讨论信任和复原力:需要健康的不信任

IF 1.9 Q3 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
Benjamin Scharte
{"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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

信任与韧性之间有何关系?目前还缺乏概念性的讨论。本文针对关键基础设施系统和从事关键基础设施复原力工作的工程师,对信任和复原力进行了分析。基于复原力和信任是应对现代社会和关键基础设施固有的复杂性和不确定性的机制这一假设,本文得出了三个结论。首先,它们在功能上不可替代。信任是一个日常过程,在这个过程中,有利的预期有助于 "仿佛 "不确定性已成功解决。抗灾能力有助于应对灾难来临时的 "假设 "情况。其次,与风险认知悖论类似,对关键基础设施的过度信任可能会导致自满情绪,降低个人的应对能力,进而降低抗灾能力。人们需要健康的不信任--不信任是信任的功能性替代,而不是其对立面--才能意识到可能会发生破坏,并为此做好准备。第三,尽管交流不确定性存在困难,但工程师需要透明地交流复杂性对知识的限制。这可能会降低人们对具体解决方案的信任,但却能维持对整个系统的信任,因为这有助于调整人们的有利预期。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.50
自引率
8.60%
发文量
20
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.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信