Determination of security aspects - methods for urban planners

Aspect determination methods for urban planners

Introduction

t.b.e.

Methods to determine risk aspects of the public security culture

Method	Description	Security/legal/ethics aspects in planning of public spaces	How does the method determine security/legal/ethics aspects in planning of public spaces?
Activating opinion survey	In an activating opinion survey residents are asked about their views and attitudes; at the same time they are encouraged to stand up for their interests and to take part in developing solutions for their surroundings. Process: Key individuals and residents are interviewed, material is evaluated and observations are made. Residents are informed in writing about the actual survey in advance; trained interviewers use an interview skeleton with open questions to do one-to-one interviews. In contrast to most conventional surveys, an activating opinion survey is not a one-off event, but the kick-off to a fairly long-term process; so it involves a good deal of organization in advance and subsequent work.	The aim is to identify the residents’ fears, wishes and worries; at the same time they are asked what solutions occur to them, and how interested they would be in taking part in implementing the ideas in question. Suitable for finding out the interests and needs of people living in a particular area	The survey is evaluated and the results presented to the residents, with the aim of defining steps toward realization. Interest or action groups are formed with a view to this.
Safety Audit	The safety audit is a leading tool originally designed by the Metropolitan Action Committee on Violence Against Women and Children (METRAC) in Toronto for women to use in order to build their skills and make their communities feel safer. Process: Usually, a women’s safety audit starts with a group of women, and possibly other community members, who meet and discuss spaces in their community that feel unsafe. Safety audit groups generally work best when members are diverse and therefore represent a variety of safety concerns (i.e. younger and older women, disabled women, women from different ethnic backgrounds). Unsafe spaces might include a shopping centre parking lot, a pathway between residences, a water source, or a public housing development. After the safety audit group has chosen an unsafe space, they go together to that space and note the factors or characteristics that they think make it unsafe (usually with the help of a premade checklist). Once a safety audit has been completed, the group makes a series of recommendations to their local government and other community members to try and improve the space.	Factors or characteristics that make a space feel unsafe might include poor lighting, negative graffiti messages, or an isolated location. View checklist: http://www.endvawnow.org/en/articles/262-ask-questions-about-womens-safety-in-the-city.html	Safety audits encourage local and context-specific solutions to issues of insecurity and promote partnerships and joint solutions between women and their local governments. Women’s safety audits are now said to be an internationally recognized practice that can equip women and communities to identify what corrective measures are needed to improve personal safety in urban settings.
Focus Group	Process: In a focus group 8 to 15 persons take part in a chaired discussion on a predetermined topic; this can lead to a cohesive “group view” developing.	Suitable: for identifying motives for a particular type of behavior and revealing areas of difficulty; for obtaining information and ideas with which to handle a particular issue in the process of planning urban spaces.	In a focus group a specific issue is discussed in a goal-directed way, while group-dynamic processes are encouraged: differing perceptions collide, one has to justify one’s point of view; spontaneous emotional reactions are common.
Planning for Real	Planning for Real is a community-oriented planning procedure designed to activate people (the idea is “It’s our place – let’s take matters into our own hands”). Process: The aim is to lessen difficulties in communicating between individuals affected in different ways, to bring out latent potential, resources and deficits, and to create an atmosphere of cooperative action among neighbors, experts and local interest groups.	The method is used: for encouraging ordinary citizens to get involved in structuring their surroundings or their workplace; for minimizing obstacles to communication; for tapping existing local resources; identify and solve risk aspect through common planning.	The process consists of a number of steps, each with differing opportunities for communication and participation: initiative, model, presentation, ”Who can do what?”, pooling suggestions, setting up working groups, priorities and scheduling, plan of campaign.
	Methods of local open dialogue:	The methods are used for risk communication perception evaluation and assessment ||
Citizens exhibition	The so called citizens exhibition is a method that uses linguistic and visual mediators (photos and interview excerpts) to create a discussion platform for the citizens affected by the urban planning process. Duration approx. 1 year.		The method is used in medium to long term urban development and spatial planning processes.
Experts forum	Experts forums or working groups with representatives of different urban planning teams (management, consulting, architects etc.)		The aim of this method is to develop typical project outlines.
Interviews /surveys	Stakeholders: citizens, experts		Interviews/surveys
Local dialog	Citizens' assembly with the aim to discuss issues of regional development. Process: By brainstorming are defined thematic priorities and formed appropriate working groups to discuss them.		Discussions and brainstorming
Round table	Round tables are distinguished through the fact that representatives of organized or non-organized groups affected by the same problem and with different interests get together and discuss their concerns.		This method is applied to solve problems in the field of urban development, urban renewal, sustainable development etc
Future workshops	Future workshops are dialogic, open-ended, democratic processes for developing and testing new ideas, projects and solutions.		Development of new projects and solutions

