The Status of Emergency Action Plans in Large Outdoor Events in the United States

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
The Status of Emergency Action Plans in Large Outdoor Events in the United States
Physical Description:
1 online resource (57 p.)
Language:
english
Creator:
Gelwicks, Rebecca E
Publisher:
University of Florida
Place of Publication:
Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date:

Thesis/Dissertation Information

Degree:
Master's ( M.S.)
Degree Grantor:
University of Florida
Degree Disciplines:
Recreation, Parks, and Tourism, Tourism, Recreation, and Sport Management
Committee Chair:
Beland, Robert M
Committee Members:
Spengler, John O
Stopka-Boyd, Christine E

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
action -- emergency -- event -- management -- plan -- risk -- special
Tourism, Recreation, and Sport Management -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre:
Recreation, Parks, and Tourism thesis, M.S.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract:
It is currently unknown how event planners perceive and integrate risks and whether they are following current standards and recommendations for EAPs. This study surveyed 495 park administrators to determine if they planned events, if those events involved an emergency action plan, what procedures were part of the EAP and what their perceptions on specific risks were. It was found that of the respondents who were responsible for large events (defined as an event with 2,000 or more attendees) in their parks 53% did not have an emergency action plan in place. Furthermore, of those that did have an EAP in place, many did not follow the recommendations and standards set forth by professional and governmental agencies, including provisions on lightning safety and distributing and practicing the EAP with staff members. It was also found that perceptions of risk were not in line with existence of an EAP. In some instances, respondents indicated that they perceived a risk as being somewhat to very likely to occur but did not have a plan in place for that risk. This study shows that event managers do not necessarily follow EAP guidelines, even when they personally perceive there to be a risk associated with their event. The implications of this study can be used by professional event managers when planning for risks and what steps to take when implementing an emergency action plan.
General Note:
In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note:
Includes vita.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description:
Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description:
This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Rebecca E Gelwicks.
Thesis:
Thesis (M.S.)--University of Florida, 2012.
Local:
Adviser: Beland, Robert M.
Electronic Access:
RESTRICTED TO UF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE UNTIL 2014-08-31

Record Information

Source Institution:
UFRGP
Rights Management:
Applicable rights reserved.
Classification:
lcc - LD1780 2012
System ID:
UFE0044585:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1 THE STATUS OF EMERGENCY ACTION PLANS IN LARGE OUTDOOR EVENTS IN THE UNITED STATES By REBECCA E. GELWICKS A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2012

PAGE 2

2 2012 Rebecca E. Gelwicks

PAGE 3

3 To my Friends and Family

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would first and foremost like to thank my advisory committee : Dr. Beland for convincing me that I would be able to complete this, at times, seemingly overwhelming project ; Dr. Stopka for agreeing to come on board and for her encouraging words and finally Dr. Spengler. Dr. Spengler provided me with guidance and advice, even when it was not required, and alway s with an incredible amount of patience. Without his guidance this project would not be anywhere near the level that I would want it to be. I would also like to thank the members of my Delphi panel, Dan Goode, Michelle Park and Dr. Dan Connaughton for offe ring their insight. Their comments were integral in developing the survey instrument. I would like to thank my family for supporting me, in more ways than one, through my undergraduate and graduate studies. I would like to thank my roommates, both past and present, for understanding when I had to choose work over fun and forcing me to have fun when I should have been working.

PAGE 5

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 7 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 8 CHAPTER 1 STUDY BACKGROUND ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 10 Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 10 Statement of the Problem ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 11 Significance of the Study ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 12 Research Questions ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 12 Limitations ................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 12 Assumptions ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 13 Delimitations ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 13 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE ................................ ................................ ................................ 14 Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 14 Terms and Definitions ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 14 Events and Event Management ................................ ................................ .............................. 15 Event Management and Risk ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 16 Research on Emergency Action Plans ................................ ................................ .................... 17 EAP Standards and Recommendations ................................ ................................ .................. 18 Threats at Outdoor Events ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 19 Risk and Risk Management Outcomes at Outdoor Events ................................ ..................... 20 3 METHODOLOGY ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 21 Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 21 Sample ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 21 Instrument ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 22 Park District Demographics ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 22 Risk Perception ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 22 Specific Elements of an EAP ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 22 Procedures ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 23 Data Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 24 4 RESULTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 26 Summary of Survey Procedures ................................ ................................ ............................. 26 Response Rate ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 27

PAGE 6

6 Profile of Respondents ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 27 Management of Events ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 28 Emergency Action Plan Standards ................................ ................................ ......................... 28 Perception of Risks ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 29 Existence of an Emergency Action Plan and Perceptions ................................ ...................... 29 Risks and Perceptions ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 3 1 5 DISCUSSION ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 38 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 38 Limitations ................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 38 Conclusions ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 39 Emergency Action Plan Recommendations ................................ ................................ .... 39 Perceptions of Risk ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 40 Recommendations for Practitioners ................................ ................................ ........................ 41 Recommendations for Future Research ................................ ................................ .................. 42 APPENDIX A SURVEY INSTRUMENT ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 43 B VERBATIM RESPONSES TO OPEN ENDED QUESTIONS ................................ ............ 47 C IRB CLEARANCE ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 53 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 54 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 57

PAGE 7

7 LIST OF TABLES Table page 3 1 Do you have a written comprehensive emergency act ion plan for your large event ? ............. 32 3 2 Does your large event have a person designated as being responsible for event safety? ........ 32 3 3 Is the emergency action plan communicated and available to all employees? ....................... 32 3 4 Are all incidents involving injury to attendees documented in writing? ................................ 32 3 5 How often is the emergency action plan practiced? ................................ ................................ 32 3 6 How often is the emergency action plan evaluated? ................................ ............................... 32 3 7 Likert scale means. ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 33 3 8 Existence of an EAP and perception of a lightning strike. ................................ ...................... 33 3 9 Existence of an EAP and perception of a terrorist threat/attack. ................................ ............. 33 3 10 Existence of an EAP and perception of a structure collapse. ................................ ................ 33 3 11 Existence of an EAP and perception of severe weather. ................................ ....................... 34 3 12 Existence of an EAP and perception of extreme heat. ................................ .......................... 34 3 13 Existence of an EAP and perception of extreme cold. ................................ .......................... 34 3 14 Existence of an EAP and perception of a stampede or other crowd issue. ............................ 34 3 15 Existence of an EAP and perception of a medical emergency. ................................ ............. 34 3 16 Existence of an EAP and perception of intoxicated patrons. ................................ ................ 35 3 17 Existence of an EAP and perception of drug use/overdose. ................................ .................. 35 3 18 Risk specific EAP and p erception of lightning strike. ................................ .......................... 35 3 19 Risk specific EAP and perception of terrorist threat/attack. ................................ ................. 35 3 20 Risk specific EAP and perception of a structure collapse. ................................ .................... 35 3 22 Risk specific EAP and perception of extreme heat. ................................ .............................. 36 3 23 Risk specific EAP and perception of extreme cold. ................................ .............................. 36 3 24 Risk specific EAP and perception of a sta mpede or other crowd issue. ............................... 36

PAGE 8

8 A bstract of T hesis P resented to the G raduate S chool of the University of Florida in P ar tial F ulfillment of the R equirements for the D egree of M aster of S cience THE STATUS OF EMERGE NCY ACTION PLANS IN LARGE OUTDOOR EVENTS IN THE UNITED STATES By Rebecca E. Gelwicks August 2012 Chair: Robert Beland Major: Recreation, Parks, and Tourism Emergency action plans (EAPs) are an integral part of event management (Getz, 2007). It is currently unknown how event planners perceive and integrate risks and whether they are following current standards and recommendations for EAP s This study surveyed 495 park administrators to determine if they planned events, if those events involved an emergency action plan, what procedures were part of the EAP and what their perceptions on specific risks were. It was found that of the respondents who were responsible for large events (def ined as an event with 2,000 or more attendees) in their parks 53 % did not have an emergency action plan in place. Furthermore, of those that did have an EAP in place, many did not follow the recommendations and standards set forth by professional and gover nmental agencies, including provisions on lightning safety and distributing and practicing the EAP with staff members. It was also found that perceptions of risk were not in line with existence of an EAP. In some instances, respondents indicated that they perceived a risk as being somewhat to very likely to occur but did not have a plan in place for that risk This study shows that event managers do not necessarily follow EAP guidelines, even when they personally perceive there to be a risk associated with their event. The implications of

PAGE 9

9 this study can be used by professi onal event managers when planning for risks and what steps to take when imple menting an emergency action plan.

