6,038
Views
5
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Introduction

Ergonomics issues in sport and outdoor recreation

Pages 299-305 | Received 22 Feb 2017, Accepted 23 Feb 2017, Published online: 09 May 2017

Introduction

Sport and outdoor recreation represent integral components of the population's everyday physical and mental health and well-being. Whilst this relates primarily to participation in physical activity (with regular moderate intensity physical activity reducing the risk of cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, cancers, and depression; World Health Organisation (WHO) Citation2006), sport and outdoor recreation also provide important developmental, economic and social benefits. Given their importance to society generally, it is perhaps unsurprising that the discipline of ergonomics is receiving increasing attention as a mechanism for understanding and optimising sport and outdoor recreation systems.

The role of ergonomics in optimising sports performance has long been recognised (Reilly and Ussher Citation1988). Initial applications began to emerge in the 1980s and these have grown into a significant body of sports ergonomics research covering a diverse set of issues across different sports. This body of work can broadly be decomposed into sports physical ergonomics, sports cognitive ergonomics and sports systems ergonomics research. Physical ergonomics research has examined issues ranging from sports equipment and clothing design (Lake Citation2000; McGhee et al. Citation2013; Reilly and Lees Citation1984) to sports injury (Theberge Citation2012), and biomechanics (Lees et al. Citation2000). Cognitive ergonomics research has focused on various cognitive issues associated with individuals and teams, ranging from decision-making (Macquet and Fleurance Citation2007) and cognition (McNeese et al. Citation2015) to situation awareness (Macquet and Stanton Citation2014; Neville and Salmon Citation2016), teamwork (Salmon, Clacy, and Dallat Citation2017a) and coaching (Macquet, Ferrand, and Stanton Citation2015). More recently, systems ergonomics applications have begun to explore wider sports systems issues such as performance analysis (Mclean et al., Citationforthcoming), injury causation and prevention (Clacy et al., Citationforthcoming) and spectators and crowds (Filingeri et al. Citation2017; Sun, May, and Wang Citation2016).

Alongside this significant body of sports research sits a burgeoning set of ergonomics applications focused on outdoor recreation and adventure tourism. Whilst these applications have emerged more recently, they are already expanding to cover a diverse set of ergonomics issues. Initial applications focused primarily on injury (Bentley, Page, and Macky Citation2007) and accident analysis and prevention (Salmon et al. Citation2010); however, in recent times the focus has expanded to activity leader improvisation (Trotter, Salmon, and Lenne Citation2013), the design and evaluation of ergonomic methods (Goode et al. Citation2016), risk assessment (Dallat, Goode, and Salmon Citation2015) and regulatory frameworks (Carden et al., Citationforthcoming).

It is clear then that ergonomics research and practice is playing an increasing role in the design of sport and outdoor recreation systems, the optimisation of athlete and team performance and the prevention of sports and outdoor recreation injuries. This is perhaps not surprising, given the changing nature and demands of sport and outdoor recreation systems. As they are become more complex, more technology centric, and in the case of sport, more competitive, the requirement for ergonomics research and practice is being emphasised. On top of this, there is a growing recognition that the problems faced in sport and outdoor recreation settings are similar in nature to those being tackled in more traditional ergonomics application areas such as defence, process control and transportation. As a result, researchers and practitioners are recognising the benefits of applying ergonomics theory and methods, developed in other areas, in the sports and outdoor recreation context (e.g. Kermarrec and Bossard Citation2014; Macquet and Stanton Citation2014; Salmon et al. Citation2017b). Similarly, various ergonomics methods are progressively being applied to understand and optimise training, tactics, injury prevention and regulation (e.g. Carden et al., Citationforthcoming; Clacy et al., Citationforthcoming). In turn, the potential to inform safety critical system design and the development of ergonomics theory and methods through sport and outdoor recreation research and practice is being realised (e.g. Neville et al. Citation2017).

