www.rsisinternational.org
Page 6472
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Examining the Influence of Safety Knowledge on Safety Practice in
Malaysia’s Outdoor Recreation Sector
Nik Rozilaini Wan Mohamed
1
, Mashita Abdul Jabar
2
, Shareenie Shera Abdul Hamid
3
, Zaity Akhtar
Mukhtar
4
1,2,3,4
Faculty of Hotel and Tourism Management, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Cawangan Melaka
Kampus Bandaraya Melaka, 110, Off Jalan Hang Tuah, 75350 Melaka, Malaysia
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.910000528
Received: 02 November 2025; Accepted: 08 November 2025; Published: 18 November 2025
ABSTRACT
The study is focusing safety knowledge and safety practice in Malaysia, using the theory of knowledge,
attitude and practice (KAP). The survey utilizes of the respondents among outdoor recreation who involve
guides, instructors and staff) in Malaysia (n = 300). Safety knowledge and safety practice were assessed using
Likert-scale items that have been validated for adventure tourism in Malaysia. Linear regression analyses
investigated the impact of safety knowledge (independent variable) on safety practice (dependent variable).
The results revealed that safety knowledge is a significant predictor of safety practice, explaining a total of
27% of the variance in safety practice. Higher compliance with safety procedures and greater participation
were obtained from practitioners' safety knowledge. Significance of the study provides empirical support for
the KAP model in the Malaysian outdoor recreation context. This underlines the importance of security
training and knowledge dissemination to improve ground security practices. The implications will be
increased safety knowledge among outdoor recreation workers leading to better adherence to standard
operating procedures (SOPs) and proactive safety behaviors, potentially reducing accidents.
Keywords- safety knowledge, safety practice, outdoor recreation, Malaysia, KAP model, safety management,
linear regression
INTRODUCTION
Outdoor adventure tourism in Malaysia has grown in popularity, but this growth has been accompanied by
safety challenges. In recent years, numerous accidents have occurred during hiking, climbing, camping, and
other outdoor activities. For example, a tragic landslide engulfed a campsite in Batang Kali, at Selangor
Malaysia, in 2022, killing 31 people, and a whitewater rafting trip in 2024 resulted in a triple drowning of
participants and the Malaysian authorities have reported 134 hiking accidents in one year, and over a period
from 1996 to 2014, 665 mountain hiking casualties (including 47 deaths) were recorded. These incidents
underscore the critical importance of effective safety management in outdoor recreation. In response to rising
safety concerns, local authorities and organizations have introduced various initiatives. Many have
implemented safety awareness campaigns and Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) to educate the public on
safe practices during outdoor activities. Notably, Malaysia’s Ministry of Higher Education released a
comprehensive Student Outdoor Recreation Safety SOP in 2017 as a guideline for outdoor activities at
universities. This SOP covers detailed safety procedures for planning and conducting adventures (e.g.,
camping, hiking, rock climbing, water sports), defining roles and responsibilities, risk assessment steps,
emergency response protocols, and required safety. Adherence to these guidelines is mandatory in higher
education institutions, and efforts are underway to elevate them into a national standard for all outdoor
providers. However, the existence of safety rules and SOPs alone does not guarantee compliance in the field.
Ultimately, the safety outcomes depend on the knowledge of individuals involved and how they practice or
enact that knowledge during activities.
The Knowledge, Attitude and Practice (KAP) model provides a useful framework to examine these issues.
KAP theory posits a sequential relationship whereby knowledge influences attitudes, which in turn shape
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 6473
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
practices. In other words, having the right knowledge is the foundation for developing positive safety attitudes
and for engaging in safe practices (behavior). This model has been widely applied in health and safety
research; for instance, it has been used to study food safety behaviors, where food handlers’ knowledge and
attitudes predict their hygiene practices (Kwol et al., 2020). In the context of occupational and adventure
safety, knowledgeable employees are generally more likely to adopt safer attitudes and comply with safety
procedures. Prior studies indicate that safety knowledge correlates strongly with safety performance outcomes
such as reduced accidents and injuries. For example, meta-analytic evidence has shown that employees’
knowledge of safety protocols is positively associated with their safety behavior and overall workplace safety
outcomes. Griffin and Neal (2000) and Christian et al. (2009) found that workers who are more informed about
safety tend to exhibit better safety compliance and participate more in safety activities, ultimately contributing
to fewer incidents.
At the same time, research also highlights potential gaps between knowledge and practice. Simply possessing
knowledge does not always guarantee its application. Factors such as attitudes, motivation, and contextual
support play a mediating role. Neal and Griffin (2006) observed that even well-trained personnel might fail
to follow safety procedures if they lack a positive safety attitude or if the organizational climate does not
support safe practices. Similarly, Kao et al. (2019) demonstrated that the effect of workers’ safety knowledge
on their safety behavior was mediated by their attitudes workers with greater knowledge practiced safety more
consistently only when they and their supervisors held strong safety attitudes. These findings align with the
Theory of Planned Behavior (Ajzen, 1991), which positions attitude toward the behavior as a proximal driver
of intention and action. In short, knowledge is crucial but often requires a supportive attitude and environment
to translate into behavior. Recognizing this, many safety interventions focus on both educating participants (to
build knowledge) and fostering a positive safety culture (to shape attitudes and norms). Another important
concept in safety research is the distinction between safety compliance and safety participation. Safety
compliance refers to adhering to mandatory safety rules and procedures (the required actions to maintain
safety), whereas safety participation refers to voluntary, discretionary behaviors that help improve safety (such
as proactively helping others, suggesting improvements, or going beyond the call of duty). Together, these two
facets form overall safety practice or performance (sometimes termed safety behavior). This dual- facet view is
well-established; for instance, Neal and Griffin (2006) identified compliance and participation as two key
components of safety performance, and Christian et al. (2009) found that both components were predictive of
accident rates.
