UMD Economists Analyze Risky Adventure Sports to Reveal the Attraction of Thrill-Seeking and the Economics of Putting Life at Risk
Image Credit: Wikimedia - Free-solo adventures
Researchers from the University of Maryland developed an economic framework for assessing liability waivers for extreme recreational activities with a high fatality rate such as BASE jumping, free soloing (scaling high rock faces without ropes), big-wave surfing and wingsuit flying. The work contributes an important perspective to the debate about who should be responsible for paying the costs if someone gets hurt, killed, or requires expensive rescue when an activity does not go as planned.
“We wanted to understand why people willingly take life-threatening risks yet spend years and substantial resources on safety preparation,” said Jorge Holzer, an associate professor in the Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics and co-author of the study, which was published September 10, 2026, in the Journal of Risk and Uncertainty. “Also, we wanted to know whether participation in these activities implies a low valuation of life. Now we know that the answer is no.”
Economists usually assume that most people try to avoid risks, making decisions about an activity by weighing the potential for harm against the expected benefits. Seen through that lens, it can be challenging to understand those who pursue extreme outdoor activities. Even for non-economists, it is easy to assume that extreme athletes run toward risk by nature, suggesting they don’t place a high value on their lives. But those involved in dangerous adventure sports disagree.
It’s an important issue to resolve, because extreme recreational activities have grown in popularity, and the risks they involve can affect more than just the participants. Adventure companies, insurers, municipal first responders and privately funded rescue organizations all have a stake in the outcome of extreme outdoor activities.
Holzer and Professor Emeritus Kenneth McConnell, also from the UMD Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, set out to better understand the risk/reward equation for extreme athletes. A key factor in the equation is that there are two types of risk involved in extreme sport: the inherent risk of the activity itself and the external, uncontrollable background risks, such as weather and environmental conditions. Holzer and McConnell developed an economic model that shows that extreme sport participants respond differently to those two types of risk.
The researchers demonstrate that extreme sports participants do have a high tolerance for controllable risks but are just as averse to uncontrollable risks as anyone else. They point out that extreme sport participants spend considerable time, effort and money on training to manage and control the inherent risks of their activity. Participants also draw enjoyment from the skill building required to master the sport.
This suggests that extreme athletes do not value their lives less than others, but rather, they place a high value on the pursuit of knowledge, expertise and preparation their sport requires.
Understanding this dynamic yields a framework for approaching liability in extreme sports. This thinking suggests that if businesses providing adventure sport experiences go too far in reducing the risks of extreme sports, they actually lessen their value to participants, potentially putting themselves out of business. Thus, providers should not be held liable for accidents stemming from the inherent riskiness of the activity. Rather, that responsibility falls to the participant in their training and preparation.
However, providers should be expected to ensure that conditions under their control offer participants a standard level of safety (i.e., properly working equipment or appropriate environmental conditions).
These findings align with the modern legal doctrine of assumption of risk, in which providers are liable for their own negligence, but not for accidents stemming from the inherent riskiness of the activity. Holzer and McConnell say their work confirms that this doctrine is more efficient than alternative arrangements (such as strict or no liability). It also gives a better window into the decision-making process behind the risky business of scaling rock faces and jumping off cliffs.
