Click here to download

Smart Tools for Safer Cities
Journal Title: SOCIOLOGIA URBANA E RURALE 
Author/s: Sara Isabella Chiodi 
Year:  2016 Issue: 109 Language: Italian 
Pages:  21 Pg. 40-60 FullText PDF:  557 KB
DOI:  10.3280/SUR2016-109004
(DOI is like a bar code for intellectual property: to have more infomation:  clicca qui   and here 


Whether the literature and the European standard on Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) or some European experiences of urban planning, point out that community participation in urban planning contributes to make safer cities. Agreed that e-participation enhances community participation through the use of new technologies, therefore smart tools can improve inhabitants’ inclusion within urban planning, contributing to urban safety and following the development of smart cities. A transalpine research and the Cost Action TU1203 are the main sources behind the supported theory, not without critical issues.
Keywords: Smart City, E-participation, Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED), Urban Safety, Urban Planning, Smart Tools

  1. Angiello G. (2014). Review Pages: Urban Practices - Icts In Participatory Planning: Three Case Studies. TeMA: Journal of Land Use, Mobility and Environment. Vol.7, 2: 254-258, --disponibile al: http://www.tema.unina.it/index.php/tema/issue/view/181/showToc (ultimo accesso 2/9/2015).
  2. Aymone T. (1996). Alcune considerazioni conclusive. Quaderni Città sicure, 3: 43-53.
  3. Barbagli M., Gatti U. (2005). Prevenire la criminalità. Cosa si può fare per la nostra sicurezza. Bologna: il Mulino.
  4. Barbagli M. (1999). L’insicurezza nelle città italiane. In Barbagli M. (a cura di). Egregio signor Sindaco. Lettere ai cittadini e risposta dell’istituzione sui problemi della sicurezza. Bologna: il Mulino: 9-55.
  5. Brown G, Kyttä M. (2014). Key issues and research priorities for public participation GIS (PPGIS): A synthesis based on empirical research. Applied Geography, 46: 122- 136.
  6. Chiodi S. (2009). Usi progettuali della comunità. Tesi di dottorato di ricerca in Ambiente e territorio, indirizzo Pianificazione territoriale e sviluppo locale. XXI ciclo. Politecnico di Torino.
  7. Chiodi S. (2013). Spazio pubblico e sicurezza. Le relazioni tra la pianificazione urbanistica e la prevenzione del crimine. Planum. The Journal of Urbanism, 27: 75-82.
  8. Chiodi S. (2014). Les implications de sécurité dans les projets urbains. Rapporto di ricerca per la borsa di ricerca transalpina della Fondazione Franco e Marilisa Caligara e della Camera di Commercio di Torino. Politecnico di Torino (testo depositato presso gli archivi della Fondazione).
  9. Conroy M.M., Evans-Cowley J. (2006). E-participation in planning: an analysis of cities adopting on-line citizen participation tools. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, Vol. 24, 3: 371-384.
  10. Cozens P., Love T. (2015). A Review and Current Status of Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED). Journal of Planning Literature, first published on line before print on August 6.
  11. Crowe T., Fennelly L. (2013). Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design 3rd edition. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, UK.
  12. Dispenza R., Lingua V. (2004). Criteri e indicatori di valutazione dei programmi complessi. In regione Piemonte. Valutare i programmi complessi. Savigliano: L’Artistica Editrice: 50-58. --http://www.regione.piemonte.it/territorio/dwd/documentazione/programmiComunitari/Valutare_programmi_complessi_CVT.pdf (ultimo accesso 28/12/2015).
  13. EU Regional Policy (2011). “Cities of tomorrow. Challenges, visions, ways forward”, --testo disponibile al sito: http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/studies/pdf/citiesoftomorrow/citiesoftomorrow_final.pdf (ultimo accesso 24/10/2015).
  14. http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/studies/pdf/citiesoftomorrow/citiesoftomorrow_final.pdf (ultimo accesso 24/10/2015).
