Advertisement

Natural Hazards

, Volume 68, Issue 2, pp 1041–1056 | Cite as

Ability of beach users to identify rip currents at Pensacola Beach, Florida

  • Nicole Caldwell
  • Chris Houser
  • Klaus Meyer-Arendt
Original Paper

Abstract

Quasi-permanent rip current hot spots at Pensacola Beach, Florida, pose a significant hazard to beach users, largely because the hot spots are located at or close to the primary access points. While an increase in the number of lifeguards has led to a decrease in the number of drownings since 2004, the number of rescues and contacts has increased to over a 30,000 year. Despite warning signs at access points along the beach, it is not clear whether beach users are able to identify a rip channel or an active rip current. To assess beach users’ knowledge of rip currents and their ability to identify rip channels and currents, 97 surveys were conducted between June and September of 2010 at Pensacola Beach. Beach users were asked to identify rip channels in oblique photographs taken on green, yellow and red flag days when the potential for rip currents is low, medium and high, respectively. A majority of participants suggested that they could identify a rip channel or current (if present), but less than 20 % of beach users were able to identify the rip channels and currents. The majority of participants identified heavy surf areas as the location of the rips versus the relatively flat water of the current or the darker color water of the channel. Results further suggest that most beach users, and particularly local participants, are overconfident in their ability to identify rip channels and currents. The focus of beach users on heavy surf as an indication of the rip current potential and the overconfidence in identifying a rip channel or current affects the spatial distribution of beach users and to some degree the location of rescues and drownings. While it can be quite difficult for the average beach user to identify rip channels and active rip currents, the results of the study suggest a need for further education efforts to reduce the rip hazard, particularly in areas where lifeguards are not permanently stationed.

Keywords

Risk Beach user Rip current 

References

  1. Barrett G, Houser C (2012) Identifying hotspots of rip current activity using wavelet analysis at Pensacola Beach, Florida. Phys Geogr 33(1):32–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Branche CM, Stewart S (eds) (2001) Lifeguard effectiveness: a report of the working group. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Atlanta, GA, 35 pGoogle Scholar
  3. Drozdzewski D, Shaw W, Dominey-Howes D, Brander R, Walton T, Gero A, Sherker S, Goff J, Edwick B (2012) Surveying rip current survivors: preliminary insights into the experiences of being caught in rip currents. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 12:1201–1211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Gensini V, Ashley WS (2010) An examination of rip current fatalities in the United States. Nat Hazards 54:159–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Hatfield J, Williamson A, Sherker S, Brander R, Hayen A (2012) Development and evaluation of an intervention to reduce rip current related beach drowning. Accid Anal Prev 46:45–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Houser C, Hapke C, Hamilton S (2008) Controls on coastal dune morphology, shoreline erosion and barrier island response to extreme storms. Geomorphology 100:223–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Houser C, Barrett G, Labude D (2011a) Alongshore variation in the rip current hazard at Pensacola Beach, Florida. Nat Hazards. doi: 10.1007/s11069-010-9636-0
  8. Houser C, Caldwell N, Meyer-Arendt KJ (2011b) Rip current hazards at Pensacola Beach, Florida. In: Leatherman S, Fletemeyer J (eds) Rip currents: beach safety, physical oceanography, and wave modeling, chap 11. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp 175-197Google Scholar
  9. Livingston G, Arthur K (2002) The economic impact of Pensacola Beach. Unpublished report, Haas Center for Business Research and Economic Development, University of West Florida, Pensacola, FLGoogle Scholar
  10. MacMahan JH, Thornton EB, Reniers AJHM (2006) Rip current review. Coast Eng 53(2):191–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Rip Currents: University of Delaware Sea Grant College Program. http://www.ceoe.udel.edu/ripcurrents/Partnerships/index.html. Accessed 22 Oct 2010
  12. Santa Rosa Island Authority (2010) http://www.sria-fla.com. Accessed 22 Oct 2010
  13. Sherker S, Brander RW, Finch C, Hatfield J (2008) Why Australia nees an effective national campaign to reduce coastal drowning. J Sports Sci Med 11:81–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Sherker S, Williamson A, Hatfield J, Brander R, Hayen A (2010) Beachgoers’ beliefs and behaviours in relation to beach flags and rip currents. Accid Anal Prev 42(6):1785–1804CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Short AD (1985) Rip current type, spacing and persistence, Narrabeen beach, Australia. Mar Geol 65:47–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Short AD, Hogan CL (1994) Rip currents and beach hazards: their impact on public safety and implications for coastal management. J Coast Res SI12:197–209Google Scholar
  17. Surf Life Saving Australia (2009) National Coastal Safety Report. 24 pGoogle Scholar
  18. Williamson A, Hatfield J, Sherker S, Brander R, Hayen A (2012) A comparison of attitudes and knowledge of beach safety for Australian beachgoers, rural residents and international tourists. Aust N Z J Public Health 36(4):385–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nicole Caldwell
    • 1
  • Chris Houser
    • 2
  • Klaus Meyer-Arendt
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Environmental StudiesUniversity of West FloridaPensacolaUSA
  2. 2.Department of GeographyTexas A&M UniversityCollege StationUSA

Personalised recommendations