Social aspects - Revision history

Albert at 13:47, 21 April 2021

2021-04-21T13:47:23Z

Albert: Undo revision 14021 by Albert (talk)

2018-01-26T09:04:26Z

Undo revision 14021 by Albert (talk)

Albert at 09:01, 26 January 2018

2018-01-26T09:01:19Z

Albert: /* Culture aspects */

2018-01-26T08:05:06Z

Culture aspects

Albert: /* Entry points for social functions in security-related urban planning */

2014-01-02T09:56:59Z

Entry points for social functions in security-related urban planning

Albert: /* Entry points for social functions in security-related urban planning */

2014-01-02T09:56:34Z

Entry points for social functions in security-related urban planning

Hans at 14:34, 4 December 2013

2013-12-04T14:34:15Z

Hans: /* General, sociological perspective */

2013-11-20T12:01:55Z

General, sociological perspective

Hans: /* Influencing behavior through environmental design */

2013-11-20T11:58:19Z

Influencing behavior through environmental design

Hans: /* Influencing behavior through environmental design */

2013-11-20T11:55:00Z

Influencing behavior through environmental design

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:47, 21 April 2021
Line 1:		Line 1:
	[[File:t.png\|25px\|right\|This page provides information about content and use of the Vitruv tools]]		[[File:t.png\|25px\|right\|This page provides information about content and use of the Vitruv tools]][[File:P sociology green.svg\|250px\|right]]
	In this Securipedia page, the focus is on the '''social functions''' of urban objects in an urban environment. In the graphic of the Securipedia overall structure, the assumption is depicted that (potential) measures that mitigate (potential) threats have impact on the social functions of urban objects, because of the consequences for the design and accessibility of the objects and the urban environment in general.		In this Securipedia page, the focus is on the '''social functions''' of urban objects in an urban environment. In the graphic of the Securipedia overall structure, the assumption is depicted that (potential) measures that mitigate (potential) threats have impact on the social functions of urban objects, because of the consequences for the design and accessibility of the objects and the urban environment in general.

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:04, 26 January 2018
Line 1:		Line 1:
	[[File:ae.png\|25px\|right\|This ~~is a~~ page ~~providing~~ ~~background~~ in a ~~specific~~ ~~field~~ of ~~expertise~~]]		[[File:t.png\|25px\|right\|This page provides information about content and use of the Vitruv tools]]
	In this Securipedia page, the focus is on the '''social functions''' of urban objects in an urban environment. In the graphic of the Securipedia overall structure, the assumption is depicted that (potential) measures that mitigate (potential) threats have impact on the social functions of urban objects, because of the consequences for the design and accessibility of the objects and the urban environment in general.		In this Securipedia page, the focus is on the '''social functions''' of urban objects in an urban environment. In the graphic of the Securipedia overall structure, the assumption is depicted that (potential) measures that mitigate (potential) threats have impact on the social functions of urban objects, because of the consequences for the design and accessibility of the objects and the urban environment in general.

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:01, 26 January 2018
Line 1:		Line 1:
	[[File:t.png\|25px\|right\|This ~~page~~ ~~provides~~ ~~information~~ ~~about~~ ~~content~~ ~~and~~ ~~use~~ of ~~the~~ ~~Vitruv~~ ~~tools~~]]		[[File:ae.png\|25px\|right\|This is a page providing background in a specific field of expertise]]
	In this Securipedia page, the focus is on the '''social functions''' of urban objects in an urban environment. In the graphic of the Securipedia overall structure, the assumption is depicted that (potential) measures that mitigate (potential) threats have impact on the social functions of urban objects, because of the consequences for the design and accessibility of the objects and the urban environment in general.		In this Securipedia page, the focus is on the '''social functions''' of urban objects in an urban environment. In the graphic of the Securipedia overall structure, the assumption is depicted that (potential) measures that mitigate (potential) threats have impact on the social functions of urban objects, because of the consequences for the design and accessibility of the objects and the urban environment in general.