PAGE 10

10 CHAPTER 1 STUDY BACKGROUND Introduction an assembly of persons gathered primarily for ance is two thousand persons or more outdoor events, including crowds of people and weather elements, risk is an inherent part of bination of 9 p. 26). Risk management is the process of reducing or eliminating identified risk s (Spengler, Anderson, Connaughton & Baker, 2009). Risk management has been shown to be an important part of the overall event planning and event management process (Getz, 2007; Getz & Frisby, 1988) in order to protect both patrons and companies. Outdoor events can range from a softball game to a major music festival to the Olympics. Risk ma nagement is a broad term and can include efforts such as booking a backup caterer, planning for a stage collapse or evacuating a venue. The focus of this paper will be emergency action plans (EAPs), a subset of risk management, which involves planning for emergencies to reduce or prevent the loss of life (Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency, n.d.) Specifically, an EAP is a formal written plan that identifies potential emergency conditions at an event site and describes the procedures to be followed t o minimize or prevent loss of life and property (Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency, n.d.). It is specifically tailored for each and every event For the purpose of this paper, an emergency action plan addresses both medical and non medical emergencies and threats. Professional associations (such as the

PAGE 11

11 American Heart Association), government entities (such as the O ccupational S afety and H ealth A dm inistration ) and industry experts have guidelines and requirements for the planning and implementation of EAPs for outdoor events. Statement of the Problem Although research on risk management and events has been conducted, it is often in a broad scope an d focuses on mega events (see for example, Chang & Singh, 1990). Risk management and the creation and implementation of emergency action plans as i t pertains to outdoor events ha ve not been studied. Thoroughly written and practiced EAPs are an essential pa rt of event management as a n industry practice and for outdoor events themselves. Without the proper foresight and planning, many risks can occur that may result in injury, financial loss, bad publicity and, ultimately, the failure of an event. Getz (2002) notes that there are many crises an d failures of outdoor events and that one of the most common factors is failure to plan It can be ascertained that failure to plan for risks was also a factor in the failure of the festivals being investigated by Getz Events without a thorough EAP are bound to encounter failure. In a study of intercollegiate sport clubs, 31% of colleges and universities surveyed did not have a written risk management plan (Stier, Schneider, Kampf, Haines & Gaskins, 2008). It is unknow n how event managers create, write and implement emergency action plans. However, if the results of the Stier et al. (2008) study are an indicator of risk management procedures in leisure and recreation in general then it is possible that this study would find similar results for event manage rs. The purpose of this study was to determine whether the literature, meaning professional s tandards and recommendations, was followed and practiced and what the perceptions of event managers were This was assessed us ing the research questions listed below.

PAGE 12

12 Significance of the Study It was proposed that a study to evaluate the nature of emergency action plans in outdoor events be conducted. This study also measure d park administrators elements of a successful and comprehensive EAP. It was expected tha t the results of this survey would suggest that the perceptions and administrators are not aligned. The overall purpose of this s tudy was to identify and address elements of the design and implementation of event EAPs in the United States. Research Questions The purpose of this study wa s to assess the park administrators pertain to the creation and imple mentation of emergency action plans. This was assessed by posing the following questions: (i) What is the nature of risk management practices relevant to planning for emergencies in park sponsored outdoor events? (ii) What is the perception of risk in mana ging park sponsored outdoor events? (i ii ) Is there an association between perception of relevant event related risks and creation and implementation of emergency action plan standards and recommendations for park sponsored outdoor events? Limitations The s urvey was sent out using emails from an existing database of park administrator email addresses. Some of the limitations a ssociated with this practice included participants not responding, incorrect or invalid email addresses or an inappropriate recipient. Many of the park districts only provide d a general email address which mean t that the recipient may not be associated with risk management and may not forward the email to the right person. The possibility existed that the legal liability of non existent or insuffic ient emergency action plans would prevent respondents from answering questions. This potential problem was

PAGE 13

13 addressed by not collecting identifying information and reporting results as group data. However, response anonymity also mean t that there wa s no wa y to track individual responses to try to increase response rate. Assumptions The study assumed that park districts (a) hold even ts and (b) that those events were appropriate for this study (outdoor events with 2,000 or more attendees) The survey assume d that the respondents were terms wer e not explicitly defined within the survey. Delimitations While risk management is an umbrella term in ev ent management, this study on ly focus ed literature review include d risk management as a basis for understanding emergency action planning, the final survey did not look at risk management in the b road sense. For example, t he survey did not in clude a section with questions regarding insuran ce or contracts. This study did not look at the public relations or financial components of risk management plans. The study did not consider the legal aspects of having or not having an appr opriate EAP. The study focus ed on emergency action plans in the broad sense of the term, including emergencies ranging from medical crises to terrorist attacks.

PAGE 14

14 CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE Introduction This study fo cused on the status of emergency action plans (EAPs) in large outdoor events in the United St ates. The literature review present s terms and definitions associated with outdoor events, risk management and emergency action plans. Additionally, the literature review will expand upon these terms and explain their relation to the development of emergency action plans. Also, this chapter describe s the professional standards and recommendations for EAPs. Few studies on risk management and emergency action plan pra ctices for outdoor events have been conducted. Those that have often focus on mega events, such as the Olympics (see Chang & Singh, 1990) as opposed to smaller, more commonplace events or focus on stakeholders ( see Leopkey & Parent, 2009) and people other than the event manager. However, research on risk management and EAP practices has been conducted in other similar settings, such as sports and recreation ( see Connaughton, DeMiche le, Horodyski & Dannecker, 2002 & Stier, Schneider, Kampf, Haines & Gaskins, 2008 ). Terms and Definitions The terms discussed and used in this study are defined as follows: Crisis. media or government scrutiny; interfering with the normal operations of business; jeopardizing ( Fink 1986, pp. 15 16). It is an unsettled state in which the outcome will make a difference to one or more aspects of a situation (Gigliotti & Jason, 1991). Emergency This is when an unexpected circumstance or set of circumstances c reates situations that call for immediate action (Gigliotti & Jason, 1991).

PAGE 15

15 Emergency Action Plan (EAP) This is a formal written plan that identifies potential emergency conditions at an event site and describes the procedures to be followed to minimize o r prevent loss of life and property (Pennsylvania Eme rgency Management Agency, n.d.) It is specifically tailored for each and every event For the purpose of this paper, an emergency action plan addresses both medical and non medical emergencies and threa ts. Event m anagement This the applied field of study and area of professional practice devoted to the design, production and management of planned events, encompassing festivals and other celebrations, entertainment, recreation, political and state, scientific, sport and arts 2008, p. 404). Outdoor e vent This an assembly of persons gathered primarily for outdoor, live or where th e predicted attendance is two thousand persons or more (Revised Code of Washington, 1971). Risk This il, 2009 p. 26). Risk m anagement This 09, p. viii). Special e vent This is a non routine event that occurs outside of the everyday norm for a certain community and that requires planning for medical and non medical emergencies ( Getz, 1989; Getz, 2007). Events and Event Management There are m any definitions of an event. Shone and Parry (2004) state that:

PAGE 16

16 events are that phenomenon arising from those non routine occasions which have leisure, cultural, personal or organizational objectives set apart from the normal activity of daily life, whose purpose is to enlighten, celebrate, entertain or challenge the experience of a group of people (p. 3). Events have a beginning and an end, and so, they can occur only onc e (Getz, 2007). Getz (1989) suggests that there is an innate sense of novelty invol ved because events are different each time, even if it is an annual event, and they depart from everyday life. In other words, they take place outdoors at eithe r a permanent or temporary site. Derrett (2004) divides events into categories based on size and scale. These categories include mega events, hallmark events, major events and local or community events. Depending on the size and scope, outdoor events could fall in to any of these categories. An outdoor event can range in size and scope from one evening and 500 attendees to multiple days or weeks and Events manage ment, though not in the same context as modern times, has existed for many centuries. Examples of event planning in ancient times would be the first Olympic Games or coronations of monarchs (Shone & Parry, 2004). However, modern event management and event planning are fields with recent and relatively unfounded studies and reviews (Getz, 2010). Event Management and Risk Event risk management in its current context is a relatively new phenomenon. The 1988 Olympic Games in Calgary, Canada were the first Olym pic G ames where the planners actually documented every incident resulting in a financial loss (Chang & Singh, 1990). Why should emergency action plans be a priority for festival managers? It is significantly less expensive to avoid or manage a risk than to clean up after a crisis has happened (Tarlow, 2002).

