Difference between revisions of "Culture aspects"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| (72 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| + | [[Category:Safety]] |
||
| − | '''Culture aspects''' in urban planning have been classically addressed in terms of urban arts and city planning. Growing features are cultural policy and practice. The purpose is to "create contexts in which planners and multicultural groups can continuously learn and experiment, think systematically, engage in meaningful dialogue, and create visions that energize action and inclusion in city planning."<ref>INSERT.</ref> Cognitive dimensions of culture are especially important to address aspects, such as perception of [[Vulnerability|vulnerability]] and building of cognitive foundations for citizen [[Resilience|resilience]]. |
||
| + | [[Category:Social]] |
||
| + | '''Culture aspects''' in [[urban planning]] have been classically addressed in terms of urban arts and city planning. Cultural resources have become recognised as an important component of urban space. Growing features are cultural policy and practice. Relevant issues are: societal needs, socio-economic issues, the natural/structural/infrastructural environment, and social aspects of urban planning. |
||
| + | For the purpose of Securipedia, aspects known as - security culture - from the technological point of view are [[safety]] aspects. |
||
| ⚫ | |||
| − | Technically, culture is linked to cognition and refers to people’s assumptions about the world.<ref>E.g. Keesing 1974.</ref> Definitions of culture, also as related to security, abound. The classical policy concept of political culture, as established by Almond and Verba, centers on norms and values guiding citizens’ assessments, expectations and behavior consequences.<ref> Almond and Verba 1963.</ref> Theoretically speaking, culture provides the background for (re)cognition and forms the cognitive as well as value-laden basis for so-called "taken for grantedness".<ref>Cf. Adler 1997.</ref> This has been seminally elaborated by Alfred Schütz, who also regarded culture as a threshold criteria for defining when a society will accept a problem (such as a security threat/challenge) to be solved.<ref>Schütz 1972: 156-157.</ref> Social sciences and humanities have mainly defined cultural factors as cognitive forms by which members of social communities make sense of reality, attribute meaning to facts as well as save and reproduce knowledge and their interpretation of the world.<ref>For a classical example, see Geertz 1973.>/ref> EU FP7 Programme documents show that this definition of culture also strongly influences Security Research, e.g. in the form of the emphasis on felt vs. actual security. |
||
| ⚫ | |||
| − | This cognitive dimensions of culture is especially important to address aspects such as perception of vulnerability and building of cognitive foundations for citizen resilience. It requires a "multicultural sensibility for planning", which includes considering how cultures, "which prescribe members' relations with the community, orient their actions, and, among other things, suggest how they might use formal planning processes."<ref>Baum 2000: 115.</ref> |
||
| ⚫ | |||
| − | =Addressing of cultural factors in urban studies= |
||
| + | ===Examples=== |
||
| − | In urban studies though, cultural factors so far have mainly been understood as legal requirements related to upholding historic landmarks, involving questions such as "Is it legal for a historic preservation commission to stop an owner from demolishing or even modifying the exterior of a historically significant building?"<ref>Cf. Kayden 2011: 175.</ref> |
||
| + | # Technically, culture is linked to cognition and refers to people’s assumptions about the world.<ref>E.g. Keesing R.M. : Theories of Culture, in: Annual Review of Anthropology, vol. 3, 1974, 73-97.</ref> |
||
| + | # The classical policy concept of political culture centres on norms and values guiding citizens’ assessments, expectations and behaviour consequences.<ref>Almond G.A., Verba S.: The Civic Culture: Political Attitudes and Democracy in Five Nations. Princeton, NJ: University of Princeton Press, 1963.</ref> |
||
| + | # Culture is regarded as a threshold criteria for defining when a society will accept a problem (such as a security threat/challenge) to be solved.<ref>Schütz A.: Gesammelte Aufsätze. Bd.3: Studien zur phänomenologischen Philosophie. Den Haag: Nijhoff, 1972, 156-157.</ref> |
||
| + | # Cultures prescribe members' relations with the community and how these members orient their actions.<ref>Baum H.S.: Culture Matters–But It Shouldn't Matter Too Much, in: Burayidi M.A. (ed.): Urban Planning in a Multicultural Society, Westport, CT: Greenwood, 2000, 115-136 (115).</ref> |
||
| + | # The cognitive dimension of culture is especially important to address aspects, such as perception of [[vulnerability]] and building of cognitive foundations for citizen [[resilience]]. |
||
| + | ==Security-related aspects of culture== |
||
| − | Contrast with VITRUV appraoch to culture from D1.1. |
||
| + | * Culture aspects are an important ingredient of citizen [[resilience]] that urban planning can support and that, in turn, urban planning can take advantage of to tackle security aspects. |
