Start Date : 29 May 05   End Date : 6 Mar 05 Location: Gothenburg, Sweden

SESSION B1 (May 30):Landscapes of Insecurity (perceptions, realities, analysis)
Chair: Juma Assiago, Safer Cities Programme (UN-HABITAT);
Presenters: Gabriella Sandstig, Gothenborg University; Brigida Proto, University of Venice, Italia; Teckla Muhoro, Safer Cities Programme (UN-HABITAT); Belinda Yuen, National University of Singapore.

Goteborg city was extensively used to showcase how the physical and social character of the city spaces correlate with the variation in people’s experiences and feelings of insecurity and fear in public spaces. Gender was identified as the most important indicator of insecurity and fear in different social dimensions of urban space. It emerged that the sensations of fear were most powerfully felt in urban public spaces when people were alone in desolate places, regardless if these places were of open or closed character. (Gabriella Sandstig).

The neighbourhood of San Cristoforo in Catania, Italy, was also showcased in the cycle of insecurity and decay from neighborhood constraints into hierarchical spaces to local spaces of emotions. In this linkage, the ‘bourgeois’ security and the ‘citizen-focused’ security were highlighted. (Brigida Proto).

In reviewing safety assessment tools and approaches used by UN-HABITAT’s Safer Cities Programme, the understanding, engagement, and necessity of adaptation of tools to the local context was discussed (Teckla Muhoro). It was suggested that in order to enhance the sense of safety and enliven cities, important approaches tend to be listening to the people and observing the space using surveys and safety audits with women. Jane Jacobs was referenced to argue that city districts and streets can be redesigned to make cities safe with community participation taking her ‘workable forces’ to be the recreation of diversity in land-use patterns to bring more ‘eyes onto the street’, and the need to maximize their surveillance potential in a ‘world of strangers’ (Belinda Yuen).

Discussants supported attention on cognitive and neighborhood strategies to cope with the uncertainties of public spaces, including the development of active citizenry and community stakeholding and partnership in the fight against crime in the city.

SESSION B2 (May 30):Safe and Livable Cities (local responses to insecurity and fear)

Chair: Joe Akech, Association of Local Government Authorities of Kenya (ALGAK)
Presenters: Claude Ngomsi, Safer Cities Douala; Umberto Nicolini, University of Milan; Robert Samuels, University of New South Wales.

In this session, a study of the Lorenteggio area in Milan focusing on safety at bus stops highlighted the University of Milan’s work on safety and its application (Umberto Nicolini). A study by the University of South Wales in Sydney, Australia highlighted the linkages between Housing and Policing. It provided interventions for crime and harassment reduction in areas with public housing concentrations, and argued that where empathetic interaction occurs with individual community members at micro-urban scale, crime trends tend to fall over time. The session shared tools on crime mapping focusing on hotspot analysis; crime policy analysis focusing on trend analyses of police data; crime indicators including a Crime Experience Indicator (CEI), a Hotspot Experience Indicator (HEI), and a Crime Reduction Indicator (CRI). (Robert Samuels).

The process behind the development of a crime prevention strategy for Douala was highlighted, looking at methodology, assessment results, the role of formal surveillance and social crime prevention. Mention was made of the municipal police force in Douala and of the limited action/impact of traditional police force and the creation/ impact of the operational command. Proposals for CPTED interventions were mentioned as were ways of building a synergy between actors in order to prevent and reduce crime, additionally, the projects participatory approach, its obstacles, successes, and lessons learnt were also highlighted. (Claude Ngomsi).

Some main conclusions from this session recommended a social and spatial focus in mainstreaming urban safety concepts and tools in urban planning in order to provide an important response to urban crime and fear of crime in the public space. This could include the need to focus resources in public housing areas through an integrated interagency (government authorities) - communal-individual approach. Additionally, the issue of allocation policy – a municipal practice that concentrates disadvantaged groups in common areas (also practiced in Sweden) was brought to the fore as a practice with the tendency to become an incubator for crime since such groups are typically plagued by social and economic problems.

SESSION B3 (June1):Innovations in the local governance of safety (users, decision makers, partners)

Chair: Johan Oberg
Presenters: Sarah Graham, University of Texas; Christopher Boyko, University of Salford; Charlotta Bergstrom, Royal Institute of Technology.

