]<\/p>\n Accomplishments in brief, and moving on\u2026<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n The following salient features, while bringing to the fore prominent aspects of the mountaineering culture in India at that time, also are perhaps indicative of the people and factors that influenced subsequent<\/u> changes.<\/p>\n The expedition changed the lives of most team members, and people like me moved to outdoors and\/or outdoor education permanently despite having educational qualifications in conventional fields. Some members of the expedition eventually got involved in advocacy work that was to influence safety in Outdoor Programs later on.<\/p>\n [\/et_pb_text][et_pb_image src=”https:\/\/outdoorpandit.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/11\/9-Kangchenjunga-at-sunset.jpg” title_text=”9 Kangchenjunga at sunset” align=”center” _builder_version=”4.13.1″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}”][\/et_pb_image][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.13.1″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}”]<\/p>\n Project<\/u>: Outdoor Education Program for Children<\/strong>\u00a0<\/p>\n It was in 1989, after all the post-expedition work had been taken care of, that the leader of the expedition initiated a new and very inspiring project: to establish an outdoor education centre based on what he had learned in an 11-month course in Scotland a few years back. That project delighted a multitude of adventurers, educationists, school authorities, parents and sundry individuals from all walks of life. Our 5-day outdoor education program (OEP) was solidly based on the theory of education. We had designed a format that leveraged on the features of our local socio-ecological environment. Also included was systematic training imparted to volunteers to teach outdoor education. We soon formed a trust to run the project. Five of the seven trustees were from the Kangchenjunga expedition (either from the climbing team or from the core support team). We received tremendous response from schools. This program probably was truly the first of its kind in India. Our project soon became well known, and donations started coming in out of nowhere and we could easily get media coverage for our events.<\/p>\n A few thoughts on the Outdoor Education Program<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n RMOP reference: <\/em>risk domain: Activity and Program Area<\/p>\n My pov:<\/em> the studied approach adopted by our project spoke magic to everyone who came in contact with it.<\/p>\n RMOP reference: <\/em>underlying risk domains: Society<\/p>\n My pov<\/em>: such support helped manage risk very effectively; e.g., a) we prioritised availability of water and could dig a bore-well (tube-well) with the funds donated to us, and b) some illnesses which could have been challenging to regular instructors were dealt with by the visiting doctors.<\/p>\n RMOP reference: <\/em>underlying risk domain: Outdoor Industry<\/p>\n My pov<\/em>: The OEP project was the first big step towards a well thought-out \u2018Outdoor Program\u2019 where instructors received training inputs in multiple aspects related to outdoor education as well as larger dimensions of the project as an organisation.<\/p>\n RMOP reference: <\/em>risk domain: Culture<\/p>\n My pov:<\/em> one of the most prominent changes that I personally perceived was in \u2018leadership style\u2019, or more specifically \u2018instructing style\u2019. We instructors received training that helped us move away from being always directive, a style that can be traced all the way to the mountaineering institutes which offer basic and advance mountaineering courses. Just to take an example, our OEP adopted multiple constructive ways of addressing behavioral issues of participants after a discussion with educationists and child psychologists (instead of \u2018punishment\u2019).<\/p>\n RMOP reference: <\/em>risk management for an organisation to ensure sustained functioning.<\/p>\n My pov: <\/em>the main reason for this was that we trustees failed to nurture it as a long-term entity.<\/p>\n [\/et_pb_text][et_pb_image src=”https:\/\/outdoorpandit.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/11\/10-In-the-Kundalika-Valley-close-to-the-OEP-campsite.jpg” title_text=”10 In the Kundalika Valley close to the OEP campsite” align=”center” _builder_version=”4.13.1″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}”][\/et_pb_image][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.13.1″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}”]<\/p>\n Stage<\/u>: Formal courses in outdoor leadership and wilderness first aid<\/strong>\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n Starting from early 2000s, two internationally acclaimed organisations started offering courses in other areas in India for Indians: outdoor leadership and wilderness first aid. The courses offered by these in their own way complemented the hard skill courses that were primarily being offered in India (rock climbing courses and mountaineering courses). In 2010s an outdoor education centre based in the Himalaya started offering both outdoor leadership and wilderness first aid courses. The former has been designed specifically for the kind of work that happens in the variety of Outdoor Programs in India, ranging from ropes courses in resorts to hikes to activity based programs to high altitude treks.<\/p>\n A few thoughts on Outdoor Leadership and Wilderness First Aid courses<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n RMOP reference: <\/em>underlying risk domain: Outdoor Industry<\/p>\n RMOP reference: <\/em>underlying risk domains: Government<\/p>\n RMOP reference: <\/em>underlying risk domain: Business<\/p>\n My pov: <\/em>budgeting for these courses should be much easier for big players, and participation by them could add to the visibility of the value of these courses.