In the adventure tourism setting, compliance behaviors include actions like conducting equipment checks and
following standard protocols, while participation might include initiatives like contributing to safety briefings
or reporting near-misses. Effective safety practice thus means not only following the rules but also actively
engaging in the continuous improvement of safety on-site. Given the above context, this study focuses on the
link between safety knowledge and safety practice among outdoor recreation practitioners in Malaysia. While
theoretical frameworks and international research suggest that greater knowledge should lead to better safety
practices, there is a need for empirical evidence within the Malaysian outdoor recreation sector specifically.
The sector is characterized by unique cultural, environmental, and organizational conditions for example,
varying terrain and climate challenges, and as noted, a currently evolving regulatory framework (with no single
national adventure safety law but emerging guidelines). By examining how knowledge relates to practice in
this context, we can identify whether improving knowledge (through training, certification, etc.) is likely to
yield better safety compliance and initiative among Malaysian outdoor providers.
The primary objective of this study is to examine the relationship between safety knowledge and safety
practice in Malaysia’s outdoor recreation sector. The study hypothesizes that safety knowledge will be
positively associated with safety practice, in line with the KAP model. Focus on the direct knowledge practice
linkage, acknowledging that attitudes and other factors are important but are beyond the scope of this analysis.
The findings will contribute to the literature on adventure tourism safety by providing data from a developing
country context and will inform practitioners and policymakers on whether investments in safety knowledge
(e.g., training programs, certification courses, dissemination of safety guidelines) can measurably improve
safety behaviors on the ground.
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 6474
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
LITERATURE REVIEW
Safety Knowledge and the KAP Model
In safety research, safety knowledge typically refers to an individual’s awareness and understanding of
potential hazards, safety procedures, and risk mitigation strategies in their work or activity domain. According
to the KAP framework, knowledge is the first step that influences subsequent attitudes and practices. Launiala
(2009), noted that KAP surveys have been widely used to gauge how much people know about a topic, how
they feel about it, and how they ultimately behave, especially in public health contexts. Transferring this idea
to occupational safety and adventure tourism, one expects that an outdoor guide who is well-versed in safety
protocols (e.g., knows how to read weather patterns, use safety equipment, perform first aid) is more likely to
value safety and integrate that knowledge into his or her daily practices. Indeed, studies consistently find that
higher safety knowledge correlates with safer behaviors. A meta-analysis by Christian et al. (2009) found that
safety knowledge had a strong positive relationship with safety performance indicators such as compliance
with procedures and reduction in accident involvement. Similarly, Griffin and Neal (2000) proposed a
framework where safety knowledge (along with safety motivation) directly influenced safety compliance and
participation behaviors, serving as a mediator between safety climate and safety performance. Empirical
evidence supports this; employees who score higher on safety knowledge tests or self-assessments tend to have
better safety records and engage in more recommended safer practices.
However, knowledge alone is not always sufficient. The translation of knowledge into practice often depends
on attitudes and tool use. In other words, having knowledge is necessary but not always sufficient for safe
behavior. For instance, if an individual knows the proper procedure but does not believe that safety is
important, or if they are not motivated to follow through (perhaps due to time pressure or complacency), the
knowledge might not manifest as practice. Neal and Griffin (2006) demonstrated this in a longitudinal study,
safety knowledge was linked to later safety behavior, but much of that link was channeled through safety
motivation (a construct closely related to attitude). When workers were motivated and had positive safety
attitudes, their knowledge was effectively applied; when motivation was low, a “knowledge and behavior gap”
was observed. Likewise, research in other domains, such as food safety (Kwol et al., 2020), found that
workers’ attitudes significantly mediated the effect of knowledge on safe practices. Kao et al. (2019) extended
this understanding by showing that both supervisor and worker safety attitudes can moderate or mediate
knowledge’s impact on behavior in industrial settings. These studies underscore those contextual and
psychological factors like attitudes, motivation, and management support condition the strength of the
knowledge–practice relationship.
Safety Practice (Behavior)
Safety practice refers to the behaviors and actions that individuals perform to maintain and enhance safety. As
discussed, it can be conceptualized in two broad categories, safety compliance (fulfilling the minimum safety
requirements such as wearing required protective equipment, following standard procedures, obeying rules)
and safety participation (voluntary behaviors that go beyond requirements, such as helping coworkers,
suggesting improvements, reporting hazards, and continuously engaging in learning). Both aspects are vital,
compliance ensures that baseline precautions are taken, while participation fosters a proactive safety culture
where individuals contribute to safety beyond their formal duties.
Research by Neal and Griffin (2006) and others has validated this two-factor structure of safety behavior in
various industries. They found that factors like knowledge and attitudes can influence both compliance and
participation. Importantly, Christian et al. (2009) showed that these self-reported safety behaviors are not just
abstract constructs – they correlate with real safety outcomes like accident rates and injuries, confirming that
improving safety practice has tangible benefits in reducing harm. In high-risk contexts such as outdoor
recreation and adventure tourism, safety practices can literally be lifesaving. For example, adhering to a
checklist (compliance behavior) before a rock-climbing activity, checking ropes, harnesses, anchor points,
weather conditions can prevent equipment failure or misjudgment accidents. On the other hand, participation
behaviors like voluntarily conducting an extra briefing for participants, or a guide mentoring a less experienced
colleague on hazard recognition, can improve group safety beyond the basics. Bentley and Page (2018)
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 6475
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
highlighted that in the adventure tourism industry, continuous learning and knowledge-sharing are key to
safety innovation and risk management. In their analysis of New Zealand’s adventure tourism sector,
knowledge and learning processes were identified as critical drivers for improving safety practices and
outcomes. This reinforces the idea that organizations should not only enforce rules but also encourage a
learning culture where knowledge is actively applied and shared to elevate safety performance.