The aims of this thematic issue are to provide a platform for communicating contemporary sport and outdoor recreation ergonomics research, to showcase some of the key issues being tackled and to inspire the ergonomics community to pursue further applications in sport and outdoor recreation. It also provides an opportunity to reflect on our disciplines contribution and potential role in future sports and outdoor recreation research and practice. The five articles included in the thematic issue each describe contemporary ergonomics research applications in either sport or outdoor recreation. An overview of each article is provided below following which the key take-home messages from the thematic issue are articulated.

The thematic issue opens with an important contribution from Carden, Goode and Salmon (Not as simple as it looks) who examine whether outdoor recreation systems are complex and sociotechnical in nature. This represents an important line of inquiry, as there has been debate as to whether sport and outdoor recreation systems are indeed complex in nature and thus suited to systems ergonomics applications. Carden et al. focus on the domain of Led outdoor activities, which they define as facilitated or instructed activities within outdoor education and recreation settings (Salmon et al. Citation2010) and use the example of a three-day trek to explore whether led outdoor activities display the characteristics of complex sociotechnical systems. This is achieved through examining whether core characteristics from sociotechnical systems theory (Trist Citation1981) and complexity theory (Cilliers Citation1998) are present in a typical led outdoor activity: a three-day trek. With regard to complexity, Carden et al. identify various features of the trek that map to Cilliers tenets, including multiple components, dynamic and non-linear interactions, constant energy flow, path dependence, an ignorance of components and the general open nature of the three-day trek system. With regard to sociotechnical systems theory, Carden et al. identify core sociotechnical systems characteristics such as joint optimisation, vertical integration, minimal critical specification, flexibility and the control of problems at their source. Based on the case study, Carden et al. conclude that even relatively simplistic LOA systems are likely to be complex and sociotechnical in nature. The close by arguing that systems ergonomics applications are not only warranted but that they are imperative for safety and efficiency gains to be realised.

Hulme, Salmon, Nielsen, Read and Finch (Closing Pandora's box) focus specifically on the growing burden of running related injury, arguing that there is a pressing need for new research to better understand its contributory factors and to inform development of more holistic prevention strategies. Hulme et al. give an in-depth overview of the traditional epidemiological approach to running related injury, following which they outline systems ergonomics as a useful and complimentary framework for examining the systemic contributory factors of running related injury. To demonstrate they present a Systems Theoretic Accident Model and Processes (STAMP; Leveson Citation2004) control structure analysis of the Australian recreational distance running system. The control structure describes the Australian recreational distance running system as comprising six hierarchical levels, each with multiple actors and organisations, and a series of control and feedback relationships. As such, Hulme et al. argue that analyses such as the STAMP model hold the key to identifying the range of systemic contributory factors involved in running related injury (i.e. control failures or failures in feedback) and to developing more effective and holistic prevention strategies. Hulme et al. close by calling for a parallel epidemiological and systems ergonomics approach to running injury prevention as well as further sports applications and research to examine and validate the STAMP model presented.

The development and testing of new methodologies to support sports ergonomics research and practice represents a critical area. Gray, Sekendiz, Norton and Finch (A comprehensive, validated observational audit tool for use in Australian fitness facilities) describe the evaluation of a new Observational Audit Tool (OAT) that was developed specifically for the assessment of fitness facilities. The evaluation study was undertaken to test the OAT and its inter-rater reliability. This involved using the OAT to assess 10 Victorian fitness facilities followed by 22 metropolitan and regional facilities in Victoria. Gray et al. report that the findings show a high level of inter-rater reliability for the tool. In addition, the assessment identified a number of key issues, including that the facilities tended to be colder and darker than specified in standards and guidelines, that equipment was found to be lying on floors in over half of the facilities assessed, and that only just over half of the facilities enforced towel use. Gray et al. discuss the practical implications of the findings, arguing that there is more work to be done in order to reduce injury risk at fitness facilities.

