IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v38y2018i9p1795-1801.html

Two Types of Vigilance Are Essential to Effective Hazard Management: Maintaining Both Together Is Difficult

Author

Listed:
  • Robert Goble
  • Vicki Bier
  • Ortwin Renn

Abstract

Flexibility and adaptability are key capabilities for coping with persistent and pervasive uncertainties. The systematic organization of these capabilities is often called “adaptive management”; it is key to effective hazard management and important in risk governance. Vigilance is a requirement for effective adaptation. However, two distinct types of vigilance are necessary. Type 1 vigilance directly supports adaptive management. It is vigilance when you know what you are looking for: warning signals, filling gaps in knowledge, making sure that systems are working, etc. Vigilance of another sort, type 2 vigilance, is needed to address the surprises and institutional failures that are not part of orderly adaptive planning. Type 2 vigilance is vigilance when you don't know what to look for: observing and reflecting on confusing signals, anomalies, unacknowledged responsibilities, and surprises. The two types of vigilance require different institutional capabilities, and hence may work against each other in practice. Type 1 vigilance requires focus and a strong, knowledge‐based organizing framework. Type 2 vigilance, in contrast, requires defocusing and a questioning approach to both observations and concepts. This dilemma, coupled with demands for flexibility, is a severe challenge for organizations. There are a variety of actions and arrangements at various levels of societal organization that could maintain and enhance vigilance in managing hazards. Necessary, however, is the societal and institutional recognition that vigilance of more than one type is an essential part of hazard management and the commitment to follow through. Maintaining vigilance requires effort and must be an ongoing process.

