Difference between revisions of "Environmental psychology"
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
==Meanings of built environments== |
==Meanings of built environments== |
||
| − | Therefore, it is important that urban designs “incorporate public meanings” and citizens’ images of places, including – one can add – those of “secure” or “safe” places<ref>J. L. Nasar: Environmental psychology and urban design. In: T. Banerjee/A. Loukaitou-Sideris (eds.): Companion to Urban Design. London/New York: Routledge, 2011, pp. 162-174, p. 166.</ref>. As a result, also the identification of “weak points” in urban environments from a security culture point of view has to be seen as socially negotiated and constructed sense-making that takes place in cultural contexts<ref>J. Falkheimer/H. Mats: Multicultural Crisis Communication: Towards a Social Constructionist Perspective. In: Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management 14, no. 4., 2006.</ref>. Debates in urban design though have often disregarded this aspect, rather centring on “which good design determines good behavior”<ref>C. Whitzman: Secure cities. In: T. Banerjee/A. Loukaitou-Sideris (eds.): Companion to Urban Design. London/New York: Routledge, 2011, pp. 663-673, p. 670.</ref>. Another relevant aspect is the [[Infrastructure#Perception_of_criticality|perception of criticality of built infrastructure]]. |
+ | Therefore, it is important that urban designs “incorporate public meanings” and citizens’ images of places, including – one can add – those of “secure” or “safe” places<ref>J. L. Nasar: Environmental psychology and urban design. In: T. Banerjee/A. Loukaitou-Sideris (eds.): Companion to Urban Design. London/New York: Routledge, 2011, pp. 162-174, p. 166.</ref>. As a result, also the identification of “weak points” in urban environments from a security culture point of view has to be seen as socially negotiated and/or constructed sense-making that takes place in cultural contexts<ref>J. Falkheimer/H. Mats: Multicultural Crisis Communication: Towards a Social Constructionist Perspective. In: Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management 14, no. 4., 2006.</ref>. Debates in urban design though have often disregarded this aspect, rather centring on “which good design determines good behavior”<ref>C. Whitzman: Secure cities. In: T. Banerjee/A. Loukaitou-Sideris (eds.): Companion to Urban Design. London/New York: Routledge, 2011, pp. 663-673, p. 670.</ref>. Another relevant aspect is the [[Infrastructure#Perception_of_criticality|perception of criticality of built infrastructure]]. |
Revision as of 13:19, 20 August 2012
Contents
Environmental psychology
Environmental psychology[1] has as its main tenet that the meaning intentionally embodied in built environment is not always decoded by citizens as intended. Environmental cognition cannot be designed. A related approach from urban planning is to avoid stressful and potentially threatening feelings of being lost in large buildings, and resulting perceived threat by providing “legibility”[2] so that “one can comprehend and navigate environments”[3]. An example would be securitization as an emerging process: We cannot just decide about security by way of planning, such as “designing out” crime or “designing in” protection and resilience.
Meanings of built environments
Therefore, it is important that urban designs “incorporate public meanings” and citizens’ images of places, including – one can add – those of “secure” or “safe” places[4]. As a result, also the identification of “weak points” in urban environments from a security culture point of view has to be seen as socially negotiated and/or constructed sense-making that takes place in cultural contexts[5]. Debates in urban design though have often disregarded this aspect, rather centring on “which good design determines good behavior”[6]. Another relevant aspect is the perception of criticality of built infrastructure.
Comprehensive view of security aspects in urban planning
Additional aspects have to be considered so to arrive at a comprehensive view to inform security-conscious urban planning decisions. For example, conflicts between different social groups about public space are a democratic phenomenon that should not be subject to "designing-out". Security aspects of urban design should not be overly mainstreamed because planning to increase security of excluded groups may also contribute to making cities safer. And desire for security should not inform urban planning to contribute to threatening citizens’ rights of expression and dissent, owing to the old principle that city air should make people free, rather than constrain them[7].
Footnotes and references
- ↑ E.g. J. L. Nasar: Environmental psychology and urban design. In: T. Banerjee/A. Loukaitou-Sideris (eds.): Companion to Urban Design. London/New York: Routledge, 2011, pp. 162-174.
- ↑ K. Lynch: The Image of the City. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1960.
- ↑ J. L. Nasar: Environmental psychology and urban design. In: T. Banerjee/A. Loukaitou-Sideris (eds.): Companion to Urban Design. London/New York: Routledge, 2011, pp. 162-174, p. 165.
- ↑ J. L. Nasar: Environmental psychology and urban design. In: T. Banerjee/A. Loukaitou-Sideris (eds.): Companion to Urban Design. London/New York: Routledge, 2011, pp. 162-174, p. 166.
- ↑ J. Falkheimer/H. Mats: Multicultural Crisis Communication: Towards a Social Constructionist Perspective. In: Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management 14, no. 4., 2006.
- ↑ C. Whitzman: Secure cities. In: T. Banerjee/A. Loukaitou-Sideris (eds.): Companion to Urban Design. London/New York: Routledge, 2011, pp. 663-673, p. 670.
- ↑ Cf. C. Whitzman: Secure cities. In: T. Banerjee/A. Loukaitou-Sideris (eds.): Companion to Urban Design. London/New York: Routledge, 2011, pp. 670-671.
MAP
<websiteFrame> website=http://securipedia.eu/cool/index.php?wiki=securipedia.eu&concept=Environmental_psychology height=1023 width=100% border=0 scroll=auto align=middle </websiteFrame>
<headertabs/>