||
| − | =Addressing culture aspects in urban planning= |
||
| + | *Existing public security cultures influence the criteria for societal acceptance of urban security planning decisions and results, and for the addressing of security aspects in that context. |
||
| + | *Urban structure and cultural artifacts resulting from urban planning influence a society and its culture. That may involve and challenge [[Ethics_aspects|ethics aspects]]. |
||
| + | *The concept of [[Security_culture|(security) culture]] is important for effective security related [[Urban_planning|urban planning]]. |
||
| + | * Activating [[civic culture]] can also be a method to use in urban planning in order to efficiently address security aspects. |
||
| + | ==Importance of culture aspects== |
||
| − | The concept of [[Security_culture|(security) culture]] is important for effective [[Urban_planning|urban planning]] for several reasons. One of those is that existing public security cultures influence the criteria for societal acceptance of urban security planning decisions and results, and for the addressing of security aspects in that context. Another reason is the need to identify Cultural influence of urban structure, such as cultural artifacts that result from urban planning and may also involve and challenge [[Ethics_aspects|ethics aspects]]. |
||
| + | ===Risks in neglect of culture aspects=== |
||
| + | Security issues which could arise if security culture is not appropriately addressed in urban planning, include the following: |
||
| + | *Planning irrespective of, or even against, societal norms and values; |
||
| + | *Raising crime incidents; |
||
| + | *Increasing citizens' perception of insecurity; |
||
| + | *Increasing gap between felt and factual security; |
||
| + | *Loss of legitimacy of public and planning authorities. |
||
| + | ===Main recommendations on considering culture aspects=== |
||
| − | Consider the following example: In his seminal work ''The Culture of Control: Crime and Social Order in Contemporary Society'', cultural criminologist David Garland identifies cultural and institutional practices to construct artefacts which allow a continuation of imagined middle-class separation from crime. He illustrates his argument with examples from urban planning, especially the concept of offering citizens new middle-class type privacy in private public spaces, such a commercial malls based on architectures "to separate out different 'types' of people" and including commercial policing by private companies.<ref>Garland 2001: INSERT P.</ref> |
||
| + | {| class="wikitable" |
||
| + | |- |
||
| + | | |
||
| + | * '''Get to know culture:''' Familiarise with public security cultures, which influence citizens’ acceptance of urban security planning decisions and built environment resulting from those planning decisions. |
||
| + | * '''Consider upcoming societal needs, societal/demographic changes:''' This includes thoroughly considering public views (e.g. from surveys, studies,[[citizen participation]] etc.) in planning ideas and processes. |
||
| − | Culture aspects are however not limited to factors that limit citizens’ acceptance of urban planning or distract perception of security, also as addressed in urban planning and represented by built infrastructure that results from such planning decisions, from a more "objective" risk assessment. For example, activating civic culture can also be a method to use in urban planning in order to efficiently address security aspects. Likewise, cultural aspects are an important ingredient of citizen [[Resiliene|resilience]] that urban planning can support and that in turn urban planning can take advantage of to tackle security aspects. |
||
| + | * '''Mind cultural meaning:''' Consider the influence of culture on urban structure, and of urban planning on culture, bearing in mind that culture aspects go beyond preserving historic artefacts and protecting the traditional image of the city. Culture is linked to dynamic societal processes, and it among other things co-determines the meaning that citizens ascribe to built urban structure. These processes cannot be planned and meaning cannot just be socially transmitted by design of urban space. |
||
| − | Consideration of cultural aspects in urban planning can for the most part be referred to the approach of [[Cultural criminology|cultural criminology]]. In a similar vein as [[New_urbanism|new urbanism]], cultural criminology points out that while culture figures prominently in theoretical and practical approaches, it entails a concept of vulnerability and resilience that are based on a type of culture that is "rooted in the material predicament of the actors concerned. It eschews both a social positivism of material conditions and a cultural positivism of stasis and of essence."<ref>Hayward/Young 2007: 117.</ref> [[Cultural_criminology|Cultural criminology]], in contrast, sets out to appropriately consider dynamic change, pluralism of values, ethnic diversity and, "in terms of method", to "rescue the human actors", among other things from an overly technological approach to security.<ref>Ibid.</ref> |
||
| + | * '''Analyse risks comprehensively:''' Use the culture of risk of a society in order to determine security aspects in urban planning, and needs to protect, that may be overlooked by technological approaches to risk analysis. |