The relationship between performance in training versus real-world scenarios has long been an important area of ergonomics research. Sanli, Slauenwhite and Carnahan (The relationship between error production when performing motor skills in high and low stakes situations) argue that the assessment of performance error and motor skills has been limited due to a prevailing focus on controlled practice settings (as opposed to real in-game scenarios). Further, they question the transfer of knowledge on error production derived from the assessment of low-stakes scenarios to higher-stakes game play. In response to this, Sanli et al. describe a study that was undertaken in order to investigate the relationship between the errors produced during volleyball practice drills (scrimmages) and high stake in-game scenarios. The study involved the coding of errors (type and frequency) during practice and gameplay videos of both men's and women's varsity volleyball teams and a subsequent ranking of players into three skills levels (high, medium and low). Based on an analysis of 130 errors, the results showed that the players who achieved high error scores during practice were more likely to produce high errors scores in gameplay, regardless of skill level, position or gender. Sanli et al. discuss the theoretical and practical implications and highlight the potential to inform other skills-learning and performance contexts including healthcare, road safety and defence.

The methodologies used by ergonomists to understand behaviour in safety critical systems are increasingly being applied in sport and outdoor recreation (e.g. Clacy et al., Citationforthcoming; Salmon et al. Citation2017a,Citationb). McLean, Salmon, Gorman, Naughton and Soloman (Continental drift) describe an exploratory study in which social network analysis was used to examine differences in the passing sequences leading to goals scored by international football teams competing in the knock-out stages of the 2016 European football championships (EURO) and COPA America football championships (COPA). Whilst the primary aim was to test social network analysis as a method for analysing the passing networks leading to goals, the study also aimed to test the long held belief that there are significant differences between the playing styles of European and South and North American national teams (e.g. the Dutch total football, Spanish tiki-taka and German disciplined machine football styles versus the free flowing, open, flair and attack-focussed styles of Brazil, Columbia and Argentina). Mclean et al. focused on the goals scored by the quarter finalists in both tournaments (EURO = 19 goals, COPA = 20 goals). Each goal was transformed into a passing network comprising the players (nodes) and passing relationships (connections) within the sequence of passes occurring directly before the goal was scored. Mclean et al. then used various social network analysis metrics to analyse the passing networks in an attempt to identify differences between them. According to Mclean et al., the findings demonstrate that there were no significant differences between the EURO and COPA goal scoring networks, with the goals from both tournaments generally being created through small, loosely connected networks comprising few players. Mclean et al. discuss the practical implications of the findings along with further potential applications of social network analysis in football. In closing they conclude that social network analysis provides a useful approach for analysing goals. Further, they suggest that the method provides a useful approach for match analysis in any sport where interactions between team members are required.

Summary and key take-home messages

The contributions presented in this thematic issue confirm that sports ergonomics research remains highly relevant and showcases a range of contemporary application areas. The contributions cover led outdoor activity systems, recreational running injury, fitness facility auditing, errors and motor skills in practice and game scenarios, and the goals scored by international football teams. It is encouraging to see that the ergonomics discipline remains relevant in sport and outdoor recreation and also that the scope of applications appears to be increasing. A notable feature of the contributions is the increasing adoption of a systems ergonomics approach when attempting to understand and enhance sport and outdoor recreation systems (e.g. Carden et al., Citationforthcoming; Hulme et al., forthcoming). This reflects a wider trend across the ergonomics discipline whereby systems ergonomics is increasingly being used as a lens for system evaluation and design (Salmon et al. Citation2017c; Walker et al. Citation2017; Waterson, Le Coze, and Andersen Citation2017). Further systems ergonomics applications in sport and outdoor recreation are encouraged.

Each of the articles included in this thematic issue on ‘Ergonomics Issues in Sport and Outdoor Recreation’ provide important take-home messages for future sport and outdoor recreation research and practice. These include:

  • outdoor recreation systems display the characteristics of complex sociotechnical systems, which in turn warrants the application of systems ergonomics theory and methods;

  • systems ergonomics methods such as STAMP provide useful approaches for sport and outdoor recreation injury analysis and prevention. One key strength is that they can provide a rich description of the network of contributory factors across the overall sports or outdoor recreation system;

  • there is potential to apply different disciplinary perspectives in a complimentary manner to tackle key issues in sport and outdoor recreation. Integrating epidemiological and systems ergonomics approaches provides one example where the explanatory power around sports injury can potentially be enhanced;

  • whilst there is benefit in applying existing ergonomics methods in sport and outdoor recreation, there is also a requirement to develop new methods tailored to the specific context. The OAT provides such a tool for the auditing of fitness facilities;

  • further work is required to support effective risk management in fitness facilities;

  • players who make high numbers of errors during practice scenarios may be more likely to make more errors during gameplay;

  • social network analysis provides a useful approach for analysing the passing sequences that lead to goals being scored in football and indeed scoring in other sports; and

  • despite apparent differences in the general playing styles of European and North, Central and South American football teams, there was little difference between the passing sequences leading to goals scored the quarter finalists in the EURO 2016 and COPA 2016 international football championships.

