Cindynics, The Science of Danger

6Perspectives

Often misunderstood because of its new specific vocabulary that it adopted at the outset, and the change it caused in our habits of constrained thinking due to our Cartesian training, the cindynics approach encountered many difficulties in convincing us of the power brought by its concepts. Furthermore, because it was initially based on experience feedback (REX) from accidents and disasters, it was sometimes criticized because it was reduced to a mere tool for establishing and analyzing REX.

After a period of development, thanks to teaching in universities and large schools in France (Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne, Faculté de Lyon 3, Écoles des Mines de Paris, Nancy and Saint-Etienne, Master’s degree in Territory Management from the École Internationale des Sciences du Traitement de l’Information (EISTI)), the cindynics approach has experienced a certain decline.

However, since 2012, two Institutes, the Institut pour la Maîtrise des Risques (IMdR) and the Institut Méditerranéen des Cindyniques (IMC) have been breathing new life into it by promoting the interest and robustness of cindynics concepts. In view of its geographical location, the IMC gives priority to the study of the vulnerability of firms to wildfire and crisis management¹. As for the IMdR, this institute runs periodic training courses so that the approach is accessible to a large majority of managers in both the industrial and local authority sectors (see, Appendix 13). This is the role of ...