PAGE 17

17 Laybourn (2004) suggests that risk management may be the most difficult challenge for a planner because it involves the estimation and examination of probability. While there is a systematic plan for r isk management, there is no cut and dry equation for determining every risk. Some of the greatest obstacles to creating a successful risk management plan include habit, event that is treated as if it has already happened (Tarlow, 2002). It can only be treated as a hypothesis until someone actually slips, trips, falls, etc. and therefore a risk becomes an emergency or crisis. Research on Emergency Action Plans Typically, research on risk management plans focuses on financial factors and outcomes (Mitroff, Shrivastava & Udwadia, 1987). Well known crises often referenced include the Three Mile Island disaster in 1979, the Tylenol cyanide contamination in 1982 and the gas le ak at the Union Carbide plant in Bhopal, India in 1984 (Fink, 1986; Mitroff, Shrivastava & Udwadia, 1987). More recently, the Bali bombings and the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 have been mentioned in research (see for example Toohey & Taylor, 20 08). Risk management has also been studied in health management and environmental management (National Research Council, 2009). The research on risk management is broad and incorporates many different fields of study. Some research has been conducted in th e sport management and event management fields on the subject of risk management assessment (Chang & Singh, 1990). A 2002 study of risk management practices among collegiate recreation centers showed that although 69.9% of the 178 universities surveyed rep orted having a risk management plan in place, the authors p. 43). This is because some important elements of a risk management plan were met by less

PAGE 18

18 than half of th e respondents, including having a written plan (only 12% had a written plan) and reviewing procedures with employees in a formal setting (only 20% did this) In a 2008 study by Stier, Schneider, Kampf, Haines and Gaskins, it was found that 31% of intercoll egiate intramural programs did not have a written emergency action or risk management plan, 42% did not designate an employee to assume responsibility for all risk management issues and only 24% of schools used some type of light n ing detector for outdoor a ctivities. EAP Standards and Recommendations An emergency action plan should be specific for each event (Leopkey & Parent, 2009) Plans should be tailored for each event and therefore standards do not exist for specific outdoor events. However, recommendat ions and standards for EAPs in the workplace and for recreation activities do exist. Companies with more than 10 employees must have an emergency action plan in writing, kept in the workplace and available to all employees for review (OSHA 1910.38b). O ccup ational Safety and Health A dministration (OSHA) statute 1910.38 also suggests retraining or practicing the plan annually. While OSHA requirements only apply to workplaces, they can also be incorporated in event EAPs. statement on emergency planning in athletics also recommends reviewing and rehearsing the plan annually (Anderson, Courson, Kleinder & McLoda, 2002). The American Heart Association (AHA) /American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) R ecommendations for Cardiovascular Screening, Staffing and Emergency Policies at Health/Fitness Facilities has similar recommendations (Balady et al., 1998) Abbott and Geddie (2001) state that plans should be evaluated before, during and after an event reg ardless of current or prior incident and that a specific person should be designated as being responsible for event safety.

PAGE 19

19 The event manager should consider all aspects of the ev ent, including attendance, site location, weather, alcohol sales and the demographics of the patron s Spengler, Connaughton and Earnshaw (2002) identify several organizations that have recommendations or position (NATA) and the N ational Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA). It is essential to have an emergency action plan when trying to plan a successful event (Leopkey & Parent, 2009). Two high level risk managers (one from the United States Olympic Committee and one from USA H ockey) say that event risk management should utilize three stages: pre event planning, active management during the event, and post event summarization and documentation (Schachner, 1994 ). Documentation is one o f the most important steps in risk management (Goldblatt, 1997). An event manager could not possibly plan for every incident that may occur but documenting each precaution may prove that a reasonable effort was made. Many authors (Gerber, 2004; Goldblatt, 1997; Prosser & Rutledge, 2003) agree that having a written plan is an essential part of a risk management strategy. Threats at Outdoor Events Some of the most common threats to outdoor events include terrorist threats or attacks (Toohey & Taylor, 2008), extreme weather including heat and cold (OSHA 1910.38), lightning strikes (Hronek, Spengler & Baker, 2007), medical emergencies including alcohol and drug consumption (Wood, Beaumont, May & Dargan, 2010), crowd control issues ( Abbott & Geddie, 2001; Johnso n, 1987), stage collapses and other facility issues (Waddell, 2011). Because of the location of outdoor events, weather is an inherent risk. Lightning is often considered to be one of the most dangerous risks at an outdoor event (Spengler, Connaughton & Ea rnshaw, 2002). Hronek, Spengler and Baker (2007) consid er heat and humidity, cold and severe weather to be additional weather related risks.

PAGE 20

20 Risk and Risk Management Outcomes at Outdoor Events This section will note some possible outcomes of risks during outdoor events. Multiple authors ( Tingler, 1989; Wood, Beaumont, May & Dargan, 2010) have noted that alcohol and illicit drug use are common at outdoor events (specifically music festivals). Medical emergencies happen at every event. This could be as simpl e as someone becoming dehydrated in the sun or as complex as a patron going in to sudden cardiac arrest. As of 2011, there have been multiple high profile safety incident s at outdoor music festivals and concerts both in the United States and abroad. On Jul y 17, 2011 the main stage at the Ottawa Bluesfest collapsed. On August 18, 2011, tents, lighting and stage structures collapsed at the Pukkelpop music festival in Belgium. Perhaps the most notorious incident of the 2011 summer concert season was the stage collapse at the Indiana State Fair. The disaster resulted in the death of seven individuals (Waddel l 2011). Johnson (1987) looked at the causes of a stampede during a 1979 The Who concert. According to the article, 11 young people were killed due to inad equate crowd management and to get the best seat and not hiring enough police officers and ticket handlers.

PAGE 21

21 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY Introduction The purpose of this exploratory study was to investigate the status of emergency action plans (EAPs) in outdoor events in the United States. This was accomplished by examining professional recommendations for creating EAPs as well as a survey of park administrator s an d their strategies for writing and creating EAPs. were looked at and compared to the existence of those risks in the EAP. To date, there is insufficient information on how current industry professionals for mulate emergency action plans for large outdoor events Research on whether professionals follow recommendations and regulations is virtually non existent. Creating a risk management and/or emergency action plan should be one of the top priorities fo r even t managers (see Getz, 1989, Getz, 2007 & Laybourn, 2004). Therefore, this study was significant due to its exploration of important safety recommendations and requirements. It also had very practical applications and implications as the results can immedia tely and directly impact event management practices. This chapter describes the procedures used in this study. This includes the sampling procedures and the instrument design. The issue of validity will also be discussed. Data analysis techniques will be i dentified and described. Sample The sample consisted of 495 local park administrators from city, county and special district park and recreation departments from across the United States. The nationally representative sample was drawn from a pre existing d atabase of communities where park districts are located as used by Spengler et al. (2012). The sample was randomly drawn from a stratified list of rural, midsize and large communities that contain public parks.

PAGE 22

22 Instrument The format for the demographic sec tion of the survey for this study was based in part and modified from a study by Spengler et al. (2012), used with permission. The instrument was developed using this prior survey and the relevant literature to address outdoor events and their specific ris ks. The survey cons isted of questions involving three sections: (a) park district and event dem ographics, (b) risk perception and (c ) specific elements of an emergency action plan. The survey was found to be exempt by the University of Florida (UF) Institutional Review Board (IRB); the survey was anonymous and the respondent did not have to answer any question th at he or she did not wish to answer. Park District Demographics For the purpose of this study, demographics regarding the park districts bei ng surveyed and their events were collected. This include d job title of the respondent, size of the park district and the state in which the event takes place, among other indicators. This information was used describe groups and was not intended to answer the research questions. Risk Perception The survey asse s sed the perception of stated risks using a 7 point Likert type scale, with 1=Very Likely and 7=Very Unlikely with 4 =Undecided. The purpose of this question was to determine what the pe rception of in dividual risks is. The goal was to determine whether perceptions of risks are aligned with practices. For example, does a park manager who perceives a lightning strike as likely to occur at an outdoor e vent address that risk in the emergency action plan? Specific Elements of an EAP The se questions address ed specific elements of an emergency action plan as outlined by professional associations, state and local ordinances and experts.

