- September 14, 2026
- By Kimbra Cutlip
A famous freeclimber ascends a skyscraper with no ropes and no margin of error. A world-class big-wave surfer drops into a crushing, 100-foot wall of water. A daring wingsuit flyer does a Superman impression down a mountain, rocketing past trees and rock formations with just feet to spare. Sometimes these stunts bring success and fame, but not always.
Researchers from the University of Maryland explored the risk-reward equation for extreme athletes, including the key question of whether death-defying extreme athletes simply value their own lives less than most people. The answer: No.
In the process, Associate Professor Jorge Holzer and Professor Emeritus Kenneth McConnell, both of the Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, developed an economic framework for assessing liability waivers for extreme recreational activities with a high fatality rate including BASE jumping (parachuting off cliffs, buildings and other structures) and free soloing (scaling high rock faces without ropes).
The study, published Thursday in the Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, contributes an important perspective to the debate about who should be responsible for paying the costs if someone gets hurt or killed, or requires expensive rescue when an activity does not go as planned.
“We wanted to understand why people willingly take life-threatening risks yet spend years and substantial resources on safety preparation,” Holzer said. “Also, we wanted to know whether participation in these activities implies a low valuation of life. Now we know that the answer is no.”
Economists usually assume that most people try to avoid risks, making decisions about an activity by weighing the potential for harm against the expected benefits. Seen through that lens, it can be challenging to understand those who pursue extreme outdoor activities. Even for non-economists, it is easy to assume that extreme athletes run toward risk by nature, suggesting they don’t place a high value on their lives. But those involved in dangerous adventure sports disagree.
It’s an important issue to resolve, because extreme recreational activities have grown in popularity, and the risks they involve can affect more than just the participants. Adventure companies, insurers, municipal first responders and privately funded rescue organizations all have a stake in the outcome of extreme outdoor activities.
An important factor in the equation is that there are two types of risk involved in extreme sport: the inherent risk of the activity itself and the external, uncontrollable background risks, such as weather and environmental conditions. Holzer and McConnell developed an economic model that shows that extreme sport participants respond differently to those two types of risk.
Extreme sports participants do have a high tolerance for controllable risks but are just as averse to uncontrollable risks as anyone else, the researchers found. They point out that extreme sport participants spend considerable time, effort and money on training to manage and control the inherent risks of their activity. Participants also draw enjoyment from building the skills required to master the sport.
This suggests that extreme athletes place a high value on the pursuit of knowledge, expertise and preparation their sports require, rather than valuing their lives less, the study said.
This thinking suggests that if businesses providing adventure sport experiences go too far in reducing the risks of extreme sports, they actually lessen their value to participants, potentially putting themselves out of business. Thus, outfitters and other companies should not be held liable for accidents stemming from the inherent riskiness of an extreme sport; that responsibility falls to the participant in their training and preparation.
However, providers should be responsible for ensuring that conditions under their control—upkeep and operational status of equipment, or operating when there is appropriate weather or other environmental conditions—offer participants a standard level of safety. The findings align with the modern legal doctrine of assumption of risk.