Suggested Citation

  • Robert Goble & Vicki Bier & Ortwin Renn, 2018. "Two Types of Vigilance Are Essential to Effective Hazard Management: Maintaining Both Together Is Difficult," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(9), pages 1795-1801, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:38:y:2018:i:9:p:1795-1801
    DOI: 10.1111/risa.13003
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.13003
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/risa.13003?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mathew P. White & Branden B. Johnson, 2010. "The Intuitive Detection Theorist (IDT) Model of Trust in Hazard Managers," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(8), pages 1196-1209, August.
    2. Branden B. Johnson & Paul Slovic, 1995. "Presenting Uncertainty in Health Risk Assessment: Initial Studies of Its Effects on Risk Perception and Trust," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(4), pages 485-494, August.
    3. Nick Pidgeon, 2011. "In retrospect: Normal Accidents," Nature, Nature, vol. 477(7365), pages 404-405, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Rob Goble, 2021. "Through a Glass Darkly: How Natural Science and Technical Communities Looked at Social Science Advances in Understanding Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(3), pages 414-428, March.
    2. T. Anderson & J. S. Busby & M. Rouncefield, 2020. "Understanding the Ecological Validity of Relying Practice as a Basis for Risk Identification," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(7), pages 1383-1398, July.
    3. Robin L. Dillon & Vicki M. Bier & Richard Sheffield John & Abdullah Althenayyan, 2023. "Closing the Gap Between Decision Analysis and Policy Analysts Before the Next Pandemic," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 20(2), pages 109-132, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. P. Marijn Poortvliet & Anne Marike Lokhorst, 2016. "The Key Role of Experiential Uncertainty when Dealing with Risks: Its Relationships with Demand for Regulation and Institutional Trust," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(8), pages 1615-1629, August.
    2. Kazuya Nakayachi & Branden B. Johnson & Kazuki Koketsu, 2018. "Effects of Acknowledging Uncertainty about Earthquake Risk Estimates on San Francisco Bay Area Residents’ Beliefs, Attitudes, and Intentions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(4), pages 666-679, April.
    3. Branden B. Johnson, 2017. "Explaining Americans’ responses to dread epidemics: an illustration with Ebola in late 2014," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(10), pages 1338-1357, October.
    4. Lynn Frewer & Chaya Howard & Richard Shepherd, 1998. "The influence of initial attitudes on responses to communication about genetic engineering in food production," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 15(1), pages 15-30, March.
    5. Daniel Nunan & Marialaura Di Domenico, 2017. "Big Data: A Normal Accident Waiting to Happen?," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 145(3), pages 481-491, October.
    6. Paul K. J. Han & William M. P. Klein & Tom Lehman & Bill Killam & Holly Massett & Andrew N. Freedman, 2011. "Communication of Uncertainty Regarding Individualized Cancer Risk Estimates," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 31(2), pages 354-366, March.
    7. Minnich, Aljoscha & Roggenkamp, Hauke & Lange, Andreas, 2024. "Ambiguity attitudes and surprises: Experimental evidence on communicating new information within a large population sample," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 228(C).
    8. Branden B. Johnson, 1999. "Ethical Issues in Risk Communication: Continuing the Discussion," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(3), pages 335-348, June.
    9. Branden B. Johnson & Adam M. Finkel, 2016. "Public Perceptions of Regulatory Costs, Their Uncertainty and Interindividual Distribution," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(6), pages 1148-1170, June.
    10. Heiman, Amir & Lowengart, Oded, 2011. "The effects of information about health hazards in food on consumers' choice process," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 162(1), pages 140-147, May.
    11. David Fang & Chen-Ling Fang & Bi-Kun Tsai & Li-Chi Lan & Wen-Shan Hsu, 2012. "Relationships among Trust in Messages, Risk Perception, and Risk Reduction Preferences Based upon Avian Influenza in Taiwan," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 9(8), pages 1-16, August.
    12. Benedikt Becsi & Daniela Hohenwallner-Ries & Torsten Grothmann & Andrea Prutsch & Tobias Huber & Herbert Formayer, 2020. "Towards better informed adaptation strategies: co-designing climate change impact maps for Austrian regions," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 158(3), pages 393-411, February.
    13. Albert Mogambi Moinani & Margaret Nasambu Barasa, 2021. "Is Disease War? A Critical Analysis of the Covid-19 Discourse in Kenya," International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS), vol. 5(3), pages 411-417, March.
    14. Peter D. Lunn & Cameron A. Belton & Ciarán Lavin & Féidhlim P. McGowan & Shane Timmons & Deirdre A. Robertson, 2020. "Using behavioral science to help fight the Coronavirus," Journal of Behavioral Public Administration, Center for Experimental and Behavioral Public Administration, vol. 3(1).
    15. Branden B. Johnson & William K. Hallman & Cara L. Cuite, 2015. "Modeling Retrospective Attribution of Responsibility to Hazard‐Managing Institutions: An Example Involving a Food Contamination Incident," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(3), pages 423-433, March.
    16. Daiki Kishishita & Hans H. Tung & Charlotte Wang, 2024. "Ambiguity and self-protection: evidence from social distancing under the COVID-19 pandemic," The Japanese Economic Review, Springer, vol. 75(2), pages 269-300, April.
    17. Creed Tumlison & Rachael M. Moyer & Geoboo Song, 2017. "The Origin and Role of Trust in Local Policy Elites’ Perceptions of High‐Voltage Power Line Installations in the State of Arkansas," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(5), pages 1018-1036, May.
    18. Michael Siegrist, 2021. "Trust and Risk Perception: A Critical Review of the Literature," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(3), pages 480-490, March.
    19. Kirsten Davis & Navid Ghaffarzadegan & Jacob Grohs & Dustin Grote & Niyousha Hosseinichimeh & David Knight & Hesam Mahmoudi & Konstantinos Triantis, 2020. "The Lake Urmia vignette: a tool to assess understanding of complexity in socio‐environmental systems," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 36(2), pages 191-222, April.
    20. Isaac M. Lipkus, 2007. "Numeric, Verbal, and Visual Formats of Conveying Health Risks: Suggested Best Practices and Future Recommendations," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 27(5), pages 696-713, September.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:38:y:2018:i:9:p:1795-1801. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.