Difference between revisions of "Designing out"

From Securipedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 3: Line 3:
 
="designing out" approach=
  
="designing out" approach=
   
−
== Introduction ==
 +
== Definition ==
−
The "designing-out" approach aims to reduce risk due to crime and [[urban terrorism|terrorism]]<ref>Practical example include S. Geason/P. R. Wilson: Designing out Crime Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design. Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology, 1989.</ref> by designing the urban environment to become less attractive as a working ground for criminals and terrorists.
 +
The "designing-out" approach aims to reduce risk due to crime and [[urban terrorism|terrorism]] by appropriately shaped built infrastructure and by designing the urban environment to become less attractive as a working ground for criminals and terrorists.
   
  +
The approach to “designing out” crime and terrorism (cf. Geason/Wilson 1989)<ref>Geason, S./Wilson, P. R. (1989): Designing out Crime. Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design. Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology. Retrieved from: http://www.aic.gov.au/documents/9/E/8/%7B9E810185-7D54-4480-8EEC-D92D84C3FB36%7Dcpted.pdf [last access: 2011-11-05].</ref> assumes that certain types and locations of urban space are significantly more attractive to perpetrators than others, mainly for social and cultural reasons. Therefore, the choice of urban targets is seen as mainly driven by factors such as maximum visibility of casualties, vulnerable and actually harmed people, maximum media exposure and potential for vast spread of fear among the wider population.
   
  +
⚫
== Principles for urban planning ==
  
  ⚫
==Designing out and counter-terrorism==
  ⚫
On the governmental level, designing out crime and designing in community concepts have been introduced as counter terrorism protective [[security]] strategies (cf. HM Government 2012).<ref>E.g. HM Government: Crowded Places: The Planning System and Counter-Terrorism. Home Office and Department for Communities and Local Government. Crown copyright, 2012. Retrieved from http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/counter-terrorism/crowded-places/design-tech-issues?view=Binary.</ref> They provide guidance for local authorities for preparing local development documents in order to protect crowded places from international terrorist targeting. The UK authorities aim for the creation of safer buildings and places to decrease terrorist attacks and [[vulnerability]]. This example illustrates that urban planning in general and the designing out approach in particular are fundamental [[Crisis management cycle|mitigation]] instruments vis-à-vis urban security risks.
  +
  +
Provided guidance includes advice how to incorporate counter terrorism protective security measures into high design quality; and how to improve security of existing buildings and public realm and environments. Specific requirements for transport facilities (airports, railways, ports) are communicated. Counter-terrorism good design is considered to include risk response and integrating protective security measures. Design principles should be considered as early as possible in planning and development processes and are promoted by the government.
  +
  +
  ⚫
== Designing out principles for urban planning ==
 
Owing to the "designing out" approach, initiatives such as [http://www.cpted.net/ "Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design"] have directly derived practical [[urban planning]] principles to limit the damage of terrorist attacks by specific [[environmental design]] of built [[infrastructure]]. These principles include:
 
Owing to the "designing out" approach, initiatives such as [http://www.cpted.net/ "Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design"] have directly derived practical [[urban planning]] principles to limit the damage of terrorist attacks by specific [[environmental design]] of built [[infrastructure]]. These principles include:
   
−
* stand off distances, to keep people and bomber vehicles away from targets,
+
* Stand off distances, to keep people and bomber vehicles away from targets;
−
* laminated glass,
+
* Laminated glass;
−
* framed structures,
+
* Framed structures;
−
* bombshelter areas etc.
+
* Bombshelter areas etc.
   