  15. Gatti U., Shadee H.M.A., Tremblay R.E. (2003). La comunità civica come fattore di contenimento dei reati. Inchiesta, 139: 144-151.
  16. Gatti U., Shadee H.M.A., Tremblay R.E. (2002). Capitale sociale e reati contro il patrimonio. Il senso civico come fattore di prevenzione dei furti dei veicoli e delle rapine nelle Province italiane. Polis, XVI, 1: 57-71., 10.1424/294DOI: 10.1424/294
  17. Grönlund B. (2014). “Publications on CP-UDP - A European bibliographic overview across the language barriers (including some questions on terminology), working paper (booklet)”, COST TU 1203, --testo disponibile al sito: http://costtu1203.eu/downloads/cost-tu1203s-results/ (ultimo accesso 2/9/2015).
  18. Guercio S., Robiglio M., Toussaint I. (2004). Periferie partecipate. Cinque casi di riqualificazione urbana a Torino. Ciudades: Revista del Instituto Universitario de Urbanística de la Universidad de Valladolid, 8: 41-61.
  19. Jacobs J. (1961). The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Random House.
  20. Kelling G.L., Wilson J.Q. (1982). Broken Windows: The police and neighborhood safety. Atlantic, 249: 29-39.
  21. Klundert, Willemijn van de (2014). Bijlmermeer regenerated, Modifications of Public and Semi-Public Areas - What can we learn? Dissertation. John Bold (Tutor), Westminster University London, London - January 2014, --testo disponibile al sito http://www.veilig-ontwerp-beheer.nl/publicaties/bijlmermeer-regenerated (ultimo accesso 25/11/2015).
  22. Komito L. (2005). e-Participation an Governance: Widening the net. The Eletronical Journal of e-Government, 1: 39-48, --testo disponibile al sito: http://www.ejeg.com/volume3/issue1 (ultimo accesso 2/9/2015).
  23. Kyttä M., Kuoppa J., Hirvonen J., Ahmad E., Tzoulas T. (2014). Perceived safety of the retrofit neighborhood: a place-based approach. Urban Design International, 4: 311–328.
  24. Lamy H. (1994). Aménagement urbain et sécurité. Cahiers de la sécurité intérieure, 17: 131-134.
  25. Laino G. (1995). La riqualificazione dei quartieri degradati in Europa: note sulla difficoltà dell’affermazione di un approccio integrato. Archivio studi urbani e regionali, 54: 5-44.
  26. Landman K. (2009). Boundaries, Bars, And Barricades: Reconsidering two Approaches to Crime Prevention in the Built Environment. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, Vol.26, 3: 213-227.
  27. Macintosh A., Whyte A. (2006). “Evaluating how Participation changes local democracy”, paper presented at the eGovernment Workshop 2006, eGov06, 11 Sept. 2006 Brunel University, London, UK, --testo disponibile al sito: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228370359_Evaluating_how_eParticipation_changes_local_democracy (ultimo accesso 5/9/2015).
  28. Manzo L.C., Perkins D.D. (2006). Finding Common Ground: The Importance of Place Attachment to Community Participation and Planning. Journal of Planning Literature, 4: 335-350., 10.1177/088541220528616DOI: 10.1177/088541220528616
  29. Marcon G. (2000). I P.R.U. a Torino: linee d'indirizzo della Regione Piemonte. Urbanistica Informazioni, 172: 68-69.
  30. McDermott P. (2010). Building open government. Government Information Quarterly, Vol.27, 4: 401-413., 10.1016/j.giq.2010.07.00DOI: 10.1016/j.giq.2010.07.00
  31. Mela A. (2013). Sul “lato oscuro” dell’idea di smart city. In Santangelo M., Aru S., Pollio A., (a cura di). Smart city. Ibridazioni, innovazioni e inerzie nelle città contemporanee. Roma: Carocci editore: 183-196.
  32. Newman O. (1972). Defendible Space. New York: Macmillan.
  33. Nobili G.G. (2003). Disordine urbano e insicurezza: una prima indagine su Bologna. Quaderni di città sicure, 28: 91-122.
  34. Politecnico di Milano, IAU Île-de-France, Regione Emilia Romagna (2008). “Planning, Urban Design and Management for Crime Prevention. Handbook”, E.C. - Criminal Justice Support Programme Agis Action, 2006-2007, --testo disponibile al sito: http://costtu1203.eu/downloads/other-documents/ (ultimo accesso 5/9/2015).