PAGE 23

23 The questions were cr eated based on the information found in the review of the literature. This section assessed whether emergency action plans are utilized and how they are utilized. Procedures After a preliminary questionnaire was created and formatted, it was sent to a Delphi panel of industry experts to establish content validity. The panel included one professor of sport management who specializes in risk management in recreation and two professional event planners who specialize in outdoor events. The survey was furth comments. The survey was then sent to the university's Institutional Review Board (IRB) Using the online survey software Qualtrics the survey was administered to part icipants through email. They were first given the opport unity to read the informed consent stating that the survey is anonymous and participants do not have to answer any question that they do not wish to answer, before starting the survey. A brief descriptive cover letter was emailed to the list of 495 park a dministrators explaining the purpose of the study and that a survey link was forthcoming. The email included an explanation of the study, participant rights and ways to contact the researcher for final results. This was in an attempt to reach a higher res ponse rate and to circumvent spam filters. The initial email was sent two days later with the survey link. A follow up email was sent to all addresses one week after the initial email. A third and final email was sent five days after the second email. Thos e that had already answered the survey were not able to repeat it. Demographic questions were placed at the beginning of the survey in an attempt to gather descriptive information from all respondents. Utilizing the software's "display logic" feature the threshold ts do you or your agency manage separated park districts that do and do not hold events. Those that did not manage events were

PAGE 24

24 directed to the end of the survey and did not answer any questions perta ining to perception or elements of an EAP. These responses were not analyzed in the final results. In order to stay within the definition of an outdoor event (see Revised Code of Washington, 1971), only events with 2,000 or more attendees were studied. Those respondents who planned events with less t han 2,000 attendees were directed to the perception of risk question. In order to further narrow down specific event procedures, only respondents who manage music /art festivals and /or fairs or carnivals with 2,000 or more attendees were asked specific emergency action plan questions. These parameters were chosen because the planning proce because the planning process is n ot similar to music/art festivals or fairs/carnivals. Those respondents who did not have a written comprehensive EAP were directed to the question regarding risk perception. In summary, park managers who managed music /art festivals and/or fairs or carniva ls with 2,000 or more attendees were asked about risk percept ion and EAP procedures; park managers who managed events with 2,000 or more attendees but did not meet the other parameters were asked about risk perception; park managers who did not manage even ts did not answer any further questions. Data Analysis The collected da ta was entered in to SPSS 20 .0 and Qualtrics for analysis. Descriptive frequencies were run for demographic s perception of risk and status of emer gency action plan practices Bec ause the study wa s based on the practices and perceptions of industry practitioners, it was determined that descriptive statistics would be sufficient to identify differences between groups. The purpose of the study was to identify what park administrators think of event risks and how those perceptions are put in to action. Frequencies were run to determine percentage of

PAGE 25

25 respondents with an EAP, among other descriptive statistics. Cross tab ulations were conducted to compare specific risk perception with the identification of those specific risks within the EAP.

PAGE 26

26 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS Summary of Survey Procedures A list of 495 park departments was obtained from a previous study by Spengler et al. (2012). The l ist was pop ulated with available emails addresses for a contact in the department preferably an administrator Generic email addresses were used when administrator email addresses were not available. An introductory email was sent out explaining that an e mail would be sent with a link to a survey in an attempt to remain out of spam and junk boxes. An initial email was sent after that explaining the purpose of the study, that the study was anonymous and how to contact the researcher with questions. Two roun ds of reminder emails were sent after the initial email. In an attempt to demonstrate the legitimacy of those emails and encourage responses, all the invitation emails and reminder emails were sent from a University of Florida (UF) College of Health and H uman Performance (HHP) server. Both the email signature and display name indicated that the researcher was a UF graduate student. The statement that this survey was The introduct ory email was sent on April 9, 2012 to all 495 park administrators informing them that a survey link would be sent in two days. On April 11, 2012 the first round of survey links was sent. Ninety four responses were received from April 11 to April 17, a res ponse rate of 18 %. The first reminder email was sent on April 18, 2021 to all 495 administrators. From April 18 to April 21, 58 responses were received A response rate of 30% now existed. The third and final request email was sent on April 23, 2012. Betwe en April 23 and April 24 an additional 37 responses were collected. The survey was closed on April 26 with a total of 189 responses

PAGE 27

27 Response Rate The survey was closed with a total of 189 responses. One email was returned with an automatic out of the off ice reply. Three responses were thrown out as they were marked by Qualtrics contained no actual responses. Using the threshold questions previously explained only responses that met the parameters were analyzed. In addition to this criterion, only responses that also answered the question on perception were included. After eliminating these responses the overall number of responses was 131 and the total response rate was 26 %. Profile of Respondents T he majority of respondents (66 %) list ed for other included Director, Director of Parks and Recreation and Town Manager among other responses. A smaller percentage listed their job title as Park Manager (29%) Event Manager (10%) or Risk Manag er (3%). Among the 29 states that the respondents indicated that they were located in, the top five states were California (16%), Texas (12 %), North Carolina (7 %) Colorado, (6%), and Georgia (6%). The majority (51 %) of departments were loca ted in midsize cities described as a city with a population of 20,000 99,999 residents. Nineteen percent of respondents indicated they were located in small towns or rural areas, described as a population of fe wer than 20,000 residents and 29 % indicated they were locat ed in large cities, described as 100,000 or more residents. Using the display logic feature, respondents self identified in to two groups, those who managed music/art festivals and/or fairs or carnivals with 2,000 or more attendees and had an EAP and thos e who did not have an EAP.

PAGE 28

28 Management of Events Of the you or your agency manage? 71 % managed music /art festivals, 47 % managed fairs or carnivals, 81 % managed sporting events and 27 of the following events h ave 2,000 or more attendees? % answered music/art festival, 35 % answe red fair or carnival and only 25 % answered none. Respondents were allowed to respond with more than one answer. Emergency Action Plan Standards Of the park administrators who indicated that they or their park agency managed music/art festivals and/or fairs or carnival s with more than 2,000 attendees, more than half (5 3 %) did not have a written, comprehensive EAP (table 3 1) Of those with a written, comprehensive EAP, an overwhelming majority (9 5 %) had a person designated as being responsible for event safety ( Table 3 2) Nearly one third of respondents (29 %) indicated that this person was re sponsible before the event, 30 % indicated that this person was responsib le during the event and less (26 %) indicated that they were responsible after the event. A majority (83 %) in dicated that the EAP is communicated and available to all employees ( Table 3 3) The vast majority (90 %) documented all incidents involving injury to an attendee in writing ( Table 3 4) Only 31% indicated that they practice t he plan once per year; 14 % pra cticed it two or more times per year ( Table 3 5) Most (39 %) practiced the plan less than once per year while 14 % never practiced the EAP. Almost three quarters (73 %) indicated that they EAP at least once per year, while only 9% evaluated the plan less than once per year ( Table 3 6) Only 17 % of

PAGE 29

29 Perception of Risks Perceptions of risks were measured using a 7 point Likert type scale. The mean score of each perception was calculate d ( Table 3 7) The risk of a lightning strike had a mean score of 4.17, which fell between decided and somewhat unlikely to occur with a standard deviation of 1.85. The risk of a terrorist threat/attack had a mean score of 5.88, which fell between somewha t unlikely and unlikely to occur, with a standard deviation of 1.29. The risk of a structure collapse had a mean score of 5.55, which fell between somewhat unlikely and unlikely to occur with a standard deviation of 1.85. The risk of severe weather had a mean score of 3.05, which fell between somewhat likely to occur and undecided, with a standard deviation of 1.58. The risk of extreme heat had a mean score of 2.72, which fell between likely and somewhat likely to occur, with a standard deviation of 1.65. The risk of extreme cold had a mean score of 5.13, which fell between somewhat unlikely and unlikely to occur, with a standard deviation of 1.88. The risk of a stampede or other crowd issue had a mean score of 5.06, which fell between somewhat unlikely and unlikely to occur, with a standard deviation of 1.44. The risk of a medical issue had a mean score of 2.58, which fell between likely and somewhat likely to occur, with a standard deviation of 1.15. The risk of an intoxicated patron(s) had a mean score of 3.31, which fell between somewhat likely to occur and undecided, with a standard deviation of 1.60. The risk of drug use/overdose had a mean score of 4.29, which fell between undecided and s omewhat un likely to occur with a standard deviation of 1.44. Exi stence of an Emergency Action Plan and Perceptions Cross tabulations were used to compare perception of specific risks and the existence of an Scale points one through three were collapsed and the statisti cs were based on the combined tot Of those that had an emergency action plan in place 56% found a lightning strike to be somewhat to very