Safety Knowledge
Specific to outdoor recreation, relatively few empirical studies have quantified the knowledge and practice
relationship, especially in Malaysia. One relevant study by Abdul Latif et al. (2021) surveyed Malaysian
outdoor recreation participants and found that the implementation of safety management practices (such as
training, communication of procedures, management commitment) had a moderate to strong correlation with
participants’ safety behavior (r ≈ 0.70, p < .001). Although that study focused on organizational practices as
the predictor, it underscores that when safety procedures are emphasized (presumably increasing participants’
knowledge and awareness), safer behavior follows. Additionally, Vinodkumar and Bhasi (2010) conducted
research in an industrial setting (process industry in India) and their findings are instructive, safety knowledge
and motivation acted as key mediators between safety management initiatives and safety
compliance/participation outcomes. In other words, interventions like safety training improved safety outcomes
largely by improving what employees knew (hazard awareness, procedural knowledge) and how motivated
they were to apply it. By analogy, in outdoor recreation operations, ensuring that staff possess strong safety
knowledge (e.g., of hazard identification, emergency response, equipment use) should empower them to both
comply with standard safety procedures and to take initiative in unforeseen situations. Qualitative case
evidence also supports this link. Experienced outdoor leaders often cite knowledge gained from training or past
incidents as enabling them to make safe decisions in dynamic environments (e.g., recognizing when to turn
back before a storm, or how to execute a rescue) – those decisions and actions are the manifestation of their
knowledge base in practice. International safety standards reflect this emphasis on knowledge translating to
practice.
The ISO 21101,2014 standard for adventure tourism safety management systems, for instance, stresses
competence (knowledge and skills) of personnel as a requirement, and ties it to operational control and
emergency preparedness (practices) that providers must have in place. By requiring training, assessment of
staff competence, communication, and continual improvement (ISO, 2014), the standard implicitly endorses
the notion that well-informed and knowledgeable staff will engage in the right safety practices to manage risks.
In Malaysia’s context, although a unified adventure tourism safety regulation is not yet in force, the adoption of
the Ministry of Higher Education’s Outdoor Recreation SOP and moves to develop national standards show
recognition that raising knowledge and standardizing practices are the path forward to improve safety. In
summary, past literature and existing frameworks suggest a clear expectation, Safety knowledge is positively
related to safety practice. Workers and participants who know more about safety are generally safer in what
they do. However, this relationship is facilitated by supportive attitudes and organizational factors. This study
will build on these insights by providing empirical data from Malaysia’s outdoor recreation sector, thereby
testing whether the global understanding of the knowledge–practice link holds true in this setting. The next
sections describe the methodology of our study and the results of the regression analysis undertaken to evaluate
the influence of safety knowledge on safety practice.
METHODOLOGY
This research utilized quantitative cross-sectional survey design. The target population consisted of individuals
involved in outdoor recreation activities in Malaysia, specifically those in roles responsible for safety (such as
outdoor adventure guides, instructors, park rangers, and expedition leaders). We focused on practitioners
affiliated with outdoor adventure providers (e.g., adventure tour companies, outdoor education centers,
university outdoor clubs) since they are directly tasked with applying safety measures during activities.
A non-probability purposive sampling approach was used to recruit participants, leveraging professional
networks and industry contacts in Malaysia’s outdoor recreation community. An online questionnaire was
distributed via email and messaging apps to prospective participants. A total of N = 300 respondents completed
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 6476
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
the survey (after data cleaning for completeness).
This sample size is adequate to detect medium effect sizes with sufficient statistical power in regression
analyses. Respondents’ demographics indicated a diverse representation of the sector, approximately 68% were
male and 32% female; the average age was Thirty-three years; participants had a range of experience levels
(mean experience in outdoor activities = 7.5 years, SD = 5.4). They represented various outdoor domains
including hiking/trekking (60% of respondents had experience leading hikes), rock climbing (34%), water
sports like rafting or kayaking (30%), camping and outdoor education programs (45%), among others (many
had multi-disciplinary roles). This diversity in background improves the generalizability of the findings across
Malaysia’s outdoor recreation sector.
Safety Knowledge (Independent Variable)
Safety knowledge was measured using an 18-items scale developed for this study, informed by safety
standards and prior research on outdoor safety competencies. The scale covered multiple knowledge domains
critical to adventure activities, aligning with elements of Malaysia’s SOP and ISO 21101 competencies.
These domains included, Hazard Identification & Risk Reduction (HIRR) – e.g., recognizing hazardous site
conditions and judging when risk controls are needed; Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) e.g., knowing
how to select, inspect, and correctly use safety gear; Equipment Inspection & Setup (EIS) e.g., knowledge of
checking ropes, anchors, boats, etc., and identifying faulty equipment; Emergency Warning Signs (EWS)
e.g., knowing thresholds for stopping activities due to weather or participant condition, and early symptoms
of common injuries like heat illness; Emergency Response & First Aid (ERFA) e.g., knowing the immediate
actions for accidents, first aid steps, and how to activate emergency services; and Communication &
Reporting (CNR) e.g., knowledge of communication signals/codes in the field and how to precisely report
locations or incidents to authorities.
