Women's Insecurity and Exclusion in Public Spaces: A Call to Action and Initial Response

Copyright by Emilie Marie Twilling 2020

The Report Committee for Emilie Marie Twilling Certifies that this is the approved version of the following Report:

Women's Insecurity and Exclusion in Public Spaces: A Call to Action and Initial Response

APPROVED BY SUPERVISING COMMITTEE:

Elizabeth Mueller, Co-Supervisor

________________________________________________ Maggie Hansen, Co-Supervisor

Women's Insecurity and Exclusion in Public Spaces: A Call to Action and Initial Response

by Emilie Marie Twilling

Report Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of The University of Texas at Austin in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

Master of Science in Community and Regional Planning Master of Science in Urban Design

The University of Texas at Austin May 2020

Dedication

I dedicate this professional report to my family and partner, whose unwavering support made this document possible. I also recognize and support the countless other women for whom sexual harassment in public spaces is a common and debilitating occurrence.

Epigraph

‌[C]ontrary to what had been assumed for centuries, we now know that all our lives, our minds are changing and quite literally being shaped by our experiences in the physical environments in which we live. The more we know, the more we can think about, investigate, and assess the fit between what we have built and will build and what it takes to nourish our well-being. The more we know, the more evident it becomes that we must revisit our received wisdom about cities, architecture, landscape architecture, and the built environment’s relationship to people. And we should undertake this reinvestigation with optimistic dedication, with hopeful vigor... At every level of investment, there is much that all of us can do to improve our buildings, landscapes and cities. (Goldhagen, 2017, p. xxxi)

Acknowledgements

Thank you to my co-supervisors, Elizabeth Mueller and Maggie Hansen. Your guidance and support made this report possible. Also, thank you to the countless other University professors and professional mentors who inspired and aided my work— including Dean Almy, Charlton Lewis, Sarah Lopez, and Sandra Rosenbloom.

vi

Abstract Women's Insecurity and Exclusion in Public Spaces: A Call to Action and Initial Response

Emilie Marie Twilling, MSCRP and MSUD The University of Texas at Austin, 2020

Co-Supervisors: Elizabeth Mueller and Maggie Hansen

Sexual harassment in public spaces and women’s consequential fear, insecurity, and exclusion are critical and overlooked issues in contemporary urban design and planning. Urban migration, shifting gender roles, as well as failing infrastructure necessitate immediate intervention. If urban practitioners fail to validate and address the issue before (re)building takes place, they ensure gender inequality is (once again) built into the physical environment. My professional report serves as a call-to-action.

In response, I propose a two-step approach for urban practitioners: (1) a set of preventative guidelines to be used in initial design and planning phases; as well as (2) a community engagement process that involves local women as key advisors and stakeholders. While expert concepts of urban security and crime prevention in public spaces fall short to explicitly address the issue and provide necessary guidance, Timothy Crowes’ work reveals an untapped resource: the women’s safety audit. Not only does the audit involve local women as a community engagement tool, but its frequent use in other countries around the world provides a reference for preliminary design and planning vii

guidelines. I outline the audit’s history and use to-date; positive outcomes; challenges; and best practices. I also convert existing women’s safety audit results to a set of twenty-five design and planning guidelines. These preventative guidelines establish a baseline from which urban practitioners can educate and initiate conversation related to women’s insecurity in public spaces. It should be noted that both steps are essential to conclusively address the issue, and one should not supersede or replace the other. Urban practitioners should conduct or employ them simultaneously to compare and contrast relative results— i.e. a system of checks-and-balances. This continuously advances our understanding of the issue; enables women to build necessary skills, confidence, and autonomy; assigns hierarchy or priority based on local conditions; and ensures we do not inadvertently jeopardize women’s security by making false or incomplete assumptions. Finally, I conduct an in-depth case study of Republic Square in Austin, Texas to demonstrate an integration of the audit process and guidelines on the ground.