PAGE 30

30 likely to occur ( Table 3 8) Eleven percent thought that of a t errorist threat or att ack ( Table 3 9). Eleven percent believed a st age or structure collapse somewhat to very like to happen ( Table 3 10) Eighty eight percent viewed sev ere weather as a likely risk ( Table 3 11) Ninety three percent had an emergency action place in place and p erceived extreme heat to be somewhat to very likely to occur ( Table 3 12) Eighteen percent thought this of extreme cold ( Table 3 13) Of those that had an EAP, 26% viewed a s tampede or other crowd is sue as likely to occur ( Table 3 14) Ninety five percent though t a m edical emergency was somewhat to very likely to occur ( Table 3 15) Sixty seven percent viewed intoxicated patron(s) as a risk ( Table 3 16) The last risk was drug use or overdose of which 44% viewed it as somewhat to very likely to occur and a lso had an EAP ( Table 3 17) Of those that did not have an EAP in place, 45% perceived a lightning strike as somewhat to very likely to occur ( Table 3 8) Ten percent viewed a terrorist threat or attack in this manner but did not have an EAP ( Table 3 9) Twenty percent thought this of a stage or structure coll apse ( Table 3 10) Sixty five percent did not have an EAP at all and yet viewed the potential risk of severe weather as high ( Table 3 11) Of those that did not have an EAP in place, 76% viewed e xtrem e heat as a potential risk ( Table 3 12) Twenty percent thought this of extreme cold ( Table 3 13) Of those that did not have an EAP, 25% viewed a stampede or other crowd issue as somewhat to very likely to occur ( Table 3 14) Eighty three percent thought a medical emergency was somewhat to very likely to occur but did not have an EAP ( Ta ble 3 15) Seventy two percent viewed intoxicated patron(s) as a risk ( Table 3 16) The last risk was drug use or overdose of which 34% viewed it as somewhat to very likely to occur and did not have an EAP ( Table 3 17)

PAGE 31

31 Risk s and Perceptions Cross tabulations were used to compare perception of specific risks and the existence of that risk within the emergency action plan. As previously explained, the scale points of one through three were merged and were label ed The risks t hat had a high perception of risk (more than half of respondents indicated that they believed it was somewhat to very likel y for a risk to occur ) included lightning strike (54 %), severe weather (87%), extreme heat (96%), medical emergency (94%), intoxicated patron(s) (78 %) and drug use or over dose (64 %). Those that did not have a high level of perception (less than half) were terrorist attack or threat (23 %), s tage or structure collapse (28%), extreme cold (45 %) and sta mpede or other crowd issue (36 %). Most (54%) felt that a lightning strike was a likely risk, only 17% addressed it ( Table 3 18 ) Of those that viewed a medical emergency as somewhat to very likely to occur (94%), only 25% had a plan for it ( Table 3 1 9 ) Fifty four percent viewed a terrorist attack or threat as a risk but only 17% addressed it specifically ( Table 3 20 ) Of those that viewed a stage or structure c ollapse as somewhat to very likely to happen (28 %) only 5 % addressed it ( Table 3 21 ) Of those that viewed severe weather as a high potential risk (87% ), 23% had a section for severe weather in their EAP ( Table 3 22 ) While a large majority (96%) believed that it was somewhat to highly likely that extreme heat could occur, only 18% addressed extreme heat in the EAP ( Table 3 23 ) Forty five percent thought extreme cold was a potential risk; only 8% addressed it ( Table 3 24 ) Thirty six percent viewed a stamp ede or other crowd issue as a potential problem and 8% addressed it ( Table 3 25 ). Of those that viewed intoxicated patrons (s) (78 %) as a somewhat to very likely risk; only 16 % addressed it ( Table 3 27 ) Of those that indicated they perceived drug use or o verdose as a somewhat to very likely risk (64 %), 12 % had a plan for it ( Table 3 28 )

PAGE 32

32 Table 3 1. Do you have a written comprehensive emergency action plan for your large event(s) (greater than 2,000 attendees)? Table 3 2. Does your large event (greater than 2,000 attendees) have a person designated as being responsible for event safety? Frequency Valid Percent Yes 45 95.7 No 2 4.3 Total 47 100.0 Table 3 3. Is the emergency action plan communicated and available to all employees? Frequency Valid Percent Yes 36 83.7 No 7 16.3 Total 43 100.0 Table 3 4. Are all incidents involving injury to attendees documented in writing? Frequency Valid Percent Yes 39 90.7 No 4 9.3 Total 43 100.0 Table 3 5. How often is the emergency action plan practiced? Frequency Valid Percent Never 6 14.3 Less than o nce per y ear 17 54.8 Once p er y ear Twice per y ear More than two times per y ear Total 13 3 3 42 31.0 7.1 7.1 100.0 Table 3 6. How often is the emergency action plan evaluated? Frequency Valid Percent Yes 48 46.6 No 55 53.4 Total 103 100.0 Frequency Valid Percent Never 0 0.0 Less than o nce per y ear Once per y ear Twice per y ear More than two times per y ear 4 32 3 4 9.3 74.4 7.0 9.3 Total 43 100.0

PAGE 33

33 Table 3 7. Likert scale means. Table 3 8 Existence of an EAP and perception of a lightning strike. Table 3 9 Existence of an EAP and perception of a terrorist threat/attack. Table 3 10 Existence of an EAP and perception of a structure collapse. Risk Mean Standard Deviation Lightning strike Terrorist threat/attack 4.17 5.88 1.85 1.29 Structure collapse Severe weather Extreme heat Extreme cold Stampede or other crowd issue Medical emergency Intoxicated patron(s) Drug use/overdose 5.55 3.05 2.72 5.13 5.06 2.58 3.31 4.29 1.39 1.58 1.65 1.88 1.44 1.15 1.60 1.53 Have EAP Do not have EAP Somewhat likely, likely, very likely 56.82% 45.45% Undecided Somewhat unlikely, unlikely, very unlikely 11.36% 31.82% 1.82% 52.73% Total 100.00% 100.00% Have EAP Do not have EAP Somewhat likely, likely, very likely 11.36 % 10.91 % Undecided Somewhat unlikely, unlikely, very unlikely 11.36 % 77.27 % 5.45 % 83.64 % Total 100.00% 100.00% Have EAP Do not have EAP Somewhat likely, likely, very likely 11.36% 20.00% Undecided Somewhat unlikely, unlikely, very unlikely 4.55% 84.09% 3.64% 76.36% Total 100.00% 100.00%

PAGE 34

34 Table 3 11. Existence of an EAP and perception of severe weather. Table 3 12 Existence of an EAP and perception of extreme heat. Table 3 13. Existence of an EAP and perception of extreme cold. Table 3 14 Existence of an EAP and perception of a stampede or other crowd issue. Table 3 15. Existence of an EAP and perception of a medical emergency. Have EAP Do not have EAP Somewhat likely, likely, very likely 88.64% 65.45% Undecided Somewhat unlikely, unlikely, very unlikely 2.27% 9.09% 3.64% 30.91% Total 100.00% 100.00% Have EAP Do not have EAP Somewhat likely, likely, very likely 93.02 % 76.36 % Undecided Somewhat unlikely, unlikely, very unlikely 2.33 % 4.65 % 1.82 % 21.82 % Total 100.00% 100.00% Have EAP Do not have EAP Somewhat likely, likely, very likely 18.60% 20.00% Undecided Somewhat unlikely, unlikely, very unlikely 4.65% 76.74% 3.64% 76.36% Total 100.00% 100.00% Have EAP Do not have EAP Somewhat likely, likely, very likely 26.19% 25.93% Undecided Somewhat unlikely, unlikely, very unlikely 23.81% 50.00% 3.70% 70.37% Total 100.00% 100.00% Have EAP Do not have EAP Somewhat likely, likely, very likely 95.35% 83.64% Undecided Somewhat unlikely, unlikely, very unlikely 2.33% 2.33% 10.91% 5.45% Total 100.00% 100.00%