@@ Line 48: / Line 48: @@
 ===Culture aspects===
-[[belongs to::Security_culture|Security culture]] as a concept has different connotations. A security culture can be developed within an organisation, a city council, and among urban planner for that matter, with the explicit aim to encourage people to respect common values and standards towards security whether they are inside or outside the workplace, i.e., more generally, urban objects. This meaning of security cultural is closely related to security awareness, i.e. the knowledge and attitude people possess regarding the protection of the physical and especially, information assets. Another connotation is that security culture refers to the general perception within society of what risk an security means and what it entails and of course the general acceptance of measures to mitigate the dangers and threats. Hence, different perceptions and disputes about risk and security can be linked to competing worldviews, as they are paramount in multicultural cities: Conceptions of risk, security and solutions to security problems vary according to the organisation of political and social relations.
+[[Security_culture|Security culture]] as a concept has different connotations. A security culture can be developed within an organisation, a city council, and among urban planner for that matter, with the explicit aim to encourage people to respect common values and standards towards security whether they are inside or outside the workplace, i.e., more generally, urban objects. This meaning of security cultural is closely related to security awareness, i.e. the knowledge and attitude people possess regarding the protection of the physical and especially, information assets. Another connotation is that security culture refers to the general perception within society of what risk an security means and what it entails and of course the general acceptance of measures to mitigate the dangers and threats. Hence, different perceptions and disputes about risk and security can be linked to competing worldviews, as they are paramount in multicultural cities: Conceptions of risk, security and solutions to security problems vary according to the organisation of political and social relations.
 ====Entry points for culture aspects in security-related urban planning====

@@ Line 43: / Line 43: @@
 **Social risk perception and communication of risk ([[risk perception mechanisms]] and parts of page on [[risk]])
 **[[Failure_of_critical_services#Societal_aspects|Failure of critical services: Societal aspects]]
-**[[Critical_infrastructure#Types_of_impact_of_critical_infrasture_failure_on_citizens_and_society|Critical infrastructure: Types of impact of critical infrastructure failure on citizens and society]]
 **[[Perception of (in)security]]
 **[[Local open dialogue]]

@@ Line 36: / Line 36: @@
 **[[Sociospatial perspective]]
 **[[Environmental psychology]]
-*[[Critical_infrastructure#Types_of_impact_of_critical_infrasture_failure_on_citizens_and_society|Critical infrastructure: Types of impact of critical infrastructure failure on citizens and society]]
 *Citizen acceptance aspects, including practical aspects of addressing them
 **[[Security#Security_as_a_public_good|Security as a public good]]

@@ Line 2: / Line 2: @@
 In this Securipedia page, the focus is on the '''social functions''' of urban objects in an urban environment. In the graphic of the Securipedia overall structure, the assumption is depicted that (potential) measures that mitigate (potential) threats have impact on the social functions of urban objects, because of the consequences for the design and accessibility of the objects and the urban environment in general.
-To be able to understand how current or future security measures have an effect on the social function we need first to know what is understood by social functions of urban object in particular and of the urban environment in general. Secondly, we need to know what the mechanisms are through which safety measurements effect, positively or negatively, the social functions.
+To be able to understand how current or future security measures have an effect on the social function we need first to know what is understood by social functions of urban object in particular and of the urban environment in general. Secondly, we need to know what the mechanisms are, through which safety measurements effect, positively or negatively, the social functions.
 ==Description==