viii

Table of Contents List of Figures .................................................................................................................... xi Chapter 1: Introduction .......................................................................................................1 Women's insecurity and fear in pubic spaces .............................................................3 The role (and responsibilty) of urban practitioners ....................................................5 Why now? ...................................................................................................................7 Proposal and research questions .................................................................................8 Methodologies and chapter overview .......................................................................10 Challenges, limitations, and gaps .............................................................................11 Next steps ..................................................................................................................13 Terms and definitions ...............................................................................................14 Chapter 2: Expert Concepts of Urban Security and Crime Prevention in Public Space...16 The Life and Death of Great American Cities by J. Jacobs ......................................17 Defensible Space: Crime Prevention Through Urban Design by O. Newman ........18 Cities for People and Life Between Buildings by J. Gehl .........................................21 Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design: Third Edition by T. Crowe .....24 Why do expert concepts fall short?...........................................................................27 Discovering the women's safety audit ......................................................................28 Chapter 3: The Women's Safety Audit ..............................................................................30 History and current use .............................................................................................31 Positive outcomes .....................................................................................................34 Challenges .................................................................................................................37 Best practices ............................................................................................................39 ix

Chapter 4: Design and Planning Guidelines for Women's Security .................................42 Process ......................................................................................................................42 Preventative Design and Planning Guidelines ..........................................................44 Connectivity and movement ................................................................................44 Visibility and surveillance ..................................................................................46 Programming for inclusion.................................................................................49 Operations and maintenance ..............................................................................51 Reflection and insights..............................................................................................51 Chapter 5: Integrative Approach and Application ............................................................55 Women's safety audit exercise ..................................................................................57 Case study document ................................................................................................67 Final discussion and personal reactions ....................................................................97 Chapter 6: Conclusion......................................................................................................102 References ........................................................................................................................105 Vita...................................................................................................................................115

x

List of Figures Figure 1:

Women's safety audit process .......................................................................32

Figure 2:

Ann and Roy Butler hike and bike trail in Austin, Texas .............................45

Figure 3:

Low-canopy trees and over-grown vegetation inhibit site visibility ............47

Figure 4:

Prospect and refuge .......................................................................................48

Figure 5:

Eliminating entrapment spots .......................................................................48

Figure 6:

Mural of women along Lamar Boulevard near West 3rd Street ....................49

Figure 7:

De-crowding at a bus station.........................................................................50

Figure 8:

Women’s safety audit site boundary and walking route ...............................57

Figure 9:

Page 1 of transcribed women's safety audit checklist ...................................58

Figure 10:

Page 2 of transcribed women's safety audit checklist ...................................59

Figure 11:

Page 3 of transcribed women's safety audit checklist ...................................60

Figure 12:

Page 4 of transcribed women's safety audit checklist ...................................61

Figure 13:

Page 5 of transcribed women's safety audit checklist ...................................62

Figure 14:

Page 6 of transcribed women's safety audit checklist ...................................63

Figure 15:

Page 7 of transcribed women's safety audit checklist ...................................64

Figure 16:

Page 8 of transcribed women's safety audit checklist ..................................65

Figure 17:

Transcribed women's safety audit map .........................................................66

Figure 18:

Case study document cover page ..................................................................67

Figure 19:

Page 1 of case study document .....................................................................68

Figure 20:

Page 2 of case study document .....................................................................69

Figure 21:

Page 3 of case study document .....................................................................70

Figure 22:

Page 4 of case study document .....................................................................71

Figure 23:

Page 5 of case study document .....................................................................72 xi

Figure 24:

Page 6 of case study document .....................................................................73

Figure 25:

Page 7 of case study document .....................................................................74

Figure 26:

Page 8 of case study document .....................................................................75

Figure 27:

Page 9 of case study document .....................................................................76

Figure 28:

Page 10 of case study document ...................................................................77

Figure 29:

Page 11 of case study document ...................................................................78

Figure 30:

Page 12 of case study document ...................................................................79

Figure 31:

Page 13 of case study document ...................................................................80

Figure 32:

Page 14 of case study document ...................................................................81

Figure 33:

Page 15 of case study document ...................................................................82

Figure 34:

Page 16 of case study document ...................................................................83

Figure 35:

Page 17 of case study document ...................................................................84

Figure 36:

Page 18 of case study document ...................................................................85

Figure 37:

Page 19 of case study document ...................................................................86

Figure 38:

