SAFEGROWTH®

SAFEGROWTH® BLOG

Regular contributors:
Gregory Saville, Tarah Hodgkinson, Mateja Mihinjac
  • Home
  • ABOUT
  • SAFEGROWTH NETWORK
    • UNITED STATES
    • CANADA
    • AUSTRALASIA
    • EUROPE
    • LATIN AMERICA
  • BOOK
  • BLOG
  • TOOLKIT (PASSWORD ACCESS)
    • RISK ASSESSMENT FOR NEIGHBORHOODS >
      • Notes for SafeGrowth teams >
        • HELSINGBORG, SWEDEN - COMPLETED
      • RA Categories-Neighborhoods
      • Report guidance >
        • Report structure
        • Sample reports
      • Readings for download
      • Glossary
    • RISK ASSESSMENT FOR REGULATORS >
      • RA Categories-Regulators

10/10/2020

LIVABILITY - URBAN OR RURAL?

0 Comments

Read Now
 
Picture
Livability and safety is more than idyllic rural life

by Mateja Mihinjac

This week I came across a recent study suggesting that economic factors are a stronger predictor of prosocial behaviour than “urbanicity” – living in either an urban or non-urban area.

This spiked my interest because we commonly hear that small towns have close-knit communities and always-helpful residents. Yet, at a recent International Colloquium in which our SafeGrowth team presented our findings from rural environments, one of the common threads throughout the whole Colloquium was that small towns and rural communities deal with similar crime and safety challenges to larger cities. 
​
They are not the idyllic communities romanticized about in movies and novels. Perhaps there is more to it than neighbourhood size and population density?
Picture
Rural Barossa Valley, South Australia Photo Louis Roving, Creative Commons

THE STUDY

The study, “Neighbourhood wealth, not urbanicity, predicts prosociality towards strangers” looked at prosocial attitudes across 37 different UK neighbourhoods of various sizes. In each neighbourhood, it measured whether: 
​
  • individuals posted a lost letter; 
  • returned a dropped item; or 
  • stopped to let someone cross the road. 


THE RESULTS 

It turned out that rural or urban characteristics were less important than expected. Rather than urban characteristics (“urbanicity”) – that might contribute to anonymity and diffusion of responsibility thus resulting in reduced willingness to assist others – it was actually economic deprivation that was the strongest predictor of prosocial attitudes and willingness to assist. 

While these findings might not translate into different contexts across the world (rural areas in the UK are less deprived than their urban counterparts), they do suggest that it is neighbourhood liveability that results in collective prosocial attitudes, in both rural and urban places.


NEIGHBOURHOOD LIVEABILITY

It seems counterintuitive to expect that people living in deprived neighbourhoods are concerned with anything other than basic survival needs. How can they direct their energy into their neighbourhood when they are competing for available resources needed to survive?
Picture
Coastal town on Vancouver Island, Canada

Living in a deprived neighbourhood also means that residents are less likely to share the same expectations about the neighbourhood or to trust and work collectively towards common goals. That is why rural or urban, it is neighbourhood trust, shared expectations, and working together that helps build a socially cohesive and liveable neighbourhood.

As we describe in Third Generation CPTED, it is neighbourhood liveability that best improves the conditions that will advance neighbourhoods from a Basic level to Moderate and Advanced levels. We learned long ago that improving neighbourhood liveability provides residents and community workers an effective goal for targeted community development work. 

The most powerful approach for improving liveability and prosocial attitudes is through organized neighbourhood action with the emphasis on building local capacity. This recent study provides yet more research support for our real-life discoveries about what makes places safer. 

Share

0 Comments

18/8/2019

WHERE THE GREEN GRASS GROWS - RURAL CRIME

0 Comments

Read Now
 
Picture

by Tarah Hodgkinson

When we think about crime, we tend to think about the city. We think about robberies, gangs and guns and we imagine dark alleys or vacant lots. We don’t tend to associate rural areas with crime. We often romanticize them as idyllic places where life is slower, people know their neighbors and crime is rare.

However, the data does not support these imaginings. In Canada, for example, with only two exceptions, the top 20 highest crime rate communities are all towns or small cities in rural areas.

Imagining crime beyond the city can be difficult. While the overall number of incidents are lower in rural areas, crime rates in rural Canada and Australia are often higher than their urban counterparts. In the U.S., although large urban cities like New Orleans, Atlanta, and Chicago compete for the title of crime capital, the States with the highest crime rates are among the most rural – Alaska, New Mexico and Nevada.
Picture

​WHY IS CRIME RURAL?

Rural issues are different as well.  The recent research reveals high rates of theft and violence, particularly domestic violence, impaired driving and the use of crystal methamphetamine. In areas of drought, water theft is a major problem.

Rural crime is intimately linked to changes that have affected rural communities such as a reduction in job opportunities, poverty, few opportunities for youth, and a lack of access to mental health and addiction treatment services. Additionally, many rural communities are ethnically homogenous, but rural policies often alienate indigenous populations.