  35. Pultrone G. (2014). Participation and Governance for More Human Smart Cities. TeMA: Journal of Land Use, Mobility and Environment, Vol.7, 2, --testo disponibile al sito: http://www.tema.unina.it/index.php/tema/issue/view/181/showToc (ultimo accesso 2/9/2015).
  36. Rochè S. (2002). Tolérance Zéro? Incivilités et Insécurité. Paris: Odile Jacob.
  37. Sampson R.J., Radenbush S.W. (1999). Systematic Social Observation of Public Spaces: A New Look at Disorder in Urban neighbourhoods. American Journal of Sociology, 105: 603-651., 10.1086/21035DOI: 10.1086/21035
  38. Santangelo M., Aru S., Pollio A. (a cura di). (2013). Smart city. Ibridazioni, inoovazioni e inerzie nelle città contemporanee. Roma: Carocci.
  39. Sarkissian W., Cook A., Walsh K. (1997). Community Participation in Practice: A Practical Guide. Institute for Sustainability and Technology Policy, Perth, Australia: Murdoch University.
  40. Saville G., Cleveland G. (1997). “2nd generation CPTED: an antidote to the social Y2K virus of urban design”, paper presented at the 2nd Annual International CPTED Conference, 3-5 December Orlando, FL., --testo disponibile al sito: http://www.veilig-ontwerp-beheer.nl/publicaties/2nd-generation-cpted-an-antidote-to-the-social-y2k-virus-of-urban-design (ultimo accesso 2/9/2015).
  41. Selmini R. (2014). La prevenzione. In R. Selmini (a cura di). La sicurezza urbana. Bologna: il Mulino: 219-232.
  42. Soomeren P. van, Kleuver J. de, Klundert W. de (2014). “High-rise in trouble. The Bijlmermeer in Amsterdam”, working paper (case study), COST TU 1203, --testo disponibile al sito http://costtu1203.eu/downloads/cost-tu1203s-results/ (ultimo accesso 2/9/2015).
  43. Soomeren P. van (2015). “CPTED and CP-UDP: History, general principles and standardisation”, working paper, COST TU 1203 Summer School, Copenhagen, August 22-30.
  44. Sorrentino M. (2013). “Intervista rilasciata nell’ambito dello sviluppo della tesi di Mora A. La progettazione partecipata per la sicurezza urbana. Tre casi di rigenerazione a confronto. Tesi di laurea magistrale. Rel. Sarah I. Chiodi e Alfredo Mela, Politecnico di Torino, II Facoltà di architettura”, Torino, 31 maggio 2013 (registrazione vocale).
  45. Stummvoll G., Aquilué I., Corbille M., Cardia C., Soomeren P. Van, Galdon Clavell G. (2014). “Bellvitge: Unexpected Success - Against all Odds”, working paper (case study), COST TU 1203, --testo disponibile al sito: http://costtu1203.eu/downloads/cost-tu1203s-results/ (ultimo accesso 2/9/2015).
  46. Tambouris E., Liotas N., Tarabanis K. (2007). “A Framework for Assessing eParticipation Projects and Tools”, Proceedings of the 40th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS-40), 2007.
  47. Tosi A. (2007). Case, quartieri, abitanti, politiche. Milano: Libreria Clup.
  48. Tulloch D. (2008). Public participation GIS (PPGIS), in Kemp, K. (Ed.). Encyclopedia of geographic information science, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage: 352-355.
  49. Vianello F., Padovan D. (1999). Criminalità e paura: la costruzione sociale dell'insicurezza. Dei Delitti e delle Pene, VI, 1-2: 247-286.
  50. Zyngier C., Pensa S., Masala E. (2014). Considerations on the use of visual tools in planning processes: a Brazilian experience. TeMA: Journal of Land Use, Mobility and Environment, Special Issue: INPUT 2014 - Smart City: planning for energy, transportation and sustainability of the urban system: 989-998, --testo disponibile al sito: http://www.tema.unina.it/index.php/tema/article/view/2531 (ultimo accesso 2/9/2015).

Sara Isabella Chiodi, Smart Tools for Safer Cities in "SOCIOLOGIA URBANA E RURALE" 109/2016, pp. 40-60, DOI:10.3280/SUR2016-109004

   

FrancoAngeli is a member of Publishers International Linking Association a not for profit orgasnization wich runs the CrossRef service, enabing links to and from online scholarly content