<\/p>\n [\/et_pb_text][et_pb_image src=”https:\/\/outdoorpandit.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/11\/11-Scenario-in-wilderness-first-aid-course.jpg” title_text=”11 Scenario in wilderness first aid course” align=”center” _builder_version=”4.13.1″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}”][\/et_pb_image][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.13.1″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}”]<\/p>\n [\/et_pb_text][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.13.1″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}”]<\/p>\n In my attempt to look at various dimensions of developments that have happened since 1988 (given that I have defined that period as my \u2018starting point\u2019), I will highlight some that I think were the most significant and that have cumulatively contributed to the stages of progress that one can discern in the field of Outdoor Programs, especially in my home state, Maharashtra. These were either driven by deliberate decisions or evolved in the course of events. There is a core group of people who have been involved consistently through these stages of developments in some role or the other, and as stated before, many of this core group have been common in events\/stages like those mentioned above.<\/p>\n In addition to risk domains and underlying risk domains as specified by the RMOP, I will also refer to policies-procedures-values-systems and risk-management-instruments to examine events and developments in my home state and in India.<\/p>\n My thoughts expressed below have been influenced by my experiences from the Outdoor Education Program mentioned above, an adventure travel company that I ran as a director for a few years, teaching outdoor leadership in India and the U.S.A., facilitating outdoor management development programs for corporates, voluntary work with hiking clubs, documentation work (safety guidelines, SOPs, paperwork\u00a0 for accreditation) and advocacy undertaken through a non-profit organisation where we successfully influenced state level policy on Outdoor Programs.<\/p>\n [\/et_pb_text][et_pb_image src=”https:\/\/outdoorpandit.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/11\/12-Diagram-2-RMOP-Model.png” title_text=”12 Diagram-2 RMOP Model” align=”center” _builder_version=”4.13.1″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}”][\/et_pb_image][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.13.1″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}”]<\/p>\n Risk Domains and Underlying Risk Domains<\/strong><\/p>\n 1. Underlying risk domain: Government<\/p>\n a) In 1991 the central government in India introduced wide ranging social and economic reforms, the latter being referred to as \u2018economic liberalization\u2019. One can perhaps trace a small spinoff of this in the sudden demand for adventure holidays (largely land-based).<\/p>\n RMOP reference<\/em>: wide ranging policy level decisions taken at the highest authority with a certain purpose can have unanticipated consequences that potentially can affect Outdoor Programs.<\/p>\n b) At different points of time a few government bodies introduced aid in various forms for people to participate in Outdoor Programs and Adventure Projects; e.g., many public sector banks used to grant 1-month\u2019s \u2018paid leave\u2019 to an employee participating in a hike in the Himalaya, and mountaineering institutes set up by the government offer courses to Indian civilians at heavily subsidized prices. Such incentives played a useful role in encouraging more and more people to take to the outdoors.<\/p>\n RMOP reference & my pov<\/em>: one anomaly that emerged was: while funding was received for participation (for some people), there was no funding for training or creating training resources to help organisers and field staff be holistically competent in leading groups in outdoor programs (e.g., wilderness first aid, risk management, group management and outdoor leadership).<\/p>\n 2. Underlying risk domain: Society<\/p>\n After 1991, there seems to have been more exposure to unconventional holidaying (e.g., the early 1990s saw a dramatic increase in number of TV channels which brought adventure and outdoor settings into people\u2019s living rooms). People flocked to hiking clubs and newly formed adventure companies for outdoor holidays. This was a fortuitous time for those individual adventurers who were keen to explore a career in the outdoors. This was also the time when schools and corporates started exploring experiential learning as a methodology, and adventurers jumped in to provide exciting experiences in outdoor settings for developmental purposes.<\/p>\n RMOP reference<\/em>: by mid-2010s, the field of Outdoor Programs (it does not have \u2018industry\u2019 status in India) was dealing with large numbers of participants, and the numbers only kept growing. The impact of this on both people and the environment was being very apparent. It then reached a stage where the extent to which risk was being managed was perhaps no longer \u2018socially acceptable\u2019. One of the effects of this was the beginning of legal cases being filed in courts by concerned citizens for both, environmental damage and risk to people safety. (Reference for timeline: Diagram-3 below).<\/p>\n [\/et_pb_text][et_pb_image src=”https:\/\/outdoorpandit.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/11\/13-Diagram-3-Developments-in-India.png” title_text=”13 Diagram-3 Developments in India” align=”center” _builder_version=”4.13.1″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}”][\/et_pb_image][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.13.1″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}”]<\/p>\n\n
Defining a \u2018starting point\u2019 for this discussion<\/strong><\/h2>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
Reflections on developments that have affected Outdoor Programs<\/strong><\/h2>\n