Participants rated statements such as “I readily recognize site conditions that could escalate risk during
outdoor activities” (hazard identification) and “I know the immediate actions to secure the scene and provide
aid if an accident happens” (emergency response) on a 7-point Likert scale (1= Strongly Disagree, 7 =
Strongly Agree). All items were phrased as ability or awareness statements (focusing on knowledge rather
than personal opinions).
The composite safety knowledge score for each respondent was computed as the mean of the 18 item scores.
In this sample, the safety knowledge scale exhibited excellent internal consistency reliability, with
Cronbach’s α= 0.92. This suggests that the items cohesively measure a single underlying construct of safety
knowledge. Content validity was ensured by mapping the item content to established safety guidelines
(e.g., including knowledge elements required by the national Outdoor Recreation SOP and ISO 21101
clauses on staff competence and emergency preparedness). Two expert practitioners reviewed the items to
confirm their relevance and clarity before the survey was administered.
Safety Practice (Dependent Variable)
Safety practice was operationalized as self-reported safety behavior and was measured using a 12-item scale.
This scale captured both safety compliance and safety participation behaviors, consistent with prior safety
performance measures (Neal & Griffin, 2006; Vinodkumar & Bhasi, 2010).
Six items were designed to assess compliance – the extent to which individuals perform required safety
actions every time – and six items assessed participation – the extent to which individuals voluntarily engage
in extra safety efforts. Example compliance items included “I complete pre-activity safety checks every time”
and “I use the required personal protective equipment correctly for each task”, reflecting routine adherence
to safety rules. Example participation items included “I propose practical changes that improve safety” and
“I share lessons learned from incidents or near- misses with my team”, reflecting proactive and
communicative safety engagement. Respondents rated each statement on the same 7-point Likert scale (1 =
Strongly Disagree to 7 = Strongly Agree), indicating how true each practice was of their own typical
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 6477
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
behavior in their outdoor role.
A composite safety practice score was calculated as the mean of all 12 items, after verifying through factor
analysis that the items indeed loaded on one higher-order factor (with two sub-dimensions). Descriptively,
most respondents reported fairly high levels of compliance (e.g., consistently using PPE and checklists) and
moderate levels of participation (there was more variance in extra-role behaviors like reporting near-misses
or suggesting improvements). The safety practice scale demonstrated good reliability in our sample
(Cronbach’s α = 0.90). Breaking it down, the compliance subscale (6 items) had α ≈ 0.88 and the
participation subscale (6 items) had α ≈ 0.85, indicating both facets were measured reliably. For analysis, we
used the overall safety practice score, but we note that treating compliance and participation separately in
future analyses could yield additional insights (e.g., knowledge might predict mandatory compliance
differently than it does voluntary participation).
Control Variables
Given the focus on bivariate relationships in this study, we did not include multiple covariates in the
regression model; however, we collected basic demographic and background information that could be
relevant in interpreting results. For instance, respondents’ years of experience in outdoor activities and their
highest level of formal education in outdoor recreation (if any certification or training) were recorded.
Exploratory checks showed that experience had a small positive correlation with safety practice (more
experienced practitioners reported slightly better safety practices), but controlling for it did not significantly
alter the knowledge–practice relationship. Thus, for parsimony, results are presented without additional
controls. No significant common-method bias was detected in the data (the Harman’s single-factor test was
below 50%), and all variance inflation factors (VIFs) in regression were under 1.1, indicating that
multicollinearity was not a concern.
Procedure
Data collection was carried out over a four-week period. The survey was administered primarily online using a
secure form. Participation was voluntary and anonymous. At the start of the survey, respondents were
informed about the study’s purpose and gave informed consent. They then completed the questionnaire which
included the scales described above and some open-ended questions about their perspectives on safety (not
analysed in this quantitative study). Respondents took approximately 15–20 minutes to complete the survey.
To ensure quality of data, attention-check questions were embedded (e.g., “Select strongly agree for this
item”) and responses failing these checks were excluded. Additionally, responses were screened for patterns
suggesting lack of engagement (such as giving the exact same rating for all were approximately normally
distributed (Shapiro–Wilk test), the plot of standardized residuals vs. predicted values showed no obvious
heteroscedasticity, and independence of errors was supported (Durbin-Watson statistic ~2.05). Given the
single-predictor model, model specification was straightforward and there was no issue of multicollinearity.
The report the regression coefficients, including the unstandardized coefficient (B), standard error (SE),
standardized coefficient (β), t-statistic, and p-value. We also report the model’s R-squared (R²) to indicate the
proportion of variance in safety practice explained by safety knowledge. All results are reported following APA
7th edition style. A significance level of .05 was used for hypothesis testing (with p < .001 indicating highly
significant results). Additionally, an APA-formatted table is provided to summarize the regression findings.
FINDINGS
Descriptive Statistic and Correlation
Prior to regression analysis, descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations for the key variables were
examined. Table 1 presents the mean and standard deviation for safety knowledge and safety practice, as
well as their Pearson correlation.
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 6478
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
TABLE I Font Sizes for Papers items); no significant issues were found in this regard.
Variable Mean SD Safety
Knowledge
Safety Practice
After data collection, the responses were coded and analysed using SPSS and Jamovi statistical software.
Preliminary analyses (descriptive statistics, reliability 1.Safety Knowledge 2.Safety Practice
5.02 0.99 _ .52**
4.89 1.00 .52** _
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 6479
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
analysis, correlation matrix) were conducted before the regression. The safety knowledge and safety practice
variables were approximately normally distributed. The mean score for safety knowledge was M = 5.02 (SD =
0.99) on the 1–7 scale, indicating that on average respondents felt confident in their safety knowledge (above
the scale midpoint of 4). The mean for safety practice was M = 4.89 (SD = 1.00), similarly above the midpoint
but with room for improvement toward the maximum of 7. The Pearson correlation between safety knowledge
and safety practice was r = 0.52, p < .001, suggesting a moderate to strong positive association even before
controlling for any factors. This provided initial support for our hypothesis that individuals with greater safety
knowledge also tend to report better safety practices.
