Examining rip current escape strategies in non-traditional beach morphologies

Ben R. Van Leeuwen (), R. Jak McCarroll, Robert W. Brander, Ian L. Turner, Hannah E. Power and Anthony J. Bradstreet
Additional contact information
Ben R. Van Leeuwen: UNSW Australia
R. Jak McCarroll: University of Sydney
Robert W. Brander: UNSW Australia
Ian L. Turner: UNSW Australia
Hannah E. Power: University of Newcastle
Anthony J. Bradstreet: Surf Life Saving Australia

Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, 2016, vol. 81, issue 1, No 8, 145-165

Abstract: Abstract Rip currents are a significant hazard on global surf beaches and are a factor in hundreds of drowning fatalities each year. Contemporary rip current safety information often idealises rip currents as part of a Transverse Bar Rip (TBR) morphology with rip channels bound by shallow, shore-connected bars. Real-world conditions frequently differ from this model, with potential implications for rip current escape strategies promoted to, and undertaken by, the general public. This study describes outcomes of rip current escape strategies conducted at North Cronulla Beach, NSW, Australia, over two distinct morphologies; a mixed Low Tide Terrace/Transverse Bar Rip (LTT/TBR) and a Rhythmic Bar Beach (RBB) system lacking shore-connected bars. Swimmers attempted to escape by adopting one of three pre-determined strategies: Stay Afloat, Swim Parallel and Swim Onshore. A total of 100 escape attempts were conducted, with the RBB system experiencing longer duration ( $$\bar{t}$$ t ¯ = 2.4 min) escapes than the LTT system ( $$\bar{t}$$ t ¯ = 0.8 min). The RBB system was associated with a higher rate of action failure, particularly for Stay Afloat, due to a lack of shore connectivity of adjacent bars. Swim Parallel was of lower duration ( $$\bar{t}$$ t ¯ RIP1 = 0.66, $$\bar{t}$$ t ¯ RIP2 = 2.68 min) in both systems, but durations and distances to safety in the RBB system often exceeded swimming abilities of weaker bathers. Although Swim Onshore was more successful ( $$\bar{t}$$ t ¯ RIP1 = 0.22, $$\bar{t}$$ t ¯ RIP2 = 1.65 min) than Swim Parallel, promotion of such a strategy is strongly discouraged in conventional safety advice. Results suggest that contemporary rip current escape strategies may be inappropriate in non-TBR rip current systems and that alternative strategies should be considered, including Swim Onshore and a greater focus on preventative strategies, particularly in relation to bathers with limited swimming ability.

Keywords: Beach morphology; Rip currents; Beach hazard; Beach safety; Lagrangian surf zone drifters (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2016
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (5)

Downloads: (external link)
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11069-015-2072-4 Abstract (text/html)
Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:spr:nathaz:v:81:y:2016:i:1:d:10.1007_s11069-015-2072-4

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/11069

DOI: 10.1007/s11069-015-2072-4

Access Statistics for this article

Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards is currently edited by Thomas Glade, Tad S. Murty and Vladimír Schenk

More articles in Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards from Springer, International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().