@@ Line 7: / Line 7: @@
 To understand the concept of social functions we need to keep in mind that mobility, economic and safety are of course also social in nature. But to facilitate sense making, we have distinguished social functions as a separate category, which will be described from a sociological and a psychological perspective.
 ===General, sociological perspective===
-The social function of urban property, i.e. urban objects in urban environments, is illustrated by the phrase “The city is not a business, the city is for all”. In the social sciences, especially sociology, this view is known as functionalism. Functionalists see society, and hence urban environments, as made up of inter-dependent sections (objects) which work together to fulfill the functions necessary for the survival of society as a whole. People are socialized into roles and behaviours which fulfill the needs of society. Functionalists believe that behaviour in society is structural. They believe that rules and regulations help organize relationships between members of society. Values provide general guidelines for behaviour in terms of roles and norms. These institutions of society such as the family, the economy, the educational and political systems, are major aspects of the social structure. Institutions are made up of interconnected roles or inter-related norms. For example, inter-connected roles in the institution of the family are of wife, mother, husband, father, son and daughter.
+The social function of urban property, i.e. urban objects in urban environments, is illustrated by the phrase “The city is not a business, the city is for all”. In the social sciences, especially sociology, this view is known as functionalism<ref>functionalism has its origins in the works of Emile Durkheim, who was especially interested in how social order is possible or how society remains relatively stable</ref>. Functionalists see society, and hence urban environments, as made up of inter-dependent sections (objects) which work together to fulfill the functions necessary for the survival of society as a whole. People are socialized into roles and behaviours which fulfill the needs of society. Functionalists believe that behaviour in society is structural. They believe that rules and regulations help organize relationships between members of society. Values provide general guidelines for behaviour in terms of roles and norms. These institutions of society such as the family, the economy, the educational and political systems, are major aspects of the social structure. Institutions are made up of interconnected roles or inter-related norms. For example, inter-connected roles in the institution of the family are of wife, mother, husband, father, son and daughter.
 Functionalists believe that one can compare society to a living organism, in that both a society and an organism are made up of interdependent working parts (organs) and systems that must function together in order for the greater body to function. Functionalist sociologists say that the different parts of society e.g. the family, education, religion, law and order, media etc. have to be seen in terms of the contribution that they make to the functioning of the whole of society. This ‘organic analogy’ sees the different parts of society working together to form a social system in the same way that the different parts of an organism form a cohesive functioning entity.

@@ Line 21: / Line 21: @@
 ===Influencing behavior through environmental design===
-From a social functions perspective citizens should always be part of security and related safety considerations in urban planning. Not only are citizens the ultimate end-users and consumers of social functions, much of the planning and design of object directly effects citizens perception and behavior and, hence, effects social functioning. The relation between tactical design and the effective use of the built environment on the one hand and the reduction of both crime and the fear of crime is expressed in a crime prevention theory called [[Crime prevention by design|‘Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design’]] (CPTED)<ref>Jeffery, C. Ray. (1971). Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications</ref>. A main objective of CPTED is to reduce or remove the opportunity for crime to occur in an environment, and promote positive interaction with the space by legitimate users.
+From a social functions perspective citizens should always be part of security and related safety considerations in urban planning. Not only are citizens the ultimate end-users and consumers of social functions, much of the planning and design of object directly effects citizens perception and behavior and, hence, effects social functioning. The relation between tactical design and the effective use of the built environment on the one hand and the reduction of both crime and the fear of crime is expressed in a crime prevention theory called [[Crime prevention by design|‘Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design’]] (CPTED)<ref>Jeffery, C. Ray. (1971). Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications</ref>. A main objective of CPTED is to reduce or remove the opportunity for crime to occur in an environment, and promote positive interaction with the space by legitimate users. CPTED is a preventative, pro-active model, and not a reactive one.
 The dilemma is that the design implication of these functions often conflict with one another. For example, the placement of cameras is a modern variant of social control. From placing camera’s it is expected that it, apart from curbing crime and offenses, enhances the sense of security. The same cameras also bring the message about that it is apparently necessary and that the area is full of offenders, which good undermine the sense of social security. If urban planners do not recognize different functions of space and objects it is obviously very difficult to balance out conflict among these different functions. In order to overcome this state of affairs, Steele [1973] developed a system for categorizing the social functions that immediate physical settings play for people. For describing the social function of urban objects in an urban environment we use four dimensions: