Searching for Safety

Wíldavsky, Aaron

doi:10.2307/252851

Cited by 197 publications

(254 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

242

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Sutcliffe [28] suggest HROs have common attributes: their day-to-day operations are conducted in environments full of hazards and uncertainty, where the potential to fail is very high but they rarely fail. They do not have the luxury of learning from accidents so they are always preoccupied with failure, and to avoid failures they use complex processes to manage complex technologies [28,53].…”

Section: Lekka Et Al 2011; Uk [37]mentioning

confidence: 99%

A Systematic Review on High Reliability Organisational Theory as a Safety Management Strategy in Construction

Enya

Pillay

Dempsey

2018

Safety

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examines the available evidence of high reliability organisational (HRO) theory as a strategy to manage construction safety: (1) Background: High reliability organisations (HROs) have been under investigation by organisational scholars to understand how they function at an exceptionally high level with few or no accidents under challenging circumstances. The construction industry is a high risk industry and is also known for a high fatality rate around the world. This systematic review examines the available evidence of HROs as a strategy to manage construction safety; (2) Methods: A systematic review to summarise and critically appraise the literature on high reliability organisational theory, aimed at improving construction safety; (3) Results: Of 2724 articles found, fifteen studies met the inclusion criteria for qualitative synthesis and review. Six of the studies were from construction, four were from general HROs research, two were from health care, and three were from the aerospace, oil and gas, and nuclear industries; (4) Conclusion: Based on the available evidence, transferring the practices and principles of HROs to construction, the validation of proposed assessing tools and a consensus HRO definitions are the major issues identified.

show abstract

Section: Lekka Et Al 2011; Uk [37]mentioning

confidence: 99%

A Systematic Review on High Reliability Organisational Theory as a Safety Management Strategy in Construction

Enya

Pillay

Dempsey

2018

Safety

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The concept of resilience has been developed, adopted, and interpreted differently in different fields of study (Djalante and Thomalla 2011). It was originally developed in the field of ecology (Holling 1973) and subsequently in engineering (Wildavsky 1991), socialecological systems (Folke 2006), natural hazards (see, for example, Paton and Johnston 2006;Tierney and Bruneau 2007), development studies (Gaillard 2010), psychology (Crittenden 1985;Norris et al 2008;Van Vliet 2008), and is now used widely in the media. It is increasingly associated with research in vulnerability, and adaptive capacity (Gallopín 2006;Miller et al 2010).…”

Section: Interlinkages Between Adaptive Governance Resilience and Dmentioning

confidence: 99%

Adaptive governance and managing resilience to natural hazards

Djalante

Holley

Thomalla

2011

Int J Disaster Risk Sci

239

133

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The increasing frequency, intensity, and severity of natural hazards is one of the most pressing global environmental change problems. From the local to the global level, governments and civil society need to increase resilience to these hazards. Despite what is now a very sizeable literature on designing governance systems to produce resilience, a substantial gap in the natural hazards scholarship remains because most studies have lacked grounding in comparable theories on governing for resilience. This article contributes to interdisciplinary research on the conceptual understanding of the interlinkages of adaptive governance (AG), resilience, and disaster risk reduction (DRR). Through better understanding of diversity of terminology, terms, and characteristics, we take a step forward towards mutual learning and intellectual experimentation between the three concepts. Our review shows that there are four characteristics of AG that are important to help increase resilience to natural hazards. These are polycentric and multilayered institutions, participation and collaboration, self-organization and networks, and learning and innovation. The article examines the development, tradeoffs, and benefits that arise from the implementation of the AG characteristics, and reviews their influence on resilience. Hazard and disaster case studies are then examined to see how each AG characteristic is viewed and implemented in disaster contexts. Based on this analysis, the contributions of AG to the DRR literature are identified, before outlining the implications for theory and further research.

show abstract

“…Stankey et al (2003, p. 43) interviewed forest managers in the Pacific Northwest and found that ''coordinators and line officers cited few incentives to undertake adaptive approaches, arguing that experimentation and risktaking are not standards against which they are evaluated. They described their organizations as riskaverse (i.e., concerned with minimizing the possibility of harm occurring [Wildavsky, 1988]) but acknowledged that such behavior is rational and appropriate in a world where the burden of proof has shifted to land managers to provide rigorous evidence that any proposed action (including experimentation) will not lead to adverse consequences for threatened and endangered species (Lee, 1993). '' Only by changing the reward structure within the organization, so that taking risks that sometimes result in bad outcomes is not routinely punished, will excessive risk aversion be alleviated.…”

Section: Incentives For Individual Decision Makersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Can behavioral decision theory explain risk-averse fire management decisions?

Maguire

Albright

2005

Forest Ecology and Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Organizations managing forest land often make fire management decisions that seem overly risk-averse in relation to their stated goals for ecosystem restoration, protection of sensitive species and habitats, and protection of water and timber resources. Research in behavioral decision theory has shown that people faced with difficult decisions under uncertainty and decisions with multiple and conflicting objectives adopt mental shortcuts that systematically bias decision-making. Fire management decisions exhibit exactly the characteristics that are likely to trigger such mental shortcuts. Cumulative and unwitting use of mental shortcuts can lead to fire management decisions that are excessively risk-averse, to the point of jeopardizing stated management goals. It can also cause retrospective analyses of fire decisions to focus inappropriately on placing blame for bad outcomes and fail to scrutinize the quality of the decision itself. Excessive risk aversion is evident in the behavior of individual land managers, land management organizations, regulatory agencies that review land management decisions, and the general public and its agents in the media, courts and legislature. Remedies to excessive risk aversion include: (1) wider use of structured decision processes designed to counteract the mental shortcuts that plague human decision-making, (2) structural and educational changes within and between organizations to change perverse incentives that reward risk aversion and discourage adaptive management, and (3) locally focused collaborations among land management agencies, regulatory agencies, and citizens to build trust and to enhance understanding of forest management goals and practices. #

show abstract

Searching for Safety

Cited by 197 publications

References 0 publications

A Systematic Review on High Reliability Organisational Theory as a Safety Management Strategy in Construction

A Systematic Review on High Reliability Organisational Theory as a Safety Management Strategy in Construction

Adaptive governance and managing resilience to natural hazards

Can behavioral decision theory explain risk-averse fire management decisions?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About