   
  +
Other aspects related to designing out, for consideration throughout the planning process for designing buildings and public space, include the following (cf. "PluS Initial Report" by LKA NI 2010)<ref>LKA NI (Eds.) (2010): PluS Initial Report Planning Urban Security. Hannover: Landeskriminalamt Niedersachsen: Retrieved from: http://www.plus-eu.com/docs/PLUS-Initial-Report-online.pdf [last access: 2012-05-23].</ref>:
⚫
==Designing out and counter-terrorism==
  
  +
* Orientation;
⚫
Also on the governmental level, designing-out crime and designing-in community concepts have been introduced, as counter terrorism protective [[security]] strategies.<ref>E.g. HM Government: Crowded Places: The Planning System and Counter-Terrorism. Home Office and Department for Communities and Local Government. Crown copyright, 2012. Retrieved from http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/counter-terrorism/crowded-places/design-tech-issues?view=Binary.</ref> They provide guidance for local authorities for preparing local development documents in order to protect crowded places from international terrorist targeting. The UK authorities aim for the creation of safer buildings and places to decrease terrorist attacks and [[vulnerability]]. Provided guidance includes advice how to incorporate counter terrorism protective security measures into high design quality; and how to improve security of existing buildings and public realm and environments. Specific requirements for transport facilities (airports, railways, ports) are communicated. Counter-terrorism good design is considered to include risk response and integrating protective security measures. Design principles should be considered as early as possible in planning and development processes and are promoted by the government.
  
  +
* Good overview;
  +
* Visibility;
  +
* Lighting;
  +
* Accessibility;
  +
* Vibrant urban environment and multiple social functions;
  +
* Responsibility;
  +
* Avoiding conflicts;
  +
* Ensuring maintenance.
  +
  +
  +
For sustainable implementation of “designing out”, the following four factors should be present (ibid.):
  +
  +
1) Willingness of the participants to be part of a security partnership;
  +
2) Integration of citizens in the planning process through communication and participation methods;
  +
3) Decentralization and localization;
  +
4) Commitment.
  +
  +
  +
== Designing out vs. designing in==
  +
In contrast to designing out, designing in strives for
  +
  +
inclusive concepts such as “appreciative planning” (Ameyaw 2000) focus on an inclusive, participatory planning process in/for multicultural metropolitan environment(s):
   
   

Revision as of 14:03, 22 August 2012


"designing out" approach

Definition

The "designing-out" approach aims to reduce risk due to crime and terrorism by appropriately shaped built infrastructure and by designing the urban environment to become less attractive as a working ground for criminals and terrorists.

The approach to “designing out” crime and terrorism (cf. Geason/Wilson 1989)[1] assumes that certain types and locations of urban space are significantly more attractive to perpetrators than others, mainly for social and cultural reasons. Therefore, the choice of urban targets is seen as mainly driven by factors such as maximum visibility of casualties, vulnerable and actually harmed people, maximum media exposure and potential for vast spread of fear among the wider population.


Designing out and counter-terrorism

On the governmental level, designing out crime and designing in community concepts have been introduced as counter terrorism protective security strategies (cf. HM Government 2012).[2] They provide guidance for local authorities for preparing local development documents in order to protect crowded places from international terrorist targeting. The UK authorities aim for the creation of safer buildings and places to decrease terrorist attacks and vulnerability. This example illustrates that urban planning in general and the designing out approach in particular are fundamental mitigation instruments vis-à-vis urban security risks.

Provided guidance includes advice how to incorporate counter terrorism protective security measures into high design quality; and how to improve security of existing buildings and public realm and environments. Specific requirements for transport facilities (airports, railways, ports) are communicated. Counter-terrorism good design is considered to include risk response and integrating protective security measures. Design principles should be considered as early as possible in planning and development processes and are promoted by the government.


Designing out principles for urban planning

Owing to the "designing out" approach, initiatives such as "Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design" have directly derived practical urban planning principles to limit the damage of terrorist attacks by specific environmental design of built infrastructure. These principles include:

  • Stand off distances, to keep people and bomber vehicles away from targets;
  • Laminated glass;
  • Framed structures;
  • Bombshelter areas etc.