Further, increases in immigration have led to increasing tensions and scapegoating onto these already marginalized groups. This is in spite of the reality that legitimate research on immigration and crime reveals that immigration leads to a decrease - or zero effect - on crime.

Rural crime also poses unique problems for prevention. For example, building local capacity in rural communities is much different than in urban areas. While rural areas account for approximately 17% of the population in North America, developing crime prevention strategies is no easy feat where distances are not walkable, services are difficult to access, and local stakeholders are few.
Picture

These problems are exacerbated when most research on the causes and solutions to crime comes from studies in urban areas. It is no small matter that CPTED was a product of large cities and none of the original writers spoke of rural areas.


RURAL CRIMINOLOGY 

Rural criminology is a new branch of criminology trying to better understand these issues. There is now a rural criminology division at the American Society of Criminology and a Centre for Rural Criminology at the University of New England in New South Wales, Australia. However, these groups are relatively new and their ideas are still emerging.

Only in recent years have we seen research emerging in the conferences of the International CPTED Association about crime prevention in rural areas.

At this point, there are no easy answers to preventing crime in rural communities. We have seen some success in smaller communities in Canada where SafeGrowth has been adopted wholeheartedly by local leaders, such as in North Battleford, Canada. However, as we gain a better understanding of the rural correlates of crime, we continue to adapt our methods and strategies to these new contexts - what SafeGrowth has always done.

Share

0 Comments
Details

    AUTHORS

    Gregory Saville
    Tarah Hodgkinson
    Mateja Mihinjac


    CATEGORIES

    All
    Art
    Biophilia
    Black Lives Matter
    Bladerunner
    CCTV
    Change Agent
    Civility
    Community Building
    Community Empowerment
    Community Engagement
    Community Safety
    Connectivity
    COVID 19
    COVID-19
    CPTED
    Creativity
    Crime Opportunity
    Criminology
    Culture
    Defensible Space
    Design Out Crime
    Diversity
    Downtown
    Emotional Intelligence
    Ethics
    Evidence-based
    Eyes On The Street
    Fear Of Crime
    Global Warming
    Governance
    Graffiti
    Green Spaces
    HACE
    Health
    Homelessness
    Housing
    Human Scale Design
    ICA
    Immigration
    Inclusiveness
    Latin America
    Law
    Lighting
    LISC
    Livability
    Livability Academy
    Lovability
    Motivation
    Neighborhood
    Neighborhood Governance
    Neighborhood Hubs
    Neighborhood Transformation
    Partnerships
    PBL
    Placemaking
    Policing
    Politics
    Problem-based Learning
    Professionalization
    Public Health
    Quality Of Life
    Rural Crime
    SafeGrowth
    Safety Audits
    San Romanoway
    Science
    Security
    Sitability
    Smart City
    Smart Growth
    Social Cohesion
    Social Distancing
    Social Ecology
    Social Justice
    Social Unrest
    Space Activation
    Street Walkability
    Suburbs
    Successful Places
    Surveillance
    Sustainability
    Target Hardening
    Technology
    Theory
    Third Generation CPTED
    Third Places
    Urbanism
    Violence
    Youth


    ARCHIVES

    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013
    December 2012
    November 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012
    August 2012
    July 2012
    June 2012
    May 2012
    April 2012
    March 2012
    February 2012
    January 2012
    December 2011
    November 2011
    October 2011
    September 2011
    August 2011
    July 2011
    June 2011
    May 2011
    April 2011
    March 2011
    February 2011
    January 2011
    December 2010
    November 2010
    October 2010
    September 2010
    August 2010
    July 2010
    June 2010
    May 2010
    April 2010
    March 2010
    February 2010
    January 2010
    December 2009
    November 2009
    October 2009
    September 2009
    August 2009
    July 2009
    June 2009
    May 2009
    April 2009
    March 2009
    February 2009



Picture
DENVER, CO 80003
SAFEGROWTH.OFFICE@GMAIL.COM

SAFEGROWTH® 2007-2021  |  PRODUCT OF ALTERNATION LLC
SafeGrowth.org  ·  AlterNation.ca
  • Home
  • ABOUT
  • SAFEGROWTH NETWORK
    • UNITED STATES
    • CANADA
    • AUSTRALASIA
    • EUROPE
    • LATIN AMERICA
  • BOOK
  • BLOG
  • TOOLKIT (PASSWORD ACCESS)
    • RISK ASSESSMENT FOR NEIGHBORHOODS >
      • Notes for SafeGrowth teams >
        • HELSINGBORG, SWEDEN - COMPLETED
      • RA Categories-Neighborhoods
      • Report guidance >
        • Report structure
        • Sample reports
      • Readings for download
      • Glossary
    • RISK ASSESSMENT FOR REGULATORS >
      • RA Categories-Regulators