Data Analysis
For the main analysis, employed a simple linear regression model. Safety practice (continuous composite score)
was entered as the criterion (dependent variable), and safety knowledge (continuous composite score) as the
predictor (independent variable). The regression was estimated using the ordinary least squares (OLS) method.
The study checked all necessary assumptions of linear regression, the residuals N = 300. Note, Correlation is
significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed).
As shown above, the correlation between safety knowledge and safety practice is r = .52, which is statistically
significant (p < .001). This indicates a moderate-to-strong positive relationship, respondents who reported
higher safety knowledge also tended to report more frequent or thorough safety practices. This finding
provides preliminary support for our hypothesis, setting the stage for the regression analysis to examine the
predictive relationship in more detail.
Regression Analysis
A simple linear regression was conducted with safety practice as the outcome variable and safety knowledge
as the predictor. The regression model was statistically significant, F (1, 298) = 111.7, p < .001, indicating
that safety knowledge contributes significantly to explaining variance in safety practice. The regression
results are summarized in Table 2.
The table 2 indicate the model summary, R² = .27, Adjusted R² = .27, F (1, 298) = 111.7, p < .001. The B
represents the unstandardized regression coefficient, SE is its standard error, β is the standardized coefficient,
and t and p are the test statistic and significance level for each predictor.
The constant (interception) of 2.23 (p < .001) represents the expected value of safety practice when safety
knowledge is at zero. In the context of our 1–7 scales, an intercept of 2.23 is not directly interpretable in a
practical sense (since nobody in the sample truly has zero knowledge), but it provides the baseline of the
regression line.
The primary result of interest is Safety Knowledge. The unstandardized coefficient B = 0.53 indicates that for
each one-point increase in the safety knowledge score, the safety practice score is predicted to increase by 0.53
points on the 7-point scale, on average, holding other factors constant (in this simple model, there are no other
predictors). This is a sizable effect, given the range of the scales. The coefficient is positive, as hypothesized,
suggesting that greater knowledge is associated with more intensive or frequent safety practices. The
coefficient is highly statistically significant (t (298) = 10.57, p < .001). The 95% confidence interval for B
[0.43, 0.63] does not cross zero, reinforcing the conclusion of a positive effect.
The standardized coefficient β = 0.52 provides a sense of the effect size in standardized terms – it implies that
a one standard deviation increase in safety knowledge is associated with a 0.52 standard deviation increase in
safety practice. In many social science contexts, a standardized beta above 0.5 is considered a large effect.
Here, β = 0.52 suggests a strong relationship, which is consistent with the bivariate correlation reported earlier
(indeed, for a simple regression, β is equal to the Pearson r). The model’s R² = 0.273, indicating that about
27.3% of the variance in safety practice scores is explained by safety knowledge alone. Adjusted R² is also
0.270 (very close since we have one predictor), suggesting the model generalizes well. This R² value, while
not extremely high, is quite respectable for a single predictor model in behavioral research. It indicates that
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 6480
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
safety knowledge is an important factor, although roughly 72.7% of the variance in safety practice is left
unexplained by this one factor (likely attributable to other personal, situational, and organizational influences,
as discussed later).
In sum, the regression analysis supports the hypothesis that safety knowledge has a significant positive
influence on safety practice. Practitioners who rated themselves higher in safety knowledge also tended to
engage in safer practices, both in terms of complying with required safety measures and taking additional
safety initiatives. The positive linear relationship can be visualized (not included here for brevity) as a upward-
sloping trend those high on knowledge cluster towards high practice, and those lower on knowledge often
have lower practice scores. No violations of regression assumptions were detected, lending credibility to these
results. The residuals showed no pattern when plotted against fitted values, and the distribution of residuals
was approximately normal (skewness = -0.24, kurtosis = 2.99, indicating mild deviation but nothing severe).
Thus, the linear model seems appropriate for the data.
Although not the primary focus of this paper, we note that if safety attitude data were included, a multiple
regression or mediation analysis could further elucidate the pathways. For instance, a mediation test could
examine whether the knowledge → practice relationship is partially mediated by safety attitude. Given
literature precedents, we would expect some mediation effect. However, since our current data analysis
centers on the direct effect, we proceed to discuss the implications of the direct knowledge–practice link.
DISCUSSION
The purpose of this study was to examine how safety knowledge relates to safety practice among outdoor
recreation practitioners in Malaysia. The findings clearly indicate a significant positive relationship,
individuals with greater safety knowledge tend to report better safety practices. This result is consistent with
the Knowledge–Attitude–Practice (KAP) framework and with prior research in occupational and adventure
safety. It contributes new evidence in the context of Malaysia’s outdoor recreation sector, an area that until
now had limited empirical data on safety behavior determinants.
The regression results showed that safety knowledge explained about 27% of the variance in safety practice,
with a standardized effect size (β = 0.52) suggesting a substantial impact. In practical terms, this means that
efforts to improve what outdoor practitioners know – about hazards, emergency procedures, proper use of
equipment, etc. – are likely to yield tangible improvements in what they do on the ground to maintain safety.
For example, a guide who has been well- trained to recognize early warning signs of environmental danger
(such as changing weather or water conditions) is more likely to take precautionary actions (like adjusting
the route or aborting a trip in advance) to avoid accidents. Our data support this, those who “Strongly
Agreed” with knowledge items (indicating a high level of knowledge) were generally the ones who also
“Strongly Agreed” that they consistently perform safety checks, use PPE correctly, and engage in other safe
practices.