Page 20 of case study document ...................................................................87

Figure 39:

Page 21 of case study document ...................................................................88

Figure 40:

Page 22 of case study document ...................................................................89

Figure 41:

Page 23 of case study document ...................................................................90

Figure 42:

Page 24 of case study document ...................................................................91

Figure 43:

Page 25 of case study document ...................................................................92

Figure 44:

Page 26 of case study document ...................................................................93

Figure 45:

Page 27 of case study document ...................................................................94

Figure 46:

Page 28 of case study document ...................................................................95

Figure 47:

Page 29 of case study document....................................................................96 xii

Chapter 1: Introduction Fall 2017. I was a first-year graduate student at the University of Texas in Austin.

Each day involved numerous trips between countless locations as I fulfilled academic, professional, and personal commitments. With little money and even less time, I walked or biked and relied on public transit to avoid unaffordable parking fees and incessant standstill traffic. As a result, Austin’s collective public spaces (e.g., sidewalks, bus stops, streets, squares, parks, trails, and so on) became a necessary medium through which I conducted my everyday life.

Rather than experience more happiness and autonomy—feelings some researchers and urban dwellers associate with active transport modes and the use of public spaces—I became overwhelmed with fear and insecurity (Richards et al., 2015; Sepe, 2017; Friman, Ettema, & Olsson, 2018). Just a year earlier, a man sexually assaulted and murdered a female student on university grounds while she walked back to her dorm in the evening hours (Samuels, 2016). As a precaution, I often left campus before sun down and prioritized personal security over late night classes and the use of valuable college amenities like libraries, design studios, and computer labs. One year later, a series of sexual assaults against female runners occurred on Austin’s hike and bike trails: a public space network I frequently used when commuting to and from work. Local law enforcement and news outlets consequently advised women to avoid the trails until all suspect/s were caught. The City of Austin retrospectively “…announced plans to install more lights and call boxes around the lake…” which have yet to be carried out almost three years later (Phillips, 2018; Doost, 2018). As a result, portions of the trail continuously felt unsafe, off-limits, and/or inaccessible depending on time of day and if I was accompanied by others. Such restrictions complicated and/or limited my job flexibility and willingness to work long 1

hours, not to mention simpler acts like exercise and dog walking. Despite these exhaustive precautions and avoidances, my daily trips throughout the city’s public spaces still became synonymous with street harassment. From inappropriate leers, cat-calling, and aggressive yells, to men following me home—I often felt like an unwelcome visitor in the very city in which I lived. What is worse? This fear, threat, and insecurity is not new. My entire life is marred by such experiences, across various other American cities, dating back to when I was a young girl.

After years of looking over my shoulder and endless conversations with other women experiencing similar (if not worse) harassment in public spaces, my graduate advisor asked, “Is there an issue or phenomenon you regularly encounter in the built environment worth researching for your professional report?” Without hesitation, I began my years-long investigation into women’s insecurity and fear in public spaces due to sexual harassment. I immersed myself in the writings of Caroline Andrew, Caroline Whitzman, Margaret Shaw, Holly Kearl and others, as well as initiatives mobilized by Women in Cities International (WICI), UN Women, and Project for Public Spaces. With much disappointment, I quickly learned this issue is not a common (or even recognized) consideration within the built environment. Despite the widely accepted notion that “…our minds are changing and quite literally being shaped by our experiences in the physical environments in which we live,” few individuals recognize or validate the link between women’s insecurity or fear and physical space (Goldhagen, 2017, p. xxxi). Consequently, there is little to no ownership of the issue by urban thinkers outside feminist circles. This professional report serves as a call-to-action. It is time we all recognize, validate, and take steps to improve women’s lives in our cities’ public spaces.

