{"title":"讨论信任和复原力:需要健康的不信任","authors":"Benjamin Scharte","doi":"10.1002/rhc3.12287","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"How are trust and reslience related? There is a lack of conceptual discussions. This paper analyzes trust and resilience with respect to the system of critical infrastructures and engineers working on critical infrastructure resilience. The results are three findings based on the assumption that resilience and trust are mechanisms to cope with complexity and uncertainty inherent to modern societies and critical infrastructures. First, they are no functional alternatives. Trust is an everyday process where favorable expectations help to act “as if” uncertainty was successfully resolved. Resilience helps to cope in “what if” cases when disaster strikes. Second, resembling the risk perception paradox, too much trust in critical infrastructures might lead to complacency, decreasing individual coping capacities and subsequently resilience. People need a healthy dose of distrust—distrust being a functional alternative to trust and not its opposite—to be aware that a disruption might happen and prepare for it. Third, notwithstanding the difficulties of uncertainty communication, engineers need to communicate limits to knowledge resulting from complexity transparently. This might decrease trust in specific solutions, but could sustain overall system trust, because it helps to adjust favorable expectations.","PeriodicalId":21362,"journal":{"name":"Risk, Hazards & Crisis in Public Policy","volume":"50 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Discussing trust and resilience: The need for a healthy dose of distrust\",\"authors\":\"Benjamin Scharte\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/rhc3.12287\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"How are trust and reslience related? There is a lack of conceptual discussions. This paper analyzes trust and resilience with respect to the system of critical infrastructures and engineers working on critical infrastructure resilience. The results are three findings based on the assumption that resilience and trust are mechanisms to cope with complexity and uncertainty inherent to modern societies and critical infrastructures. First, they are no functional alternatives. Trust is an everyday process where favorable expectations help to act “as if” uncertainty was successfully resolved. Resilience helps to cope in “what if” cases when disaster strikes. Second, resembling the risk perception paradox, too much trust in critical infrastructures might lead to complacency, decreasing individual coping capacities and subsequently resilience. People need a healthy dose of distrust—distrust being a functional alternative to trust and not its opposite—to be aware that a disruption might happen and prepare for it. Third, notwithstanding the difficulties of uncertainty communication, engineers need to communicate limits to knowledge resulting from complexity transparently. This might decrease trust in specific solutions, but could sustain overall system trust, because it helps to adjust favorable expectations.\",\"PeriodicalId\":21362,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Risk, Hazards & Crisis in Public Policy\",\"volume\":\"50 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Risk, Hazards & Crisis in Public Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/rhc3.12287\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Risk, Hazards & Crisis in Public Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/rhc3.12287","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
Discussing trust and resilience: The need for a healthy dose of distrust
How are trust and reslience related? There is a lack of conceptual discussions. This paper analyzes trust and resilience with respect to the system of critical infrastructures and engineers working on critical infrastructure resilience. The results are three findings based on the assumption that resilience and trust are mechanisms to cope with complexity and uncertainty inherent to modern societies and critical infrastructures. First, they are no functional alternatives. Trust is an everyday process where favorable expectations help to act “as if” uncertainty was successfully resolved. Resilience helps to cope in “what if” cases when disaster strikes. Second, resembling the risk perception paradox, too much trust in critical infrastructures might lead to complacency, decreasing individual coping capacities and subsequently resilience. People need a healthy dose of distrust—distrust being a functional alternative to trust and not its opposite—to be aware that a disruption might happen and prepare for it. Third, notwithstanding the difficulties of uncertainty communication, engineers need to communicate limits to knowledge resulting from complexity transparently. This might decrease trust in specific solutions, but could sustain overall system trust, because it helps to adjust favorable expectations.
期刊介绍:
Scholarship on risk, hazards, and crises (emergencies, disasters, or public policy/organizational crises) has developed into mature and distinct fields of inquiry. Risk, Hazards & Crisis in Public Policy (RHCPP) addresses the governance implications of the important questions raised for the respective fields. The relationships between risk, hazards, and crisis raise fundamental questions with broad social science and policy implications. During unstable situations of acute or chronic danger and substantial uncertainty (i.e. a crisis), important and deeply rooted societal institutions, norms, and values come into play. The purpose of RHCPP is to provide a forum for research and commentary that examines societies’ understanding of and measures to address risk,hazards, and crises, how public policies do and should address these concerns, and to what effect. The journal is explicitly designed to encourage a broad range of perspectives by integrating work from a variety of disciplines. The journal will look at social science theory and policy design across the spectrum of risks and crises — including natural and technological hazards, public health crises, terrorism, and societal and environmental disasters. Papers will analyze the ways societies deal with both unpredictable and predictable events as public policy questions, which include topics such as crisis governance, loss and liability, emergency response, agenda setting, and the social and cultural contexts in which hazards, risks and crises are perceived and defined. Risk, Hazards & Crisis in Public Policy invites dialogue and is open to new approaches. We seek scholarly work that combines academic quality with practical relevance. We especially welcome authors writing on the governance of risk and crises to submit their manuscripts.