Perception of (in)security and risks

The general assumption of social and cultural approaches to the perception of (in)security is that phenomena such as fear of crime depend on culturally embedded meanings of risk. They are thus seen by cultural approaches more as an indicator of the collective memory of particular events as shaped by political response, media framing etc. than of citizens’ actual security beliefs/perceptions. For example, immigrant cultures may be interpreted as the cause of social radicalization processes that mount up to threats to internal security (such as in France or the Netherlands); differently, a user security culture may be interpreted as a social firewall against IT security offences (as it is the case in Sweden). These factors also influence the perception of the criticality of infrastructure.

Urban planning decisions sensitive of security aspects should integrate in a broader way citizens’ perception of security in urban spaces, appreciating that this is a multidimensional process depending on various factors. Essentially culture and society-related parameters of urban planning include, among others, different user groups (user cultures), value conflicts and competencies of the urban planning agencies involved in the process.

Security problems accumulate in specific areas and also depend on the way public space is used. Lessons learned highlight some important urban planning elements, such as barrier-free mobility, sufficient lighting, spaces enabling communication and networking, as well as providing low-speed traffic lanes. Undisturbed access to public space and use of facilities is an important indicator of a positive assessment of personal security. Discursive strategies and related public communication measures are an important asset in reducing public disorder phenomena, while actual experiences of insecurity are often found to be rumors. Public space often has to serve multiple and often conflicting interests, politically or economically motivated, which has proven counterproductive both to the planning and everyday use. In this regard, it is important to consider the question: Security for whom? This entails the setting up of an analytical framework that allows for involving all relevant actors in the process of urban planning. Several methods are available to implement citizen participation.

The awareness of planning capabilities should be sharpened in the future, both to contribute to vulnerability identification as well as to strengthen resilience. Analyzing the individuals’ perception of its security can play a key role in this. For example, while the need to provide for sufficient lighting clearly shapes the planning process of urban public space, thorough analysis of the relevant users and user groups are required to better assess how lighting can contribute to heighten individual security perception and to reduce “fear” in public space. Following a participatory approach by involving citizens, the neighborhood and prospective users in the urban planning process can impact social control and the “user experience” of the facility.

An initial checklist for requirements to identify vulnerabilities in order to enhance resilience can be derived from this, for appropriate consideration in urban planning.