In closing, it appears that the future is bright for ergonomics in sport and outdoor recreation. As both sport and outdoor recreation systems continue to become more complex, more technology driven, and, in the case of sports, more competitive, the role of applied ergonomics research and practice in sport and outdoor recreation system design and evaluation is likely to increase. The contributions to this thematic issue give an overview of contemporary research in this area; however, there are many other issues to tackle. Important contemporary issues that will benefit from ergonomics inquiry include doping, concussion, technology insertion, the utilisation of big data and corruption and racism in sport.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Additional information

Funding

Paul Salmon's contribution to this thematic issue was funded through his current Australian Research Council Future Fellowship [grant number FT140100681].

References

  • Bentley, T.A., S.J. Page, and K.A. Macky. 2007. “Adventure Tourism and Adventure Sports Injury: The New Zealand Experience.” Applied Ergonomics 38 (6): 791–796.
  • Carden, T., G. Read, N. Goode, and P.M. Salmon. Forthcoming. “Sociotechnical Systems as a Framework for Regulatory System Design and Evaluation: Using Work Domain Analysis to Examine a New Regulatory System.” Applied Ergonomics.
  • Cilliers, P. 1998. Complexity and Postmodernism: Understanding Complex Systems. London: Routledge.
  • Clacy, A., N. Goode, R. Sharman, G. Lovell, and P.M. Salmon. Forthcoming. “A Knock to the System: A New Sociotechnical Systems Approach to Sport-Related Concussion.” Journal of Sports Sciences 1–7.
  • Dallat, C., N. Goode, and P.M. Salmon. 2015. “All about the Teacher, the Rain and the Backpack… the Lack of a Systems Approach to Risk Assessment in School Outdoor Education Programs.” AHFE 2015 Conference Proceedings. Las Vegas; ISBN: 978-1-4951-6042-4.
  • Filingeri, V., K. Eason, P. Waterson, and R. Haslam. 2017. “Factors Influencing Experience in Crowds – The Participant Perspective.” Applied Ergonomics 59 (A): 431–441.
  • Goode, N., P.M. Salmon, N.Z. Taylor, M.G. Lenné, and C.F. Finch. 2016. “Lost in Translation: The Validity of a Systemic Accident Analysis Method Embedded in an Incident Reporting Software Tool.” Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science 17 (5-6): 483–506.
  • Kermarrec, G., and C. Bossard. 2014. “Defensive Soccer Players’ Decision Making: A Naturalistic Study.” Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making 8: 187–199. doi:10.1177/1555343414527968.
  • Lake, M.J. 2000. “Determining the Protective Function of Sports Footwear.” Ergonomics 43 (10): 1610–1621.
  • Lees, A., J. Rojas, M. Cepero, V. Soto, and M. Gutierrez. 2000. “How the Free Limbs Are Used by Elite High Jumpers in Generating Vertical Velocity.” Ergonomics 43 (10): 1622–1636.
  • Leveson, N.G. 2004. “A New Accident Model for Engineering Safer Systems.” Safety Science 42 (4): 237–270.
  • Macquet, A.-C., C. Ferrand, and N.A. Stanton. 2015. “Divide and Rule: A Qualitative Analysis of the Debriefing Process in Elite Team Sports.” Applied Ergonomics 51: 30–38.
  • Macquet, A.C., and P. Fleurance. 2007. “Naturalistic Decision-Making in Expert Badminton Players.” Ergonomics 50 (9): 1433–1450.
  • Macquet, A.-C., and N.A. Stanton. 2014. “Do the Coach and Athlete Have the Same «Picture» of the Situation? Distributed Situation Awareness in an Elite Sport Context.” Applied Ergonomics 45 (3): 724–733.