Other aspects related to designing out, for consideration throughout the planning process for designing buildings and public space, include the following (cf. "PluS Initial Report" by LKA NI 2010)[3]:

  • Orientation;
  • Good overview;
  • Visibility;
  • Lighting;
  • Accessibility;
  • Vibrant urban environment and multiple social functions;
  • Responsibility;
  • Avoiding conflicts;
  • Ensuring maintenance.


For sustainable implementation of “designing out”, the following four factors should be present (ibid.):

1) Willingness of the participants to be part of a security partnership; 2) Integration of citizens in the planning process through communication and participation methods; 3) Decentralization and localization; 4) Commitment.


Designing out vs. designing in

In contrast to designing out, designing in strives for 

inclusive concepts such as “appreciative planning” (Ameyaw 2000) focus on an inclusive, participatory planning process in/for multicultural metropolitan environment(s):


Critics

The effectiveness of the "designing out' approach assumes that certain types and locations of urban space are significantly more attractive to perpetrators than others, mainly for social and cultural reasons. Therefore, the choice of urban targets is seen as mainly driven by factors such as maximum visibility of casualties, vulnerable and actually harmed people, maximum media exposure and potential for vast spread of fear among the wider population. David Garland as one of the most popular proponents of the cultural criminology approach locates fear of crime as a criminological subject of study as well as a public and political concern in the context of the change of the political culture of response to crime as it took place in the Western world in the 1970ies.[4] The decline of the ideal of rehabilitation of convicted, the emergence of new normative ideal of punitiveness and the evolution of "expressive justice" – meaning public shaming and humiliation of culprits together with overemphasizing personal feelings of the victim and public outrage over individual acts of crime – have introduced a new emotional culture into crime policy: Whereas fear of crime originally used to be investigated and politically perceived at the level of "a localized, situational anxiety, affecting the worst-off individuals and neighbourhoods", it now became “regarded as a major social problem and a characteristic of contemporary culture."[5] Accordingly, fear of crime can be read as being a cultural factor – if not "cultural theme"[6] – in itself, rather than being a dependent variable in part influenced by (other) cultural factors.

As Garland goes on to argue, the victim and its fears have become a "symbolic figure", individual victims are taken as "Everyman" and the public opinion rests on the assumption of a constant increase in crime rates met by no efficient public response, thus reducing public confidence and reinforcing the perception of certain types of victimization as symbol of the state of public safety/security affairs in general.[7]


Further Information


Footnotes and references

  1. ↑ Geason, S./Wilson, P. R. (1989): Designing out Crime. Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design. Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology. Retrieved from: http://www.aic.gov.au/documents/9/E/8/%7B9E810185-7D54-4480-8EEC-D92D84C3FB36%7Dcpted.pdf [last access: 2011-11-05].
  2. ↑ E.g. HM Government: Crowded Places: The Planning System and Counter-Terrorism. Home Office and Department for Communities and Local Government. Crown copyright, 2012. Retrieved from http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/counter-terrorism/crowded-places/design-tech-issues?view=Binary.
  3. ↑ LKA NI (Eds.) (2010): PluS Initial Report Planning Urban Security. Hannover: Landeskriminalamt Niedersachsen: Retrieved from: http://www.plus-eu.com/docs/PLUS-Initial-Report-online.pdf [last access: 2012-05-23].
  4. ↑ David Garland: The Culture of Control: Crime and Social Order in Contemporary Society. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2001, pp. 6-11.
  5. ↑ Ibid., p. 10.
  6. ↑ Ibid., p. 10.
  7. ↑ Ibid., p. 11.


MAP

check spelling of content name

<websiteFrame>

website=http://securipedia.eu/cool/index.php?wiki=securipedia.eu&concept=%22designing_out%22_approach

height=1023

width=100%

border=0

scroll=auto

align=middle

</websiteFrame>


<headertabs/>

Retrieved from "https://securipedia.eu/index.php?title=Designing_out&oldid=4697"