PAGE 35

35 Table 3 16 Existence of an EAP and perception of intoxicated patrons. Table 3 17. Existence of an EAP and perception of drug use/overdose. Table 3 18. Risk specific EAP and perception of lightning strike. Table 3 19 Risk specific EAP and perception of terrorist threat/attack. Table 3 20 Risk specific EAP and perception of a structure collapse. Address risk Somewhat likely, likely, very likely 28.57% Undecided Somewhat unlikely, unlikely, very unlikely 0.00 % 71.43 % Total 100.00% Have EAP Do not have EAP Somewhat likely, likely, very likely 67.44% 72.73% Undecided Somewhat unlikely, unlikely, very unlikely 9.30% 23.26% 0.00% 27.27% Total 100.00% 100.00% Have EAP Do not have EAP Somewhat likely, likely, very likely 44.19% 34.55% Undecided Somewhat unlikely, unlikely, very unlikely 13.95% 41.86% 9.09% 56.36% Total 100.00% 100.00% Address risk Somewhat likely, likely, very likely 54.17 % Undecided Somewhat unlikely, unlikely, very unlikely 12.50 % 33.33 % Total 100.00% Address risk Somewhat likely, likely, very likely 23.08 % Undecided Somewhat unlikely, unlikely, very unlikely 7.69 % 69.23 % Total 100.00%

PAGE 36

36 Table 3 21 Risk specific EAP and perception of severe weather. Table 3 22 Risk specific EAP and perception of extreme heat. Table 3 2 3 Risk specific EAP and perception of extreme cold. Table 3 24 Risk specific EAP and perception of a stampede or other crowd issue. Ta ble 3 25 Risk specific EAP and perception of a medical emergency. Address risk Somewhat likely, likely, very likely 87.50 % Undecided Somewhat unlikely, unlikely, very unlikely 0.00% 12.50 % Total 100.00% Address risk Somewhat likely, likely, very likely 96.15 % Undecided Somewhat unlikely, unlikely, very unlikely 0.00% 3.85 % Total 100.00% Address risk Somewhat likely, likely, very likely 45.45 % Undecided Somewhat unlikely, unlikely, very unlikely 0.00% 54.55 % Total 100.00% Address risk Somewhat likely, likely, very likely 36.36 % Undecided Somewhat unlikely, unlikely, very unlikely 18.18 % 45.45 % Total 100.00% Address risk Somewhat likely, likely, very likely 94.29 % Undecided Somewhat unlikely, unlikely, very unlikely 2.86% 2.86 % Total 100.00%

PAGE 37

37 Table 3 2 6 Risk specific EAP and perception of intoxicated patron(s) Table 3 27 Risk specific EAP and perception of drug use/overdose Address risk Somewhat likely, likely, very likely 78.26 % Undecided Somewhat unlikely, unlikely, very unlikely 4.35 % 17.39 % Total 100.00% Address risk Somewhat likely, likely, very likely 64.71 % Undecided Somewhat unlikely, unlikely, very unlikely 5.88 % 29.41 % Total 100.00%

PAGE 38

38 CHAPTER 5 D ISCUSSION Summary The data showed that the majority of the respondents met the survey parameters (managing a music/art festival and/or fair or carnival with 2,000 or more attendees) in order to answer the remaining questions regarding emergency action plan standards. Most o f the park agencies surveyed plan at least one large outdoor event. Although most respondents (or their agencies) are responsible for managing events, they do not necessarily employ an emergency action plan. When an EAP is present, only some recommendatio ns and standards were utilized by a majority of the respondents. The standards that were utilized by a majority include d having the plan in writing, designating a person as being responsible for event safety, communicating and making available the plan to all employees, evaluating the plan at least once per year and documenting all incidents resulting in injury to an attendee in writing. Limitations The population chosen for this study was a representative sample of park agencies and administrators througho ut the United States It cannot be assume d that this population is representative of US based event managers. Additionally, the researcher had no control over who was receiving the survey invitation. It is possible that an administrator who was not responsible for events received the survey. There were a wide variety of respondents (including park managers, event managers, risk managers and other titles) but it can be assumed that by answering the survey they had some knowledge of risk management or event management. Because emergency action plans should be specific for each event ( Leopkey & Parent 2009 ) the que stion on perception of risks does not account for variances in individual event s

PAGE 39

39 not initially weed about management of smaller events, and so the response to the perception sumption of the question; it is possible that the respondent answered that question based on a definition of event other than the one outlined in this research. Additionally, there was a relative ly low overall response rate (26%) This response rate may be a result of the sample being park administrators as opposed to dedicated event managers Conclusions Emergency Action Plan Recommendations It can be seen that there are inconsistencies in following recommendations and standards. All events, especially large events, should have an emergency action plan ( Pennsylvania Eme rgency Management Agency, n.d.) and the results of this st udy show that les s than half (47%) do. This finding is consistent with similar studies in the sport management field (see Mulrooney, Styles & Green, 2002 & Stier, Schneider, Kampf, Haines and Gaskins 2008 ). Most park agencies (55%) surveyed did not follow the National (NATA) recommendation of practicing the plan annually ( see Anderson, Courson, Kleinder & McLoda, 2002 & OSHA §1910.38b ). In addition, only a small percentage (17%) recommendations on lightning safety. This finding is consistent with the findings of Stier, Schneider, Kampf, Haines and Gaskins (2008). Most associations, including the NATA recommend evaluating the EAP at least once per y ear ; almost three quarters (73%) of respondents followed this recommendation Association recommend having a plan or part of a plan specifically for lightning (Spengler,

PAGE 40

40 Connaughton & Earnsha w, 2002). Only 17% of respondents indicated that they addressed The results for the designation of an employee to assume responsibility for the safety of an event were inconsistent with Stier, Schneider, Kampf, Haines and G This study found that most respondents (95%) indicated that they designated someone as being responsible for event safety ; the results of the Stier et al. (2008) study found the opposite to be true These stand ards are not compiled in to one resource for professionals to access. This may be one reason wh y there are inconsistencies in standards and recommendations are being followed. One reason why the standard of practicing the EAP annually is not followed by a majority of administr ators may be that these events usually occur once per year. Perhaps the administrators believe that the EAP does not need to be practiced since it is an annual event but should be evaluated annually The evaluation annually standard was more widely practic ed. Silvers (2004) states that some of the greatest obstacles to creating a successful risk management plan include habit, inertia and ignorance. This may be another reason why there is a lack of uniformity in the standards being followed. Perceptions of R isk According to a review of pe rceptions in regards to emergency action plans. According to Leopkey and Parent (2009), stakeholders in their study found operational risks as the most important a rea for risk management. This study did not measure those types of risks and so the findings were not comparable. However, this research showed that there were risks that were described as somewhat to highly likely to occur and yet they were not identifie d in the EAP. There is a discrepancy

PAGE 41

41 between perceptions and actions. The existence of a specific risk within an emergency action plan was not necessarily in line with the perception of that ri sk. The risk with the largest discrepancy between perception an d existence was medical emergency. Of those, 94% viewed this as a risk that was somewhat to very likely to occur and only 25 % had a plan for it. There are many possibilities as to why park administrators believe that risks are likely to occur and yet do no t address them in an EAP or do not have an EAP at all. Lack of education and lack of authority or departmental support are two possible reasons. Administrators may not know how to write an EAP, what should be in the EAP or have the authority to create or c hange an EAP. It is also possible that the location of the respondents influenced the responses for perception. Respondents could be referring to an event in general terms or to t heir specific events and their locations. Recommendations for Practitioners Based on the results of this study, less than half (47%) of large outdoor events have an emergency action plan. The literature clearly states that all events should incorporate an EAP. It is recommended that event managers and professionals create an EAP or review a current EAP. Based on the study, the major areas where professionals indicated that they did not follow recommendations and standards were practice of the EAP and lightning safety. It is recommended that event managers or those responsible for events evaluate possible risks associated with a specific event. Based on the results, the risks with the highest perception of likelihood to occur yet were not addressed specifically in the emergency action plan were extreme heat ( Table 3 22) lightning s trike ( Table 3 18) and medical emergency ( Table 3 25) These are some of the most common risks to outdoor events and should be addressed in an emergency action plan ( Hronek, Spengler & Baker, 2007 ; Wood, Beaumont, May & Dargan, 2010 ).