Methods to determine ethics aspects in planning of public spaces

Method	Description	Security/legal/ethics aspects in planning of public spaces	How does the method determine security/legal/ethics aspects in planning of public spaces?
Neosocratic Dialogue	Neosocratic dialogue is an instrument for discussing very general, basic questions, usually of an ethical-philosophical nature, with ordinary citizens. Process: A question central to the topic to be dealt with is put as clearly and simply as possible. Next, instances of the participants’ actual experience are gathered. An example is selected as the starting-point for further analysis and argument.	The method is used in assessing the impact of new technologies and planning of public spaces.	Assumptions, reasons and points of view are “held up to the light”, and the course the discussion takes is documented.
Participatory Diagnosis	This method identifies factors that make women and girls insecure in cities and communities. The process of working with women and girls can be much easier if community decision-makers and community organizations work with women and girls to identify the places, circumstances and issues that cause the greatest sense of insecurity.	Suitable: for identifying motives for a particular type of behavior and revealing areas of difficulty; for obtaining information and ideas with which to handle a particular issue in the process of planning urban spaces.	Participatory diagnoses are important because they give women and girls a chance to tell the community what makes them feel insecure and what kinds of violence they face.
Dynamic Facilitation	Dynamic Facilitation is an open, chaired group discussion with a variable number of participants. Process: The method relies on the participants' creativity in finding a solution, and deliberately avoids conventional, linear facilitation structures. Dynamic Facilitation is used extensively in organizational and management consulting, but can be transferred to other areas. It was originally developed by Jim Rough in the USA.	Creative searching for solutions while developing mutual trust within a defined group, where all the participants are genuinely anxious to achieve a solution and where the issue is emotionally charged.	Dynamic Facilitation is particularly suitable for issues such that the definition of the problem, the solutions tabled and the objections to these solutions arouse emotions in the participants.
Focus Group	Process: In a focus group 8 to 15 persons take part in a chaired discussion on a predetermined topic; this can lead to a cohesive “group view” developing.	Suitable: for identifying motives for a particular type of behavior and revealing areas of difficulty; for obtaining information and ideas with which to handle a particular issue in the process of planning urban spaces.	In a focus group a specific issue is discussed in a goal-directed way, while group-dynamic processes are encouraged: differing perceptions collide, one has to justify one’s point of view; spontaneous emotional reactions are common.
Safety Audits and Checklists	The safety audit is a leading tool originally designed by the Metropolitan Action Committee on Violence Against Women and Children (METRAC) in Toronto for women to use in order to build their skills and make their communities feel safer. Process: Usually, a women’s safety audit starts with a group of women, and possibly other community members, who meet and discuss spaces in their community that feel unsafe. Safety audit groups generally work best when members are diverse and therefore represent a variety of safety concerns (i.e. younger and older women, disabled women, women from different ethnic backgrounds). Unsafe spaces might include a shopping centre parking lot, a pathway between residences, a water source, or a public housing development. After the safety audit group has chosen an unsafe space, they go together to that space and note the factors or characteristics that they think make it unsafe (usually with the help of a premade checklist). Once a safety audit has been completed, the group makes a series of recommendations to their local government and other community members to try and improve the space.	Factors or characteristics that make a space feel unsafe might include poor lighting, negative graffiti messages, or an isolated location. View checklist: http://www.endvawnow.org/en/articles/262-ask-questions-about-womens-safety-in-the-city.html	Safety audits encourage local and context-specific solutions to issues of insecurity and promote partnerships and joint solutions between women and their local governments. Women’s safety audits are now said to be an internationally recognized practice that can equip women and communities to identify what corrective measures are needed to improve personal safety in urban settings.
Future Workshop	3 Phase Process: Criticism phase: analyzing the current situation and identifying the problems. Fantasy phase: developing ideas and suggestions (initially these can perfectly well be utopian – obstacles in the real world are ignored at this stage). Realization phase: structuring the suggestions, investigating how realistic they are, reaching agreement on what happens next.	Method used: for developing visions, e.g. when a statement of principles, a development scenario, a far-reaching project for the future etc. is to be put together; where new, creative solutions for existing problems or issues are to be found.	In a Future Workshop the participants are encouraged to develop imaginative, unconventional solutions to issues of current interest, by means of an atmosphere designed to promote creativity
Citizen Jury	Process: In a citizen jury individuals selected at random (not as representatives of organizations) draw up a “citizens’ assessment” of a particular issue, based on their own experience and knowledge. The participants make their recommendations and assessments from the point of view of the common weal; on the jury they do not represent any special interests.	Suitable: for local and regional planning assignments, developing overall strategies where it is important that representatives of as many segments of the population as possible should take part on an equal footing where stakeholders’ practical knowledge and specialists’ expertise need to be combined.	All participants are informed in detail about the project in question, and have opportunities to talk with stakeholders, experts, the authorities etc. The participants work through the various aspects of the project in small groups of constantly changing composition The findings are summarized in a citizens’ assessment, which is passed to the initiators.