WG 2-II – Innovation in CP-UDP, Content & Process.

WG 2-IIInnovation in Crime prevention through Urban Design and Planning (CP-UDP), content & process

 

Leader: Paul Van Soomeren

 

Participants:

Adam Rybka, Andrew Wootton, Aleksandra Djukic, Ana Verónica Neves, Bo Gönlund, Caroline Davey, Elad Persov, Günter Stummvoll, Herbert Schubert, Michael Landzelius, Michel Le Calloch, Miguel Saraiva, Minas Samatas, Mónica Diniz, Sarah Isabella Chiodi, Wilbert Rodenhuis

This WG had its first preliminary meeting in Lodz (October 2014). Following the short discussion we had in Lodz the scope and tasks for this WG was (re) formulated by Paul van Soomeren and a few questions were added.

Scope:

This working group will elaborate upon the earlier study done in this COST-action; see the publication: Review of CEN 14383; The death and life of great European standards and manuals – Development and implementation of the CEN 14383 standards (http://costtu1203.eu/downloads/cost-tu1203s-results/).

The recommendations of this COST TU 1203 publication can be summarized as (see also page 60/61 of ‘Review of CEN 14383’):

  1. Work on dissemination of the CEN 14383 standards (and CEN/TR 14383-2 in particular) and CP-UDP knowledge in general. We do not consider this as a task for WG 2-ll! It is in the first place a task for CEN, all national standardization bodies/institutes, all national representatives in the MC of this COST action within their own countries and last but not least the COST TU 1203 WG 5 on networking and dissemination.
  2. Several experts have showed time after time again that CPTED/CP-UDP theory has several limitations. It is not yet a real theory, but more of a conglomerate of ideas, practices and theories. The discipline would benefit from a better generic theory. The challenge thus would be to develop a better generic CPTED/CP-UDP theory. This theory must be extremely simple and straightforward.
  3. Update the process model as summarized in CEN/TR14383-2 page 22-28 (summary page 28). In Lodz Herbert Schubert and others suggested to check on real urban planning processes and crime prevention: collect action theories on real processes of urban design and planning focusing on the question: was crime prevention included yes/no and of yes: how (if no: why not). These action theories might focus on two types of planning processes:
  • Processes that have been finished recently, in which the CEN 14383-2 model with 7-steps was more or less followed
  • Future processes, in which the 7-steps-model seems to be applicable.

Another suggestion was to make an inventory of other existing process models in well know ISO standards (9000 quality, 14000 sustainability, 14288 system engineeringand 31000 risk management), compare these models and combine them into one generic process model.

Tasks:

Generic theory (see 2 above):

What: Deliver a synthesised generic theoretical framework for CP-UDP (see e.g. Ekblom and Gibson&Johnson).

Why: roots of CPTED/CP-UDP are so different (from Jane Jacobs, Jeffery, Newman, Clarke to target hardening and Crowe, from sociology, criminology, psychology, architecture, behavioural sciences, security to geography and urban planning).

How: the outcomes of the working group ‘Crime prevention theories’ are vital input. The innovation WG-2 will NOT look into these theories but will try to come up with a workable synthesis of the theories (a short program theory; the golden Bermuda triangle of CP-UDP)

Update of the process model (see 3 above):

What: deliver a new standardised and well-structured process for CP-UDP in concrete (new and existing) situations.

Why: very different groups of stakeholders (designers, planners, police, maintenance, government, etc.) have to be included in the process to make the CP-UDP approach work in a specific environmental context; an integrative multi stakeholder approach is vital.

How: learn from:

  • ‘Process practice’: past experiences with implementation of CP-UDP taken from existing case studies (Bellvitge, Milano, Manchester, Bijlmermeer) but also from new case studies (liaison with case-study WG-3) and – see Herbert Schubert suggestion above – check on real urban planning processes and crime prevention: collect action theories on real processes of urban design and planning focusing on the question: was crime prevention included yes/no and of yes: how (if no: why not). These action theories might focus on finished and future planning processes.
  • ‘Process theory’ in other disciplines like quality management (ISO 9000), sustainability (ISO 14000 or/and the German DGNB-system certification), system engineering (ISO 14288) and risk management (ISO 31000). Make an inventory, compare the models that are used and make a combined generic process model.
  • As a final test this WG-2 will compare the old process-model (see CEN 14383-2) and the updated model with real design and planning processes as implemented in European cities and countries.

Note 1: the process practice and process theory mentioned above includes methods of analysing crime, fear of crime and the urban environment (reviews/assessments as presented in the annexes of TR 14383-2).

Note 2: the new theoretical framework (contents) and process model should also try to include virtual space/cyber space as a possible dimension next to the existing 4 dimensions of space and time).With CP-UDP in virtual space we could provide society with a concept to approach cyber security issues, without the need of being an expert on cyber security.

Note 3: in the Lodz discussion we came to the conclusion that the word ‘innovation’ quickly leads to phantasy images of technical innovations like drones, (mobile) sensoring, laser technology, GPS, etc. Next to technological innovations we should also distinguish social innovations and managerial (organizational) innovations.

Questions:

In this WG about 15 people wanted to participate – right from the start. Therefore the following questions are relevant (please do respond to Paul van Soomeren before February 2015; pvansoomeren@dsp-groep.nl):

  1. There are now 17 participants (actually they have been there right from the start). Do all of you really still want to join? Yes/no
  2. Are there any others – besides the 17 mentioned above – eager to participate (and do a lot of tiring work). Please let us know (Paul van Soomeren)
  3. To all: please check the text above. Are there any remarks? Scope and task ok? If yes: please let me know. No? What changes do you propose?
  4. In Lodz we agreed to ‘rethink’ the concept of ‘innovation’. We agreed that a distinction should be made between technological, social and managerial innovation in the field op CP-UDP. Can all participants please try to present some ideas or phantasies on the direction of the innovations you envisage? An example, a few sentences, an idea … . The maximum is 100 words.
  5. Tasks are twofold: a simple new theory and a new process model. Please indicate your favorite subject: theory or process?

 

Within the process model there are again two tasks: process practice (check new and existing case studies) and process theory (inventory of process models).  When you have chosen ‘process’, please indicate your favorite subject: practice or theory.

Ideas on the execution of these tasks are of course welcome!