2

Women’s insecurity and fear in public spaces In 2018, Holly Kearl and the Stop Street Harassment organization led a national study on sexual harassment and assault in the United States. The results align with my aforementioned experiences and confirm many other women around the country endure the same. Kearl and team determined the first and most prevalent location women experience sexual harassment is in public space, with 37% of women reporting public space as the first location they experienced harassment and 66% reporting public space as the most frequent location of harassment in their daily lives. This sexual harassment, or street harassment, is predominantly committed by unknown men who seek out women in public spaces as their primary targets. The 2018 study also determined such harassment causes many victims “…across all demographics to feel anxiety or depression and prompt[s] them to change their route or routine,” (Kearl, 2018, p. 7-8). While extreme, these emotions and actions arise from street harassment’s swift transition to more serious crimes like sexual assault and even murder—especially when women confront their harassers. As a result, women consciously and subconsciously implement avoidance behaviors or “‘on-guard’ strategies” to avoid potentially life-threatening confrontations (Kearl, 2010, p. 106). The intersectionalities of race, sexuality, age, class, and disability only exacerbate these exclusionary realities. It is unclear who precisely experiences more harassment, but the gist remains the same: straight white women have it better than most and still report tragic numbers. For many women, especially those of color, street harassment merely compounds other forms of exclusion in our built environments.

Furthermore, to assume women’s experiences of street harassment are collectively the same is to grossly underestimate its impact overall (Kearl, 2010; Kearl, 2014; Kearl,

3

2018). 1 Everything considered, these statistics and descriptions should be enough to warrant immediate action. The issue’s complexity and dismissal to-date, however, necessitate additional explanation.

As such, numerous sources support Kearl’s findings and further illustrate the dramatic impact of street harassment on women’s lives. Researchers agree sexual harassment in public spaces robs women of their autonomy while excluding them from democracy and freedom (Thompson, 1993; Kearl, 2010; Crouch, 2009; Safe Cities, 2010; Shaw et al., 2013; Whitzman, 2013; Project for Public Spaces, 2015; de Madariaga, 2016; Beebeejuan, 2017; UN Women, 2019). Thompson elaborates: Street harassment is an everyday reminder to women that men control their safety and rights to passage through public space… Women may forego favorite activities, such as biking or jogging, to escape harassment. The daily commute to work, walk to school, or casual stroll through the community becomes a burdensome ordeal as women continually are subjected to the gauntlet of public sexual harassment.

Women are thereby denied their right to equal enjoyment of public resources for which they pay taxes, such as public transportation, sidewalks, streets, and parks.

As Bowman argues, street harassment accomplishes ‘an informal ghettoization of women – a ghettoization to the private sphere of hearth and home.’ (Thompson, 1993, p. 322-323) Put another way, limitations to physical movement caused by street harassment and necessary avoidance behaviors impede women’s social mobility—which includes “…the ability to access essential services that improve life prospects,” (Whitzman, 2013, p. 35).

Consequently, I believe such impediments are significant and underlying contributors to gender inequality in the United States. Also embedded in the previous statements is women’s loss of anonymity due to street harassment. Garber argues: 1 Drawing upon the Black spatial imaginary: “The lived experience of race has a spatial dimension, and the lived experience of space has a racial dimension. People of different races in the United States are relegated to different physical locations by housing and lending discrimination, by school district boundaries, by policing practices, by zoning regulations, and by the design of transit systems,” (Lipsitz, 2007, p. 12). Thus, systemic racism and segregation put women of color at increased risk of street harassment by way of increased exposure as well as general discrimination.

4

…[W]omen on the street are objects of comment and approach, in part because they are assumed to have (and do have) less ‘ownership’ of public space… In contemporary cities, attention ranging from solicitous to benign to threatening regularly breaches women’s anonymity. Particularly with respect to violence on the street, women, who are ‘unable to regulate their interactions with male strangers in public places, are robbed of an important privilege of urban life: their anonymity,’ (Weisman 1992, 69; also see Greed 1994). (Garber, 2000, p. 32) Lack of anonymity affects women’s ability to reasonably negotiate real and perceived risk.

Real risk, chronically experienced over a woman’s lifetime, manifests into a constant state of fear and insecurity. Regardless of whether or not a man hides in the shadows, she will think back on the numerous others who sexually harassed her in the hours, days, weeks, and years prior; she will seriously contemplate the man’s presence because she has been conditioned to assume he is there; and she will likely avoid the darkness as a means to protect her own life. For this reason, real risk is often no different than perceived risk. She “sees” him in the shadows, even when he is not actually there. So, how do we eliminate that which makes the harasser’s goal easier to achieve? How do we help women “unsee” the men who are not actually there?