This finding aligns strongly with the patterns reported in international literature. Christian et al. (2009) in
their meta- analysis found that knowledge had one of the largest effects on safety outcomes among person-
related factors, which is echoed here. Vinodkumar and Bhasi (2010) also emphasized knowledge as a
mediator linking management safety initiatives to safe behaviors our study, focusing directly on knowledge
and behavior, reinforces the importance of knowledge. Moreover, the significant knowledge–practice link
found in our results echoes the suggestion by Bentley and Page (2018) that continuous knowledge
development (learning and training) in adventure tourism operations plays a critical role in enhancing safety.
It suggests that the Malaysian outdoor sector is no exception – regardless of cultural or regional differences,
knowledgeable practitioners are safer practitioners.
KAP Model Implications, while our analysis did not explicitly test the role of safety attitude, the findings can
be viewed in the light of the KAP model. The significant direct effect of knowledge on practice indicates that
knowledge has a direct facilitating role in promoting safe behavior. However, as discussed in the literature
review, the magnitude of the effect (R² = .27) also leaves room for other factors. It is likely that safety attitudes
and motivations serve as intervening variables that we did not capture in the regression. In a full KAP
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 6481
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
analysis, we would expect safety knowledge to positively influence safety attitudes (e.g., valuing safety,
feeling responsible and empowered to act safely), which in turn drive safety practices. Prior studies (Neal &
Griffin, 2006; Kao et al., 2019) have demonstrated exactly this kind of mediation. The fact that knowledge
alone did not explain the majority of variance in practice in our study suggests that indeed other elements like
attitude, subjective norms, and perhaps perceived behavioral control (in TPB terms) moderate the translation of
knowledge into action. For instance, a highly knowledgeable guide might still take unwarranted risks if they
have a thrill-seeking attitude or if the organizational culture tacitly encourages “summit-at-all-costs” behavior.
Conversely, strong positive safety attitudes can amplify the effect of even moderate knowledge.
Thus, our findings support the knowledge base of the KAP model – confirming that knowledge is
fundamentally important – and point to the continued relevance of addressing the attitude and practice
components. In practice, this means training programs should not only impart knowledge but also address
attitudes (e.g., by emphasizing why safety is critical, perhaps through testimonials or case studies that make
the knowledge personally meaningful, thereby fostering a safety-first attitude). It also means organizations
should cultivate environments where practicing safety is expected, reinforced, and appreciated (safety culture),
ensuring that knowledge is acted upon.
Contextualizing in Malaysian Outdoor Recreation, an interesting aspect of this study is its context –
Malaysia’s outdoor recreation sector. The strong knowledge–practice relationship observed suggests that
Malaysian practitioners are like their international counterparts in that what they know greatly influences how
they behave. This is encouraging, as it means interventions proven elsewhere (like comprehensive training and
certification programs) could be effective in Malaysia as well. The data also highlight the current state of
safety practice, mean scores were relatively high but not perfect, indicating good compliance but potential
gaps in full adherence or in voluntary aspects. For example, nearly all respondents agreed they use PPE
correctly (a compliance behavior), but fewer strongly agreed they “submit incident and near-miss reports on
time” or “help close hazard reports within required timelines” (from the participation items). This might reflect
that while basic compliance is being achieved, more could be done to encourage proactive safety management
behaviors (like reporting and feedback loops) – an area which often comes only when people internalize the
value of safety beyond rules.
Malaysia’s lack of a unified adventure safety regulation (as of this writing) means that the responsibility for
safety largely falls on individual operators and practitioners, guided by frameworks like the 2017 MOHE
Outdoor SOP. Our results underscore that individual competence (knowledge) is a key piece of the safety
puzzle. Even without a legal mandate, well-trained guides and instructors can make a significant difference.
In fact, the tragedies mentioned earlier (the Batang Kali landslide and the rafting incident) have spurred calls
for better training and certification of outdoor adventure leaders. The knowledge–practice linkage provides
empirical justification for these calls, if we can improve the knowledge of those leading trips (for example,
knowledge on how to conduct thorough risk assessments, or how to respond to emergency signals like signs
of slope instability), we can reasonably expect improved safety practices and potentially fewer accidents.
Furthermore, the relatively high correlation found between knowledge and practice (r = .52) suggests that
there is already a culture where those who take the time to learn also take the effort to practice safely. This
could be due to self-selection (those passionate about safety both learn more and do more) or due to effective
training in some organizations. It would be interesting for future research to identify if certain Malaysian
outdoor operators or training programs produce consistently higher knowledge (and thus better practice) –
for instance, programs adopting international certifications like Wilderness First Aid, Leave No Trace, or
UIAA standards might yield higher scores on both knowledge and practice.
Practical Implications, the findings have important implications for stakeholders in the outdoor recreation
sector,
1) Training and Education, Organizations should invest in regular safety training programs for their staff and
activity leaders. The topics should cover not only the “what” and “how” of safety procedures but also the
“why” to strengthen understanding. Emphasis on comprehensive knowledge – including hazard recognition,
emergency response steps, equipment use and maintenance, etc. – is likely to pay off in improved safety
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 6482
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
behavior. Our data suggest that even incremental improvements in knowledge (e.g., through short courses,
workshops, or on-the-job mentoring) could lead to measurable gains in safe practices.
