Trust and trustworthiness: Conceptual distinctions and their implications for natural resources management

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

32 Citations (Scopus)
13 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Few natural resource management (NRM) studies discriminate between trust and trustworthiness. However, this approach, which combines the attitude of one actor with the characteristics of another actor, is common in the organisational management literature. Our case study, set in a wildfire management context in Australia, sought to explore: 1) how community members and NRM staff defined trust and described trustworthiness; 2) how these trust definitions did or did not reflect conceptualisations in the literature; and, 3) whether explicitly differentiating between trust and trustworthiness is useful in an NRM context. Our findings suggest that participants defined trust in three main ways: as 'having a good relationship'; as 'being able to rely on others' in a one-way manner; and, as 'a relationship where parties rely on one another' in a reciprocal manner. Our findings also suggest that participants differentiated these trust definitions from trustworthiness, that is, from the characteristics and actions which made an individual or agency worthy of trust. These findings suggest that it is useful to differentiate trust from trustworthiness because it allows NRM managers and researchers to better understand both the trusting intentions of community members and the characteristics of the agency which contribute to that trust.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1246-1265
Number of pages20
JournalJournal of Environmental Planning and Management
Volume56
Issue number8
Early online dateOct 2012
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Oct 2013

Fingerprint

Natural resources management
trustworthiness
natural resources
resource management
natural resource
management
wildfire
Managers
community
manager
staff

Cite this

@article{91531d99ad48449e82f4749a69474be2,
title = "Trust and trustworthiness: Conceptual distinctions and their implications for natural resources management",
abstract = "Few natural resource management (NRM) studies discriminate between trust and trustworthiness. However, this approach, which combines the attitude of one actor with the characteristics of another actor, is common in the organisational management literature. Our case study, set in a wildfire management context in Australia, sought to explore: 1) how community members and NRM staff defined trust and described trustworthiness; 2) how these trust definitions did or did not reflect conceptualisations in the literature; and, 3) whether explicitly differentiating between trust and trustworthiness is useful in an NRM context. Our findings suggest that participants defined trust in three main ways: as 'having a good relationship'; as 'being able to rely on others' in a one-way manner; and, as 'a relationship where parties rely on one another' in a reciprocal manner. Our findings also suggest that participants differentiated these trust definitions from trustworthiness, that is, from the characteristics and actions which made an individual or agency worthy of trust. These findings suggest that it is useful to differentiate trust from trustworthiness because it allows NRM managers and researchers to better understand both the trusting intentions of community members and the characteristics of the agency which contribute to that trust.",
keywords = "Open access version available, Confidence, Reliance, Trust, Trustworthiness, Wildland fire",
author = "Emily Sharp and Allan Curtis and Richard Thwaites and Joanne Millar",
note = "Imported on 12 Apr 2017 - DigiTool details were: month (773h) = October, 2013; Journal title (773t) = Journal of Environmental Planning and Management. ISSNs: 0964-0568;",
year = "2013",
month = "10",
doi = "10.1080/09640568.2012.717052",
language = "English",
volume = "56",
pages = "1246--1265",
journal = "Planning Outlook",
issn = "0964-0568",
publisher = "Routledge",
number = "8",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Trust and trustworthiness

T2 - Conceptual distinctions and their implications for natural resources management

AU - Sharp, Emily

AU - Curtis, Allan

AU - Thwaites, Richard

AU - Millar, Joanne

N1 - Imported on 12 Apr 2017 - DigiTool details were: month (773h) = October, 2013; Journal title (773t) = Journal of Environmental Planning and Management. ISSNs: 0964-0568;

PY - 2013/10

Y1 - 2013/10

N2 - Few natural resource management (NRM) studies discriminate between trust and trustworthiness. However, this approach, which combines the attitude of one actor with the characteristics of another actor, is common in the organisational management literature. Our case study, set in a wildfire management context in Australia, sought to explore: 1) how community members and NRM staff defined trust and described trustworthiness; 2) how these trust definitions did or did not reflect conceptualisations in the literature; and, 3) whether explicitly differentiating between trust and trustworthiness is useful in an NRM context. Our findings suggest that participants defined trust in three main ways: as 'having a good relationship'; as 'being able to rely on others' in a one-way manner; and, as 'a relationship where parties rely on one another' in a reciprocal manner. Our findings also suggest that participants differentiated these trust definitions from trustworthiness, that is, from the characteristics and actions which made an individual or agency worthy of trust. These findings suggest that it is useful to differentiate trust from trustworthiness because it allows NRM managers and researchers to better understand both the trusting intentions of community members and the characteristics of the agency which contribute to that trust.

AB - Few natural resource management (NRM) studies discriminate between trust and trustworthiness. However, this approach, which combines the attitude of one actor with the characteristics of another actor, is common in the organisational management literature. Our case study, set in a wildfire management context in Australia, sought to explore: 1) how community members and NRM staff defined trust and described trustworthiness; 2) how these trust definitions did or did not reflect conceptualisations in the literature; and, 3) whether explicitly differentiating between trust and trustworthiness is useful in an NRM context. Our findings suggest that participants defined trust in three main ways: as 'having a good relationship'; as 'being able to rely on others' in a one-way manner; and, as 'a relationship where parties rely on one another' in a reciprocal manner. Our findings also suggest that participants differentiated these trust definitions from trustworthiness, that is, from the characteristics and actions which made an individual or agency worthy of trust. These findings suggest that it is useful to differentiate trust from trustworthiness because it allows NRM managers and researchers to better understand both the trusting intentions of community members and the characteristics of the agency which contribute to that trust.

KW - Open access version available

KW - Confidence

KW - Reliance

KW - Trust

KW - Trustworthiness

KW - Wildland fire

U2 - 10.1080/09640568.2012.717052

DO - 10.1080/09640568.2012.717052

M3 - Article

VL - 56

SP - 1246

EP - 1265

JO - Planning Outlook

JF - Planning Outlook

SN - 0964-0568

IS - 8

ER -