This session noted that urban designers are increasingly expected to address sustainability issues – including crime – in urban design projects but too often the urban design process does not adequately involve stakeholders, include discussions of sustainability, or even hold decision-makers accountable. More needs to be done to show how and where sustainability and crime are embedded within the urban design process and how decisions impact sustainability.

One focus of the presentations was on alternative ways to solve the graffiti problem incorporating artists into the policy realm (Sarah Graham). It was argued that urban beautification can be used as a graffiti deterrent as graffitists tend to write on nondescript walls and abandoned areas and therefore a property owner can discourage graffiti through better aesthetically pleasing design initiatives. It was argued that by allowing youth or any other marginalized group to participate in events in which they have a vested interest, their opinions might be publicly validated for the first time. Local governments can successfully encourage critical thinking skills in young adults through discussions of how their actions affect others and how they can participate in the life of their community.
The VivaCity 2020 project was highlighted in this session (Christopher Boyko). The project analyses urban planning, design and consultation processes, categorises how and when key decisions related to urban sustainability are made, and uses a multidisciplinary case study methodology. The urban design process used provides a set of tasks for decision-makers engaged in urban design projects and represents the basic “rules” from which more specific tasks may be specified. However, suggestions were made on various stages of the project cycle in adressing crime in the process. On its goals, it was suggested that crime risk should be identified and that crime prevention should be addressed in detailed design.

SESSION B4 (June 1):Urban Safety – Building the bridges and filling the gaps

Chair: Juma Assiago, Safer Cities Programme (UN-HABITAT)
Presenters: Macarena Rau, International CPTED Association (ICA); Joe Akech (ALGAK); James Maina, City Council of Nairobi (CCN).

Highlights were given of the CPTED initiative in Latin American countries and of the upcoming CPTED conference in Chile in August 2005 (Macarena Rau). The presentation sought to show the early start, application, and promotion of CPTED in the public and private sector. The Latin American CPTED experience was shown from a practical point of view, emphasising approach, strengths, successes, challenges, and the role of community. Examples of CPTED interventions were given from several countries namely Chile, Honduras, Brazil, and San Salvador. Lessons learnt were highlighted and included the importance of incorporating local community empowerment in the process, and working with the community making it part of the diagnosis, design and execution of the projects, the CPTED application strategy is a practical tool with bases in theoretical concepts. It was reiterated that every CPTED experience is unique, and that validation of the application of the methodology through pilot projects was important.

The role of local government as a leader of local crime prevention partnerships was highlighted and emphasis given to local government as the planning authority and safety, as a planning issue, required to be identified as a development objective of local governments (Joe Akech). The Africities Summit in Nairobi in 2006 was promoted as a forum where the African experience on urban safety agenda could be highlighted as part of the innovations towards implementing the MDGs at the local level.

Juma Assiago highlighted the consolidation of various toolkits on crime prevention as a necessary step towards building the bridges between knowledge and practice. Participants were provided with an overview of the Safer Cities Programme steps towards developing a global toolkit and establishing a partners coordinating committee at the global level to disseminate the application of the toolkit and practices. The World Urban Forum was provided as the first benchmark that UN HABITAT was convening to enhance the urban safety agenda and movement through partnership building. Discussants agreed that the CPTED approach and organizations such as ICA need to be involved in the preparations leading to and during the Vancouver conference.

COMPLEMENTARY EVENTS

The Launch of the Global Young Urban Professionals Forum (May 31)
UN HABITAT’s broad mandate and work programme were highlighted, the letter of intention between the Sweden-based Young Urban Network (YUN) and UN-HABITAT was presented, and technical aspects of young professionals engagement in integrating safety issues in municipal planning processes provided. Several requests were made from participants and organizers alike to be engaged in the forum: an engagement framework and a substantive proposal will be developed in the next few months.

The Safety Inspection Tour (May 31)

Safety Inspection Tour on-site workshop was conducted in Tynnered, west Goteborg. Much like the Safer Cities Programme safety audit tool, the tour was an assessment of the physical environment and recommendations on how the area could be made more secure. Discussion touched on the inclusion of stakeholders, issues of cost of implementation, perceptions v/s realities of fear, and project implementation. There was great interest expressed from the organizers to work closely with UN HABITAT in advancing the application of the safety audit tool in cities as part of a participatory planning process.