The “Golden Minutes” in Protecting Cultural Heritage: Why Training Matters
Technology alone cannot save a masterpiece. While AI video analytics can detect a threat in seconds, the outcome depends on the human response. Discover why overcoming cognitive biases and mastering tactical intervention are essential to ensuring that the effort to extinguish a fire doesn’t become a “second disaster” for our artistic heritage.
The provision of immediate extinguishing stations is essential, but it is not sufficient to guarantee the success of the extinguishing activities (image: fireriskheritage.net).
After investing in the acquisition of video-analytics systems and staff training, the most challenging part of the process is managing the everyday routine—specifically, the long periods where no events occur or the false alarms generated by daily use.
Both these aspects must be clearly explained to trainees, as the most common “Achilles’ heels” in security are two specific cognitive biases:
- Normalcy Bias: The belief that because nothing has happened until now, nothing is likely to happen in the future.
- Alert Fatigue: A state where, after a prolonged series of false alarms, operators progressively begin to treat all system alerts as false by default.
Training and Cognitive Awareness
Trainees (and managers) must be made aware of both cognitive biases.
While alert fatigue can be mitigated through the careful selection of high-quality video-analytics hardware and software, normalcy bias manifests more subtly by gradually lowering the overall level of response readiness.
Such psychological factors are rarely accounted for in standard fire risk assessments, especially within understaffed structures.
This is why continuous training and re-training are essential.
Maintaining a high state of operational readiness may be more costly than simply “ticking a box” on a compliance checklist every few years, but it is the only way to ensure actual safety.
Operating in Case of Fire
Protecting Cultural Heritage (CH) assets requires personnel who can reach the fire immediately—within the “golden minutes”—and extinguish it in the most appropriate manner.
This means that staff should not only know where the extinguishers are located but must have practiced the fastest physical routes to high-risk zones (e.g., the main altar or specific artworks) identified by the analytics system through regular practical drills.
Furthermore, “the most appropriate manner” implies that operators must be taught how to direct the extinguishing jet toward the base of the fire while avoiding direct contact with fragile surfaces, such as frescoes or gilded wood.
This includes training on the chemical compatibility of extinguishing agents with specific heritage materials to avoid irreversible chemical damage.
Cognitive Bias and CH Safety
While alert fatigue can be reduced by improving video-analytics systems, false alarms cannot be completely eliminated. When staff become accustomed to false positives (such as incense smoke or shifting light), they may hesitate during a real attack.
Since this analysis is aimed particularly at smaller buildings—which are often understaffed—simulation-based training should be implemented to improve the fire safety strategy, focusing on:
- Blind Tests: Exercises where staff must distinguish between system noise and genuine threats.
- Behavioral Trust: Training operators to trust the AI’s behavioral analysis (e.g., detecting loitering or aggressive movement) before a fire even starts, allowing for preventive intervention.
Dealing with the “Second Disaster”
A comprehensive safety plan must account for collateral damage. If an intentional fire is the first disaster, an incorrect extinguishing effort can become a second, equally severe disaster.
In this regard, educating staff on the nature of combustion products (gases, soot, and particulate matter) is essential. Training should cover how to isolate the affected area immediately after the fire is extinguished to prevent smoke from spreading to other decorated surfaces.
Moreover, staff must understand why professional cleaning is required rather than attempting “DIY” cleaning methods that could further damage the assets.
Conclusion
The effectiveness of a security strategy for cultural heritage does not reside in the technology alone, nor in the presence of staff, but in the seamless integration of both.
Video analytics can drastically reduce detection time, but those “golden minutes” are only valuable if the human responder is psychologically prepared and technically capable. By addressing cognitive biases and mastering tactical intervention, we transform a passive surveillance system into an active shield, ensuring that the effort to save a masterpiece does not inadvertently contribute to its loss.
