What promotes sustainability in Safe Community programmes?

Nordqvist, Cecilia; Timpka, Toomas; Lindqvist, Kent

doi:10.1186/1472-6963-9-4

Cited by 18 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Meanwhile, it has been largely argued that safety and crime are particularly linked to sustainability (Armitage & Gamman, 2009;Cozens, 2002;Dewberry, 2003;Du Plessis, 1999) and place attachment (Kamalipour, Yeganeh, & Alalhesabi, 2012;Scannell & Gifford, 2010). In this way, crime prevention focuses on the efforts contributing to the aim of decreasing crime and fear of crime (Marzbali et al, 2012b;Nordqvist, Timpka, & Lindqvist, 2009) in order to minimize possible problems of new designs based on previous practices (Clarke, 2009). In this way, crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED) denotes that an effective usage of built environment along with proper design interventions could improve the quality of life and decrease fear of crime (FOC) and crime occurrence (Crowe, 2000).…”

Section: Urban Crime: Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design Amentioning

confidence: 99%

Safe Place by Design: Urban Crime in Relation to Spatiality and Sociality

Kamalipour

Faizi²,

Memarian³

2014

CUS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Different conceptions of crime in design practice, sociology, environmental psychology, and criminology indicate an extensive articulation of crime in relation to the built environment and urban form in the city. Five decades of different studies on urban crime, crime prevention through environmental design, and fear of crime indicate an implicit and gradual movement from deterministic to possibilistic propositions in exploring the relationships between urban crime and environmental design both in theory and practice. Hence, the study firstly conducts a critical review on the issue of urban crime in relation to urban design, planning, and architecture disciplines. Categorizing different researches of urban crime in terms of their propositions and various dimensions of crime prevention through environmental design, the study proceeds to discuss the issue of crime in relation to spatiality and sociality in the city. Moreover, grounding the issue of safety in the context of place theory and avoiding deterministic and free-will approaches to urban crime, the study advocates for the necessity of mapping urban morphology, functional attributes, and spatial patterns in relation to socio-economic condition and demographic profiling. Thus, giving primacy to spatiality in relation to sociality and criticizing the absence of morphological mapping of urban crime, the study denotes the multi-scalar and multi-dimensional attributes of urban crime in relation to morphological, functional, perceptual, and social dimensions of a safe place by design.

show abstract

Section: Urban Crime: Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design Amentioning

confidence: 99%

Safe Place by Design: Urban Crime in Relation to Spatiality and Sociality

Kamalipour

Faizi²,

Memarian³

2014

CUS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The Safe Community research group at Linko¨ping University, led by Professors T. Timpka and K. Lindqvist (Nordqvist, Timpka, & Lindqvist, 1999), has raised some very important evaluation issues, based on analyses of Safe Community programmes, a longterm and complex process. In a focus group study, they found collaboration and personal contacts to be the basis for sustainability.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

It all started in Falköping, Sweden: Safe Communities – global thinking and local action for safety

Svanström

2012

International Journal of Injury Control and Safety Promotion

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

After constructing the Safe Community model and applying it in Falköping Municipality, Sweden, a first step was taken to establish a Swedish network for knowledge exchange between Safe Communities. Falköping was the first to be involved, and was then joined by Lidköping and Motala. Later, there followed Harstad in Norway, and some communities in Australia. Criteria were developed to define the concept operationally. In 1986, collaboration was embarked upon with the World Health Organization, and since 1991 there have been annual conferences on Safe Communities. Many academic centres around the world are now involved. Certification of communities started in 1989, and 272 communities have now been designated as a Safe Community (20 February 2011). The regional organisations, especially the Asian and European networks, embrace more than half of the designated communities. A global organisation has been considered, but the strength of the movement lies in local engagement and regional networking.

show abstract

“…The collaboration factor is one of the main differences between the medical focus and comprehensive CBR. To ensure sustainability, cross-disciplinary collaboration is essential (Gruen et al, 2008;Nordqvist et al, 2009). If collaboration is good within a comprehensive programme, there is greater likelihood that the programme will be more sustainable than the purely medical focus, because of a bigger network of all kinds of resources.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%