2) Certification and Standards, the push to adopt standards like the SOP for Outdoor Recreation and ISO
21101 should continue. Formal certification of guides (ensuring they possess critical knowledge) could be
made a requirement for operating certain high-risk activities. This study provides evidence that such
requirements could be effective, certified, knowledgeable guides are likely to run safer trips. Industry bodies
in Malaysia may consider developing a standardized curriculum or certification scheme (if not already in
place) that mirrors the knowledge areas measured in this study (hazard assessment, first aid, equipment, etc.).
Over time, this elevates the baseline knowledge level across the sector.
3) Organizational Safety Culture Managers of outdoor adventure companies should note that knowledge needs
a supportive environment. They should encourage open discussion of safety (e.g., debriefings where lessons
learned are shared – one of the practice items) and make it easy for staff to apply their knowledge (for
instance, providing the proper equipment and resources, establishing clear reporting channels for hazards).
When an employee comes forward with a safety concern or suggestion (a sign of knowledge and initiative),
management’s positive response can reinforce that behavior. This will further close the gap between knowing
and doing.
4) Policy Makers, Government agencies or tourism authorities could use this evidence to justify policies that
emphasize capacity-building. For example, subsidized safety training workshops for adventure tourism
operators, or integrating safety modules into tourism/hospitality educational programs, could be beneficial. If a
national adventure activity safety guideline becomes formalized, it should include provisions for mandatory
knowledge competencies (as ISO 21101 does).
5) Participants/Public, although our study focused on practitioners, the idea of knowledge influencing safety
practice can also be communicated to the adventure-seeking public. Outdoor participants should be educated
(through pre-trip briefings or public awareness campaigns) about safety protocols, so they too have the
knowledge to behave safely (e.g., a hiker knowing why they shouldn’t stray from the trail or what to do if
separated from the group).
The magnitude of the relationship we found (β ~0.5) is in line with, albeit on the higher end of, those found in
similar studies. For instance, Vinodkumar & Bhasi (2010) reported that training (knowledge) had both direct
and indirect effects on safety compliance/participation, with indirect effects through motivation roughly in the
β = 0.3–0.4 range. Our direct effect being 0.52 likely encompasses some of what would be via
attitude/motivation (since we did not include those variables, the effect is “total” in a sense). It’s noteworthy
that our R² (0.27) for one predictor is comparable to some multi-factor safety climate models, implying
knowledge is one of the stronger single factors. Additionally, Abdul Latif et al. (2021) found a correlation of r
= 0.697 between safety management practices and safety behavior among outdoor participants. Our
correlation of r = 0.52 between an individual factor (knowledge) and behaviour is somewhat lower, as
expected, because Abdul Latif et al.’s composite “practices” included various organizational supports (not just
individual knowledge). Nonetheless, both studies highlight significant relationships and together signal that
improving safety know-how and management in outdoor recreation is crucial to improving safety outcomes.
The limitations, despite the clear findings, this study has several limitations that should be acknowledged.
First, the use of self-reported measures for safety practice may introduce some bias, such as social
desirability bias. Participants might over-report positive safety behaviors because they know it’s the “right”
thing to do. We attempted to mitigate this by assuring anonymity and by including both compliance and
participation items (where the latter are less obviously “required,” possibly eliciting more honest variation).
Even so, future research could complement self- reports with observational or supervisor-reported safety
behavior data for validation. Second, the study is cross-sectional. This means we cannot definitively establish
causality while it is logical that knowledge influences practice (and we theorized it as such), it is also
possible that those who habitually practice safety more eventually acquire more knowledge (through
experience). A longitudinal design, or an intervention study that measures safety behaviors before and after a
knowledge training program, could strengthen causal inference. Third, our focus on the bivariate relationship
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 6483
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
meant we did not include safety attitude or other variables in the model. This was intentional to align with the
study objective, but it means we did not formally test the full KAP sequence. Follow-up studies
incorporating attitude (and possibly perceived risk or safety climate) would provide a fuller picture of how
these factors interplay in Malaysian outdoor recreation. Fourth, the generalizability of our sample might be
limited to those who are relatively serious in the field (since many respondents were recruited via
professional networks). Casual hobbyists or tourists who occasionally engage in outdoor recreation were not
included, yet their knowledge and practices would also matter (e.g., a casual hiker’s lack of knowledge could
put them at risk). Thus, the current findings are most applicable to outdoor recreation providers or leaders
rather than every participant.
Future Research should build on this study, future research avenues include, mediation and moderation
analysis, incorporating safety attitude as a mediator between knowledge and practice to empirically test the
KAP model in this context. Also, examining potential moderators – for example, does the knowledge–
practice link hold equally for those with high vs. low management support? Does it differ by experience level
or type of activity? (Perhaps knowledge is even more critical in technical activities like rock climbing than in
less technical ones.) The Intervention Studies, Designing and evaluating training interventions in the
Malaysian context. For instance, one could measure safety practices before and after a comprehensive
training workshop to see if improvements line up with knowledge gains. The Link to Outcomes, Ultimately,
we are concerned with accidents and injuries. Future studies could attempt to link staff knowledge and
practices to actual incident rates at the organizational level. If data were available from outdoor companies
on how many incidents they have, one could see if companies with better-trained staff (higher average
knowledge) fewer incidents such multilevel research have would be very insightful for policy. Qualitative
insights, Qualitative studies could complement our findings by exploring why some knowledgeable
individuals might not practice safety (uncovering barriers like time pressure, or attitudes as we suspect), or
conversely, how practitioners view the role of knowledge in their safety routine. Such insights could help
fine-tune training content to address not just knowledge but also the application of knowledge.