  • McGhee, D.E., J.R. Steele, W.J. Zealey, and G.J. Takacs. 2013. “Bra–Breast Forces Generated in Women with Large Breasts while Standing and During Treadmill Running: Implications for Sports Bra Design.” Applied Ergonomics 44 (1): 112–118.
  • Mclean, S., C. Soloman, A. Gorman, and P.M. Salmon. Forthcoming. “What's in a Game? A Systems Approach to Enhancing Performance Analysis in Football.” Plos One.
  • McNeese, N.J., N.J. Cooke, M.A. Fedele, and R. Gray. 2015. “Theoretical and Methodical Approaches to Studying Team Cognition in Sports.” Procedia Manufacturing 3: 1211–1218.
  • Neville, T., and P.M. Salmon. 2016. “Never Blame the Umpire? A Review of Situation Awareness Models and Methods for Examining the Performance of Officials in Sport.” Ergonomics 59 (7): 962–975.
  • Neville, T.J., P.M. Salmon, G.J.M. Read, and A.C. Kalloniatis. 2017. “Play on or Call a Foul: Testing and Extending Distributed Situation Awareness Theory Through Sports Officiating.” Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science 17 (1): 80–103.
  • Reilly, T., and A. Lees. 1984. “Exercise and Sports Equipment: Some Ergonomics Aspects.” Applied Ergonomics 15 (4): 259–279.
  • Reilly, T., and M. Ussher. 1988. “Sport, Leisure and Ergonomics.” Ergonomics 31 (11): 1497–1500.
  • Salmon, P.M., C. Dallat, and A. Clacy. 2017a. “More than just the Bike: Distributed Situation Awareness and Teamwork in Elite Women's Cycling Teams.” In Proceedings of the 2017 Chartered Institute for Ergonomics and Human Factors Annual Conference, 25th – 27th April. Daventry.
  • Salmon, P.M., N. Goode, N. Taylor, C. Dallat, C. Finch, and M.G. Lenne. 2017b. “Rasmussen's Legacy in the Great Outdoors: A New Incident Reporting and Learning System for Led Outdoor Activities.” Applied Ergonomics 59 (B): 637–648.
  • Salmon, P.M., G.H. Walker, G.J.M. Read, N. Goode, and N.A. Stanton. 2017c. “Fitting Methods to Paradigms: Are Ergonomics Methods Fit for Systems Thinking?” Ergonomics 60 (2): 194–205.
  • Salmon, P.M., A. Williamson, M.G. Lenne, E. Mitsopoulos, and C.M. Rudin-Brown. 2010. “Systems-Based Accident Analysis in the Led Outdoor Activity Domain: Application and Evaluation of a Risk Management Framework.” Ergonomics 53 (8): 927–939.
  • Sun, X., A. May, and Q. Wang. 2016. “The Impact of User- and System-Initiated Personalization on the User Experience at Large Sports Events.” Applied Ergonomics 54: 1–9.
  • Theberge, N. 2012. “Studying Gender and Injuries: A Comparative Analysis of the Literatures on Women's Injuries in Sport and Work.” Ergonomics 55 (2): 183–193.
  • Trist, E. 1981. The Evolution of Socio-Technical Systems. Occasional paper 2. Toronto: Quality of Working Life Center.
  • Trotter, M., P.M. Salmon, and M.G. Lenne. 2013. “Improvisation: Theory, Measures, and Known Influencing Factors.” Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science 14 (5): 475–498.
  • Walker, G.H., P.M. Salmon, M. Bedinger, and N.A. Stanton. 2017. “Quantum Ergonomics: Shifting the Paradigm of the Systems Agenda.” Ergonomics 60 (2): 157–166.
  • Waterson, Patrick, Jean-Christophe Le Coze, and Henning Boje Andersen. 2017. “Recurring Themes in the Legacy of Jens Rasmussen.” Applied Ergonomics 59 (B): 471–482.
  • WHO, Europe. 2006. Physical Activity and Health in Europe: Evidence for action. http://www.euro.who.int__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/87545/E89490.pdf

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.