PAGE 42

42 The researcher recommends education on EAPs for park administrators. Administrators should be able to identify and evaluate potential risks, create a plan and follow up on the EAP correctly. Recommendations for Future Research This research contributed to the literature in numerous ways. The study examined the role contributed to the existing body of knowledge in that the results corroborated those of previous research in sport manage ment but also built upon an absence of research in event management. The research results delineated in this thesis can be utilized as a foundation to expand and continue the research on event risk management in general and specifically in the field of em ergency action planning in outdoor events. Additionally, administrators and practitioners can use the results of this study to evaluate their own emergency action plans. It is recommended that this research can be further refined, refreshed and the duplica ted in management plays in event management. The population could be refined to include strictly event managers (as opposed to park administrators) which may have a different result. The researcher recommends surveying event managers not associated with park districts to determine if the recommendations are followed more closely in that population. Additionally, more specific risks may be addressed as identified in t he literature. It is recommended that other events, as opposed to large outdoor events, are also studied. Smaller events, events that occur on a regular basis and indoor events should be studied. This survey did not have the capabilities to compare percept ions of risks by state. It is recommended that a state by state analysis be done to assess if location is a determin ing factor when producing an emergency action plan

PAGE 43

4 3 APPENDIX A SURVEY INSTRUMENT Thank you for taking the time to participate in this survey. By completing this survey, you are aiding in collecting data for my thesis project and in turn helping me finish my Masters degree. The results of the study will help park administrators and city planners identify ways to make their parks and events safer. If you should have any questions, or would like the results of the study, information on how to contact me can be found below. Thank you again. The following questions pertain to writing and im plementing an emergency action plan for an outdoor event. The survey is anonymous; no identifying information will be collected. Your participation is completely voluntary. You do not have to answer questions that you do not wish to answer. There are no an ticipated risks associated with this study. For questions about this survey, you may contact Becca Gelwicks, Masters Candidate, Dr. J .O. Spengler, Committee Member or Dr. Robert Beland, Committee Chair and for questions about your rights as a research part icipant, you may contact the IRB02 Office, Box 112250, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611 2250; phone (352) 392 0433. 1 What is your current job title? Check all that apply. Event Manager Park Manager Risk Manager Other ____________________ 2 In what state are you located? ______________ 3 What is the size of the community that your events serve? Small Town/Rural Area (Fewer than 20,000 residents) Mid Size City (20,000 99,999 residents) Large City (100,000 or more residents)

PAGE 44

44 4 Which of th e following outdoor events do you or your agency manage? Check all that apply. (The event does not need to take place on park property). Music/Art Festival Fair or Carnival Sporting Event Other ____________________ None 5 Which of the following events have 2,000 or more attendees? Check only those that apply. Music/Art Festival Fair or Carnival None 6 Do you have a written comprehensive emergency action plan for your large event(s) (greater than 2,000 attendees)? Yes No 7 Does your large event (greater than 2,000 attendees) have a person designated as being responsible for event safety? Yes No 8 When is that person responsible for event safety? (Check all that apply) Before the event During the event After the event 9 For which of the following do you have a written emergency action plan? Check all that apply. Lightning Strike Terrorist Attack Stage Collapse Extreme Weather Extreme Heat Extreme Cold S tampede or Other Crowd Issue Medical Emergency Intoxicated Pat ron(s) Drug Use/Overdose Other ____________________ We have a generic emergency action plan that does not specifically address any of the above

PAGE 45

45 10 Is the emergency action plan communicated and available to all employees? Yes No 11 How often is the emergency action plan practiced? Never Less than Once per Year Once per Year Twice per Year More than Two Times per Year 12 How often is the emergency action plan evaluated? Never Less than Once per Year Once per Year Twice per Yea r More than Twice per Year 13 Are all incidents involving injury to attendees documented in writing? Yes No 14 In your opinion, what is the likelihood of the following risks occurring during a large outdoor event? Very Likely Likely Somewhat Likely Undecided Somewhat Unlikely Unlikely Very Unlikely Lightning Strike Terrorist Threat/Attack Structure Collapse Severe Weather Extreme Heat Extreme Cold Stampede or Other Crowd Issue Medical Emergency Intoxicated

PAGE 46

46 Patron(s) Drug Use/Overdose 15 Do you have any other comments pertaining to the creating, writing or implementation of your emergency action plans?

PAGE 47

47 APPENDIX B V ERBATIM RESPONSES TO OPEN ENDED QUESTIONS 15. Do you have any other comments pertaining to the creating, writing or implementation of your emergency action plans? Answer Frequency Valid Percent No 8 15. 68 No, thank you None Not at this time None, our police department is at all of our events and they guide us where necessary Coordination with all entities, police, fire, ems, gang unit, is essential when developing an emergency action plan Our event is a triathlon. We our most concerned about participant safety in the ocean and on the r oad. Our EAP simply puts the resources in place including trained personnel be ready for responce (sic). We worked with other city departments such as police, fire, risk management to put this together. It is reviewed and updated after each event and pract ice. The City of Muscatine requires the event host of sponsoring group to be responsible for disaster management. The City does have a plan but issues like lightning strikes are exclusively the responsibility of the group to administer. The plan is availab le and reviewed prior to each event in the way of a required pre event 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.96 3.92 1.96 1.96 1.96 1.96 1.96 1.96 1.96

PAGE 48

48 meeting with all involved. Each emergench (sic) action plan for our events is discussed as part of event planning since most of our events are at different locations with different part icipants and spectators Plan for everything! Drills are staff, volunteers etc. aware of what is expected of them. Our fire department heads up the planning efforts. We supply a safety plan for our events and require outside users to supply one to the FD, too. We coordinate our emergency operations for large scale disasters with our county EOP. We have a special events committee which is headed by the parks and recreation department. The special events supervisor works with police, fire, emergency operations, health, risk management, etc. on each event whether it is City produced or being produced independently (most likely 5k/10k runs). We have a couple of large events each year that attract 20,000+ per day and those have their own emergency action plans specific to their needs. For instance, one is a Balloon Festival and fire is a higher concern at this event than at a music festival. When events take place where we anticipate likely 1 1 1 1 1.96 1.96 1.96 1.96

PAGE 49

49 emergencies, we hire police and/or ambulance to b e onsite to handle the emergencies. We involved the Fire and Police Department in the planning of our events. We follow the Major Incident Management System for establishing our protocol. We have very extensive coordination with Fire and PD when establishi ng park permit conditions, putting into place specific requirements related to emergency response, exits, required training/certifications of designated personnel (i.e., emergency response, alcohol security). Any constructed structures must be approved by building inspector. Our City has general emergency operations in place that are applicable for any type of public event. Combine with EMS personnel!! Most of the emergency plans are developed using the FEMA NIMS training that our staff has participated in and received certification. We are currently writing a comprehensive emergency action plan for all events with our city. The department has weather radios that monitor the weather conditions as well as storm sirens. I would like to see examples 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.96 1.96 1.96 1.96 1.96 1.96 1.96

PAGE 50

50 of an emerg ency action plan from other departments We have emergency plans for each event, this helps staff feel more comfortable knowing what to do in the event of an emergency. Sounds good...would like a copy of reports.. Thank you We have never thought about it. In the last ten years we have had no incidents. Most events are in the form of facility rentals of public facilities. Renter is responsible to comply with all state and federal laws as well as carry event insurance with a rider naming the City/County as ad ditionally insured. Our Public Works Department is resposable (sic) for the safety of all structors (sic), Fire Department for evacuations during an event and medical emergency (sic) and Police Department for intoxication or disorderly conduct in any form. Public Works, Fire Department and Police Department work together to ensure the safety of all when we have events of any size going on. We work with our Police Department. They actually write it for us and share with the fire Department. We all meet befor e our event to review the plan. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.96 1.96 1.96 1.96 1.96 1.96 1.96 1.96

