Difference between revisions of "Social aspects"
(Created page with "= {{PAGENAME}} = Design features of urban infrastructure influence citizens’ perception of the risk that infrastructure is at, or that it is assumed to mitigate or prevent....") |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
= {{PAGENAME}} = |
= {{PAGENAME}} = |
||
| − | Design features of urban infrastructure influence citizens’ perception of the risk that infrastructure is at, or that it is assumed to mitigate or prevent. Design features also influence the general perception of criticality of that infrastructure. While urban sociology and socially concerned urban planning have gained much insight on environments such as |
+ | Design features of urban infrastructure influence citizens’ perception of the risk that infrastructure is at, or that it is assumed to mitigate or prevent. Design features also influence the general perception of criticality of that infrastructure. These two are important asepcts of [[Security_culture|security culture]]. While urban sociology and socially concerned urban planning have gained much insight on environments such as "pleasant", "calming" or "exciting"<ref>Cf. Nasar 2001: 168.</ref>, "secure environments" have been addressed to a far lesser extent. |
==The "ecological perspective"== |
==The "ecological perspective"== |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
The "ecological" perspective <ref>Michelson 2011.</ref> in urban sociology explores what happens in social terms as a consequence of the exposure of people to built environment. Possible consequences include social exclusion of specific parts of the public, as reprimanded by cultural criminology <ref>Cf. Garland 2001.</ref>. |
The "ecological" perspective <ref>Michelson 2011.</ref> in urban sociology explores what happens in social terms as a consequence of the exposure of people to built environment. Possible consequences include social exclusion of specific parts of the public, as reprimanded by cultural criminology <ref>Cf. Garland 2001.</ref>. |
||
| − | On the bottom line, urban structure has an impact on social processes, and this needs to be addressed in strategic urban planning (cf. Hannigan 1998). The school of |
+ | On the bottom line, urban structure has an impact on social processes, and this needs to be addressed in strategic urban planning (cf. Hannigan 1998). The school of "new urbanism" has referred to this as the "sociospatial perspective". This means that urban space and society interact, and that "social space operates as both a product and a producer of changes in the metropolitan environment" <ref>Gottdiener/Hutchinson 2011: 394.</ref>. |
Social aspects are citizen-related aspects, and security in urban space is societal security. That given, citizens should always be part of security and related considerations in urban planning since citizens are its ultimate end-users. However, it is not easy to address citizens by built infrastructure in order – for example – to influence their behaviour using that infrastructure. The reason for this is that – among other things due to culture aspects – citizens ‘read’ built urban environment in different ways: One central tenet in environmental psychology is that meaning intentionally embodied in built environment is not always decoded by citizens according to that intention.<ref>Cf. Nasar 2011.</ref> Therefore, it is important that urban designs “incorporate public meanings” and citizens’ images of places, <ref>Nasar 2011: 166.</ref>, including – one can add – those of secure places. |
Social aspects are citizen-related aspects, and security in urban space is societal security. That given, citizens should always be part of security and related considerations in urban planning since citizens are its ultimate end-users. However, it is not easy to address citizens by built infrastructure in order – for example – to influence their behaviour using that infrastructure. The reason for this is that – among other things due to culture aspects – citizens ‘read’ built urban environment in different ways: One central tenet in environmental psychology is that meaning intentionally embodied in built environment is not always decoded by citizens according to that intention.<ref>Cf. Nasar 2011.</ref> Therefore, it is important that urban designs “incorporate public meanings” and citizens’ images of places, <ref>Nasar 2011: 166.</ref>, including – one can add – those of secure places. |
||
==Citizen involvement in security-related urban planning== |
==Citizen involvement in security-related urban planning== |
||
| − | Practical addressing of social aspects in security-related urban planning can best be accomplished by appropriately involving citizens, based on a set of intruduced methods of [[Citizen_participation|citizen participation]]. |
+ | Practical addressing of social aspects and aspects of [[Security_culture|security culture]] in security-related urban planning can best be accomplished by appropriately involving citizens, based on a set of intruduced methods of [[Citizen_participation|citizen participation]]. |
Revision as of 22:49, 2 November 2012
Contents
Social aspects
Design features of urban infrastructure influence citizens’ perception of the risk that infrastructure is at, or that it is assumed to mitigate or prevent. Design features also influence the general perception of criticality of that infrastructure. These two are important asepcts of security culture. While urban sociology and socially concerned urban planning have gained much insight on environments such as "pleasant", "calming" or "exciting"[1], "secure environments" have been addressed to a far lesser extent.
The "ecological perspective"
The "ecological" perspective [2] in urban sociology explores what happens in social terms as a consequence of the exposure of people to built environment. Possible consequences include social exclusion of specific parts of the public, as reprimanded by cultural criminology [3].
On the bottom line, urban structure has an impact on social processes, and this needs to be addressed in strategic urban planning (cf. Hannigan 1998). The school of "new urbanism" has referred to this as the "sociospatial perspective". This means that urban space and society interact, and that "social space operates as both a product and a producer of changes in the metropolitan environment" [4].
Social aspects are citizen-related aspects, and security in urban space is societal security. That given, citizens should always be part of security and related considerations in urban planning since citizens are its ultimate end-users. However, it is not easy to address citizens by built infrastructure in order – for example – to influence their behaviour using that infrastructure. The reason for this is that – among other things due to culture aspects – citizens ‘read’ built urban environment in different ways: One central tenet in environmental psychology is that meaning intentionally embodied in built environment is not always decoded by citizens according to that intention.[5] Therefore, it is important that urban designs “incorporate public meanings” and citizens’ images of places, [6], including – one can add – those of secure places.
Practical addressing of social aspects and aspects of security culture in security-related urban planning can best be accomplished by appropriately involving citizens, based on a set of intruduced methods of citizen participation.
Footnotes and references
MAP
<websiteFrame> website=http://securipedia.eu/cool/index.php?concept=<replace with pagename> width=100% border=0 scroll=auto align=middle </websiteFrame>
<headertabs/>