||
| ⚫ | |||
| ⚫ | |||
| + | * '''Integrate cultural components of resilience:''' Consider in resilience-enhancing planning that resilience, and the vulnerabilities towards which it is directed, include elements of public culture – such as citizens morale and societal preparedness, social networks, etc. Planning should work with – not over or against – those aspects. Resilience as capability to learn and adapt to changing environment essentially involves societal characteristics. This involves styles of how citizens perceive urban environment and security (gaps), as well as their expectations how this should be addressed by authorities. |
||
| + | |} |
||
| + | |||
| + | ==Approaches to addressing aspects of security culture in urban planning== |
||
| + | ===Relevant schools of thought=== |
||
| ⚫ | |||
| + | * [[Cultural criminology]] |
||
* [[Community safety approach]]; |
* [[Community safety approach]]; |
||
* [[Security culture]] |
* [[Security culture]] |
||
| − | * [[Perception of (in)security]]; |
+ | * [[Perception of (in)security]]; |
| ⚫ | |||
| − | * [[Risk#Perception_of_risk|Cultural perception of risk]]; |
||
| + | |||
| − | * Societal norms and values; |
||
| + | ===Checklists for practical consideration of culture aspects in security-related urban planning === |
||
| ⚫ | |||
| + | * [[Checklists_for_dimension_consideration|Checklists for dimension consideration]] |
||
| + | * [[Stakeholder-rated methods]] |
||
| + | * [[Determination of security aspects - methods for urban planners]] |
||
| ⚫ | |||
| − | =References= |
||
| ⚫ | |||
Latest revision as of 01:10, 20 January 2018
Culture aspects in urban planning have been classically addressed in terms of urban arts and city planning. Cultural resources have become recognised as an important component of urban space. Growing features are cultural policy and practice. Relevant issues are: societal needs, socio-economic issues, the natural/structural/infrastructural environment, and social aspects of urban planning.
For the purpose of Securipedia, aspects known as - security culture - from the technological point of view are safety aspects.
Contents
Concepts of culture
Examples
- Technically, culture is linked to cognition and refers to people’s assumptions about the world.[1]
- The classical policy concept of political culture centres on norms and values guiding citizens’ assessments, expectations and behaviour consequences.[2]
- Culture is regarded as a threshold criteria for defining when a society will accept a problem (such as a security threat/challenge) to be solved.[3]
- Cultures prescribe members' relations with the community and how these members orient their actions.[4]
- The cognitive dimension of culture is especially important to address aspects, such as perception of vulnerability and building of cognitive foundations for citizen resilience.
- Culture aspects are an important ingredient of citizen resilience that urban planning can support and that, in turn, urban planning can take advantage of to tackle security aspects.
- Existing public security cultures influence the criteria for societal acceptance of urban security planning decisions and results, and for the addressing of security aspects in that context.
- Urban structure and cultural artifacts resulting from urban planning influence a society and its culture. That may involve and challenge ethics aspects.
- The concept of (security) culture is important for effective security related urban planning.
- Activating civic culture can also be a method to use in urban planning in order to efficiently address security aspects.
Importance of culture aspects
Risks in neglect of culture aspects
Security issues which could arise if security culture is not appropriately addressed in urban planning, include the following:
- Planning irrespective of, or even against, societal norms and values;
- Raising crime incidents;
- Increasing citizens' perception of insecurity;
- Increasing gap between felt and factual security;
- Loss of legitimacy of public and planning authorities.
Main recommendations on considering culture aspects
|
Approaches to addressing aspects of security culture in urban planning
Relevant schools of thought
The following approaches/schools of thought are of particular relevance for covering culture-related security aspects in urban planning:
- Cultural criminology
- Community safety approach;
- Security culture
- Perception of (in)security;
- Environmental design (behaviour setting);
- Checklists for dimension consideration
- Stakeholder-rated methods
- Determination of security aspects - methods for urban planners
Footnotes and references
- ↑ E.g. Keesing R.M. : Theories of Culture, in: Annual Review of Anthropology, vol. 3, 1974, 73-97.
- ↑ Almond G.A., Verba S.: The Civic Culture: Political Attitudes and Democracy in Five Nations. Princeton, NJ: University of Princeton Press, 1963.
- ↑ Schütz A.: Gesammelte Aufsätze. Bd.3: Studien zur phänomenologischen Philosophie. Den Haag: Nijhoff, 1972, 156-157.
- ↑ Baum H.S.: Culture Matters–But It Shouldn't Matter Too Much, in: Burayidi M.A. (ed.): Urban Planning in a Multicultural Society, Westport, CT: Greenwood, 2000, 115-136 (115).
