economy discussion +reply
Risk is ever-present and constantly in effect, thus quantification of risk is fundamental to any decision-making process. No choice can be properly made without consideration of risk, or lack thereof, as it drives our rational decision-making whether we realize it or not. Some risks are absolutely necessary to be taken for one to exist and succeed, such that doing otherwise would be explicitly irrational. Some risks, on the other hand, aren't so essential, and -- in some cases -- are generally unadvisable. Mine is one such risk, as for this assignment, I've decided to discuss snowboarding: a wonderful hobby accompanied by an abundance of not-so-wonderful risks. In this short paper, I'll discuss what risks are at play, why/how I quantify risk, and potential strategies for mitigating these risks to bolster a long, fruitful career of winter-sporting.
Snowboarding is an intrinsically dangerous sport; there is no situation where falling down a mountain on a piece of laminated driftwood is entirely safe. However, there are several factors that may increase or decrease the risk taken in doing so, namely quality of equipment, level of ability, and terrain status. The first of these is perhaps the most obvious: having worn, damaged, or poorly-made equipment is an idiosyncratic risk that may lead to serious injury. Equipment failure is often sudden and irredeemable, thus it's essential that one develops strategies for quantifying and mitigating the risk of gear breaking, even if through somewhat vague calculations. For instance, the probability that a 3-year-old binding strap breaks is unclear; however, it's reasonable to assume that overtime, the strap will become less reliable, thus the probability of the strap failing approaches 1 as the age of that strap approaches it's average "lifespan". Moreover, proper treatment and storage of equipment will maximize its average "lifespan", effectively reducing the risk that it breaks at any given moment. Of course, one could frequently buy new, quality equipment to practically negate risk of failure, but the impracticality of this solution only emphasizes the need for proper quantification and consideration of risk.
The next two factors, level of ability and terrain status, are more effectively examined as a pair (more accurately a ratio) than as individual factors. One key difference between them, however, is that level of ability pertains to an idiosyncratic risk while terrain status can represent either type of risk. For instance, blizzard conditions affect everybody systematically, restricting visibility and making snowboarding exponentially more difficult/dangerous. Alternatively, choosing steeper or rougher terrain is an idiosyncratic risk, as one could just as easily take a safer route and avoid substantial risk to injury. To combat risks brought about by poor or severe terrain, one must have a level of ability that is sufficiently competent, therefore determining one's competence-to-terrain ratio is crucial for deciding what rout to take. In this way, risk is quantified in negative proportion to the strength of this ratio; i.e. the more skilled a person relative to their terrain (as well as the safer the terrain is relative to their skill), the less risk is incurred. Snowboarding lessons, proper route planning, and weather preparation are all examples of how to bolster this ratio and significantly mitigate risk on the mountain.
Naturally, with all this discussion of risk and impending injury, one might wonder why such an activity is appealing -- certainly this is a risk-taking venture, and for what gain? Simply put, snowboarding is immensely fun and rewarding, due largely in-part to the risks and dangers themselves. The ability to overcome something as formidable and intimidating as the mountain-side itself is as thrilling as it is satisfying, causing many to weigh the benefits more heavily than the risks they accompany. While an argument could be made that snowboarding should be evaluated using value at risk, few do, as snowboarders are generally more concerned with more common, more minor injuries such as light concussions or various joint-tweaks; they typically use the standard deviation approach to risk evaluation as a result. Unfortunately, it's doubtful that any hedging or spreading techniques would be effective in reducing snowboarding risk, as it's plausible that a greater variety in trails/mountains used would lead to a higher risk of injury. In this case, the snowboarder would more often be unfamiliar with their route, and thus more likely to make a critical mistake.
Ultimately, while it's certainly possible to minimize risk, snowboarding will never be risk-free. In quantifying and properly weighing risk, one can more accurately decide what course of action is most appropriate, as well as trim down gratuitous risks such as faulty equipment and over-zealous route selection. Below I've linked an article further describing the risks and rewards that snowboarding has to offer, in hopes that by means of education and awareness, fewer snowboarders will injure themselves and will instead enjoy this wonderful sport.
Article: "Skiing and Snowboarding: Risks—But Many Rewards": https://www.takethemagicstep.com/training-exercise/families/skiing-and-snowboardin g-risk-and-many-rewards/