4.2 Article Proceedings Paper

Analysis of Rip Current Incidents and Victim Demographics in the UK

Journal

JOURNAL OF COASTAL RESEARCH
Volume -, Issue -, Pages 850-855

Publisher

COASTAL EDUCATION & RESEARCH FOUNDATION
DOI: 10.2112/SI65-144.1

Keywords

Beach Safety; Rip Current Awareness; Risk Perception; Public Education

Funding

  1. NERC [NE/H004262/1] Funding Source: UKRI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Rip currents are responsible for 67% of all individuals rescued by lifeguards on UK beaches, representing the greatest environmental risk to water users. There are currently no measures of human awareness of rip currents in the UK, and the worldwide research on human behavioural aspects surrounding rip currents is a small emerging research area. In the last few years the physical understanding of rip current behaviour has been much improved by studies using GPS floats. The aim of this study is to discover the key demographic characteristics of beach users caught in rip currents and the spatiotemporal variation in the UK by analysing the Royal National Lifeboat Institutions lifeguard rip current incident data for 2006 to 2011. The results show male teenagers (aged 13-17 years) are the most likely demographic to be involved in a rip incident., In addition, people bodyboarding, and people in non-patrolled areas of the beach are at higher risk. Rip incidents are most common on the popular Atlantic-facing beaches of north Devon and Cornwall where low-tide bar-rip morphology enhances rip current activity, presenting a major hazard to beach users. This study presents a significant insight into rip victim demographics, identifying key target audiences for future awareness campaigns and rip education schemes. It also provides a benchmark for further research into the investigation of why specific demographics are getting caught in rips by understanding the behaviour of these groups.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available