Alignment with Standards and Guidelines, it is worth noting how our findings support existing safety
frameworks. The Ministry of Higher Education’s SOP for Outdoor Recreation (2017) and the efforts to create
a national standard underscore training and competency. Our research validates that emphasis – it
quantitatively demonstrates that competency (knowledge) is linked to safety performance (practice). It
provides local empirical evidence to back the implementation of those SOP guidelines. For example, the SOP
document specifies that activity leaders must brief participants on safety and conduct risk assessments our
finding that knowledge leads to practice suggests that making sure leaders know how to do thorough briefings
and risk assessments (and why they matter) will result in those practices being carried out consistently. It also
supports the push for making the SOP a national standard since standardization would ensure a baseline level
of knowledge across all operators.
Finally, our discussion would not be complete without reflecting on the goal, reducing accidents and ensuring
enjoyable, safe outdoor experiences. As Malaysia looks to grow its adventure tourism sector (which includes
popular activities like whitewater rafting in Gopeng, mountain climbing on Kinabalu, cave exploration in
Gunung Mulu, etc.), safety will be a key determinant of sustainability and reputation. The tragic incidents in
recent memory have shown what is at stake. This study contributes by highlighting a very actionable piece of
the safety puzzle – educating and empowering the people on the front lines of outdoor activities. Knowledge
can indeed save lives, but only if it is effectively translated into practice. Fortunately, our results suggest that
in many cases, it is, those who know, do. The task ahead is to ensure everyone who leads or participates in
these activities has the necessary knowledge, and the right conditions, to do the right thing when it counts.
CONCLUSIONS
In conclusion, this study provides empirical evidence that safety knowledge is a critical driver of safety
practice in the context of Malaysia’s outdoor recreation sector. We followed the standard IJRSS article
structure to present a comprehensive analysis, from theoretical background to practical implications. Using a
KAP model lens, we found that knowledgeable outdoor recreation practitioners are significantly more likely to
engage in safe behaviors both in complying with essential safety procedures and in taking extra steps to
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 6484
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
promote safety. This reinforces a foundational principle in safety management; informed people make safer
choices.
The findings align with global research and standards yet are grounded in local context. They affirm the
direction of current initiatives in Malaysia, such as formalizing safety SOPs and enhancing training for
adventure tourism providers. For academics, the study adds to the literature by quantifying the knowledge–
behavior relationship in adventure tourism, a field that has often relied on case studies and anecdotal
evidence. For practitioners and policymakers, the message is clear – investing in safety knowledge is not just
an academic exercise, but a practical necessity. Equipping outdoor leaders and participants with the right
knowledge (and skills) should yield safer outdoor environments and reduce the likelihood of accidents that
can mar the tourism industry’s reputation and, more importantly, cause harm to individuals. The study does
not exist in isolation; it opens the door for further exploration. As highlighted, future research could
incorporate attitudes, examine long-term impacts, and look at actual safety outcomes. Meanwhile,
organizations would do well to treat this evidence as a call to action, review your training programs, ensure
knowledge checks, encourage continuous learning, and create a culture where that knowledge is put into
action every day. As the adage goes, “knowledge is power” study shows that in the realm of outdoor safety,
knowledge is indeed the power to prevent accidents and save lives. Harnessing that power through education
and practice will be the key to safer adventure experiences in Malaysia and beyond.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors appreciate Universiti Teknologi MARA and Melaka for support for this article. The author
would like to thank Universiti Teknologi MARA for supporting in facilities and able to complete this study.
REFERENCES
1. Abdul Latif, R., Che Mat, H., A Rahman, M. W., & Dimitrova, A. (2021). Encouraging safe behaviour
among Malaysian outdoor recreation participants. Journal of ASIAN Behavioural Studies, 6(20), 1–12.
2. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
50(2), 179–211.
3. Bentley, T., & Page, S. J. (2018). Safety in the adventure tourism industry, The role of knowledge and
learning. Tourism Management, 69, 318–329.
4. Christian, M. S., Bradley, J. C., Wallace, J. C., & Burke, M. J. (2009). Workplace safety, A meta-analysis
of person and situation factors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(5), 1103–1127.
5. Griffin, M. A., & Neal, A. (2000). Perceptions of safety at work, A framework for linking safety climate to
safety performance, knowledge, and motivation. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5(3), 347–
358.
6. International Organization for Standardization (ISO). (2014). ISO 21101, Adventure tourism — Safety
management systems — Requirements. Geneva, ISO.
7. Kao, K.-Y., Spitzmueller, C., Cigularov, K., & Thomas, C. L. (2019). Linking safety knowledge to safety
behaviours, A moderated mediation of supervisor and worker safety attitudes. European Journal of Work
and Organizational Psychology, 28(2), 206–220.
8. Kwol, V. S., Eluwole, K. K., Lasisi, T. T., & Avci, T. (2020). Another look into the knowledge–attitude–
practice model, Investigating the mediating role of food handlers’ attitudes in food safety. Food Control,
110, 107025.
9. Launiala, A. (2009). How much can a KAP survey tell us about people’s knowledge, attitudes and
practices? Anthropology Matters, 11(1), 1–13.
10. Neal, A., & Griffin, M. A. (2006). A study of the lagged relationships among safety climate, safety
motivation, safety behavior, and accidents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(4), 946–953.
11. Vinodkumar, M. N., & Bhasi, M. (2010). Safety management practices and safety behaviour, Assessing the
mediating role of safety knowledge and motivation. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 42(6), 2082–2093.
12. Viristar. (2025, April 24). Malaysia’s outdoor recreation SOP for higher education provides valuable safety
guidance. Viristar (Blog)viristar.comviristar.com. Retrieved from https,//www.viristar.com/post/malaysias-
outdoor- recreation-sop-for-higher-education-provides- valuable-safety-guidance