PAGE 51

51 We have a risk manager to train volunteers at each event. My city has an Emergency Action Plan in place. Most of our larger events take place on public school grounds. The police handle our action plan. We work with Fire and Police on a regular basis to upgrade and discuss plan. The Police Department Emergency Operations Center is currently addressing this item for inclusion in the City Emergency Action Plan. Everyone up and down the chain of command must be involved includin g auxiliary/support services such as police and fire. In order for a plan to work, I believe it is imperative that several table top exercises need to occur to adequately plan for an event. Telephone trees are also very important. Fluid document ever chang ing. Should check with your Local Emergency Response folks and see what is already in place... Many times their plan will over rule yours as it should once your supervisor/monitor/ safety rep for the day begins notification process. After someone has been notified the monitor/supervisor/ safety rep may or may not have a specific functions 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.96 1.96 1.96 1.96 1.96 1.96 1.96 1.96 1.96

PAGE 52

52 (sic) after initiation except to assit (sic) whomever is coming to expedite the plan. If simple and 911 call can solve they will handle completely if major or massive role tehn (sic) command post/ director/ significant other will assume role of authority. Just work with your local fire and police departments Emergency evacuation and EMS notification is in place The plan is the work of the Emergency Operations Director Polic e Dept, Fire Dept, EMS and Park Director and staff and the promoter of the event Most action plans are handled by Police with our input before each event. We are CAPRA nationally accredited and follow all their standards 1 1 1 1 1 1.96 1.96 1.96 1.96 1.96 Total 51 100.0

PAGE 53

53 APPENDIX C IRB CLEARANCE

PAGE 54

54 LIST OF REFERENCES Abbott, J. L., & Geddie, M. W. (2001). Event and venue management: Minimizing liability through effective crowd management techniques. Event Management, 6 259 270. Anderson, J. C., Courson, R. W., Kleiner, D. M., & McLoda, T. A. (2002). National Athletic Trainers' Association position statement: Emergency planning in athletics. Journal of Athletic Training, 37 (1), 99 104. Balady et al. (1998). AHA/ACSM scientific statement: Recommendations for cardiovascular screening, staffing and emergency policies. doi: 10.1161/01.CIR.97.22.2283 Chang, P. C., & Singh, K. K. (1990). Risk management for mega events: The 1988 Olympic winter games. Tourism Management, 11 (1), 45 52. doi:10.1016/0261 5177(90)90007 V Connaughton, D. P., DeMichele, D., Horodyski, M. B., & D annecker, E. A. (2002). An analysis of OSHA compliance and selected risk management practices of NIRSA fitness directors. Recreational Sports Journal, 26 (1), 7 18. Derrett, R. (2004). Festivals, events and the destination. In I. Yeoman, M. Robertson, J. A li Knight, S. Drummond & U. McMahon Beattie (Eds.), Festival and events management: An international arts and cultural perspective (pp. 32 50). Burlington, MA: Elsevier Butterworth Heinemann. Fink, S. (1986). Crisis management: Planning for the inevitable New York: Amacom. Gerber, S. (2004). Planning for emergencies : Thunderstorms can turn in to rainbows if proper planning is taken Parks & Recreation, 39 (1), 52 55. Retrieved from https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=s3h&AN=12000403&site=ehost live Getz, D. (1989). Special events: Defining the product. Tourism Management, 10 (2), 125 137. doi:10.1016/0261 5177(89)90053 8 Ge tz, D. (2002). Why festivals fail [Abstract]. Event Management, 7 (4) 209 219. Getz, D. (2007). Event studies: Theory, research and policy for planned events. Burlington, MA: Butterworth Heinemann. Getz, D. (2008). Event tourism: Definition, evolution, an d research. Tourism Management, 29 (3), 403 428. doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2007.07.017 Getz, D. (2010). The nature and scope of festival studies. International Journal of Event Management Research, 5 (1), 1 47. Getz, D., & Frisby, W. (1988). Evaluating managem ent effectiveness in community run festivals. Journal of Travel Research, 27 (1), 22 27. doi:10.1177/004728758802700105

PAGE 55

55 Gigliotti, R., & Jason, R. (1991). Emergency planning for maximum protection Stoneham, MA: Butterworth Heinemann. Goldblatt, J. J. (19 97). Special event : Best practices in modern event management (2nd ed.). New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. Hronek, B. B., Spengler, J. O., & Baker, T. A. (2007). Legal liability in recreation, sports, and tourism (3rd ed.). Champaign, IL: Sagamore. Johnso n, N. R. (1987). Panic at "The Who concert stampede": An empirical assessment. Social Problems, 34 (4), 362 373. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/800813 Laybourn, P. (2004). Risk and decision making in events management. In I. Yeoman, M. Robertson, J. Ali Knight, S. Drummond & U. McMahon Beattie (Eds.), Festival and events management: An international arts and culture perspective (pp. 286 307). Burlington, MA: Elsevier Butterworth Hein emann. Leopkey, B., & Parent, M. M. (2009). Risk management issues in large scale sporting events: A stakeholder perspective. European Sport Management Quarterly, 9 (2), 187 208. doi: 10.1080/16184740802571443 Mitroff, I. I., Shrivastava, P., & Udwadia, F. E. (1987). Effective crisis management. The Academy of Management Executive, 1 (4), 283 292. Mulrooney, A., Styles, A., & Green, E. (2002). Risk management practices at higher educational sport and recreation centers. Recreational Sports Journal, 26 (2), 4 1 49. National Research Council. (2009). Science and decisions: Advancing risk assessment Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press. Occupational Safety and Health Administration §1910.38, (2002). Occupational Safety and Health Administration §1910.38b, (2002). Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency, Bureau of Plans. (n.d.). Special event emergency action plan guide. Retrieved from http://www.scema.org/documents/planning/SpecialEventEmergencyActionPlanGuide.pdf Prosser, A., & Rutledge, A. (2003). Special events and festivals: How to plan, organize, and implement State College, PA: Venture Pub. Revised Code of Washington, ex.s. c 3 02 § 21 (1971). Schachner, M. (1994, May 2). Special events require planning, experts say; Don't overlook any details. Business Insurance, 29. Shone, A., & Parry, B. (2004). Successful event management: A practical handbook (2nd ed.). London: Thomson.

PAGE 56

56 S ilvers, J. R. (2004). Professional event coordination [electronic version] Hoboken, N.J: Wiley. Retrieved from http://www.netLibrary.com/urlapi.asp?action=su mmary&v=1&bookid=104142 Spengler, J. O., Anderson, P. M., Connaughton, D. P., & Baker, T. A. (2009). Introduction to sport law Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Spengler, J. O., Connaughton, D. P., & Earnshaw, J. (2002). Perspectives on lightning safety ri sk management in sport and recreational activities World Leisure Journal, 44 (4), 22 29. Spengler et al. (2012). Unpublished raw data. Stier, W. F., Schneider, R. C., Kampf, S., Haines, S., & Gaskins, B. (2008). Selected risk managements policies, practic es, and procedures for intramural activities at NIRSA institutions. Recreational Sports Journal, 32 (1), 28 44. Tarlow, P. E. (2002). Event risk management and safety New York: Wiley. Tingler, R. A. (1989). The festival success guide: How to plan or impr ove your festival or special event. Toohey, K., & Taylor, T. (2008). Mega events, fear, and risk: Terrorism at the Olympic games. Journal of Sport Management, 22 (4), 451 469. Retrieved from https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=s3h&AN=33194964&site=ehost live Wadde l l, R. (2011, August 27). Disaster at the fair. Billboard 5. Wood, D. M., Beaumont, P. O., May, D., & Dargan, P. I. (2010). Recreational drug use presentations during a large outdoor music festival event: Reduction in hospital emergency department transfer where medical physicians are present. Journal of Substance Use, 15 (6), 434 441. doi:10.3109/14659891003762988

PAGE 57

57 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Rebecca Gelwicks was born in Boynton Beach, Florida. The youngest of three children, she grew up mostly in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, graduating from Pine Crest School in 200 7. In 2011, she graduated cum laude from the University of Florida with a B.S. in Recreation, Parks and Tourism with an event management specialization. Becca has worked as an event planner for such companies as Sunfest Music Festival, the University of Florida and the Sea Turtle Conservancy. Upon completion of her M.S. she will continue to work as a professional in the event management industry. Her career interests include large scale music and sporting events. Her res earch interests include event management and risk management in events.