The role (and responsibility) of urban practitioners The literature recognizes and urgently calls upon urban practitioners—or workers and educators in the fields of architecture, landscape architecture, urban design, urban planning, and so on—to address the issue of women’s insecurity in public spaces (Soraganvi, n.d.; Lambrick and Rainero, 2010; Nickitin, 2011; Shaw et al., 2013; UN Habitat, 2016; Beebeejuan, 2017; Moore, 2019). Sources highlight two distinct, yet equally important, methods. First, urban practitioners employ a set of preventative design and planning guidelines that address women’s insecurity before it gets built into the physical environment (UN Habitat, 2016; Safe Cities, 2010; Nickitin, 2011). This helps eliminate that which makes the harasser’s goal easier to achieve. Nickitin summarizes, “Partnerships 5

with architects, urban planners, transit authorities, landscape architects and planning agencies and educating the design professions about ways to build projects from the outset that consider women’s safety as a key element of their design program could set the stage for and induce the psycho-social, behavioural, and cultural changes that need to take place before women are truly able to enjoy public spaces,” (2011). Similar to ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) and environmental regulations, these guidelines mainstream the issue into normative discourse and practice. Second, urban practitioners involve local women in the actual planning and design of public spaces as key stakeholders, advisors, and problemsolvers. This enables women to “unsee” the men who are not actually there. Safe Cities advocates, “Planning and designing safe public spaces for women and girls is the process whereby urban planners, designers, architects, women, grassroots and other community actors collaborate to make the physical features of public spaces safe and welcoming for women and girls,” (2010, p. 21-22). Phadke (2007) and Whitzman similarly suggest, “…women's safety might not be only–or even primarily–about protection from violence or harassment, which is omnipresent in both the public and private realms. It must be about opening dialogues and providing opportunities to negotiate [reasonable] risks…”

(Whitzman, 2013, p. 42). For this reason, preventative guidelines as an internal, one-step process will not conclusively solve women’s fear and insecurity in public spaces. 2 Women must, instead, be actively engaged in the process of their own protection. Participation instills a sense of confidence and control over one’s environment, which eventually tempers or replaces illusory fears (Whitzman, 2013). Furthermore, local women’s individual experiences reveal culturally-specific security considerations that might not be initially understood or realized. A system of checks-and-balances continuously advances 2

This is also why increased surveillance (CCTV) and/or policing as a means to curtail street harassment will not conclusively solve women’s fear and insecurity in public spaces (Whitzman, 2013).

6

our understanding of the issue, assigns hierarchy or priority based on local conditions, and ensures we do not inadvertently jeopardize women’s security by making false or incomplete assumptions. It is important to acknowledge the various elements beyond our control: street harassers are ultimately responsible for their own actions and some women will never feel secure despite any and all intervention. That said, urban design and planning offer much in the way of discouraging certain behaviors while promoting others (Moore, 2019). It is a moral and ethical imperative to take advantage of such opportunity. Lastly, design and planning guidelines as well as community engagement are all common tools or steps in traditional processes—I am not suggesting anything new. I am, however, suggesting a shift in focus or intention that could provide women the autonomy, freedom, and anonymity they deserve.

Why now?

Beyond moral and ethical imperative, why the urgency? Why is now the time for urban practitioners to act? First and foremost, more and more people are moving to cities which means more and more women will be living in threatening urban environments.

Miranne and Young explain, “As increasing numbers of women assume… so-called nontraditional responsibilities, it becomes clear that the built environment is not able to meet women's changing needs. Deconstructing that environment reveals aspects of urban life that would look considerably different if the needs of all women and other marginalized groups were taken into account,” (2000, p. 11). One of those fundamental needs is to feel secure: to be free of sexual harassment, assault, and murder while conducting normal, everyday activities. Goldhagen further argues, “By commission or by default, the built environment is composed, which means that it could have been composed differently. And much of it can be remade, as so much more of it will be created in the coming decades. We 7

have before us an unprecedented opportunity to reshape the world into a better place,” (2017, p. xxxii). This includes new development (and new public spaces) to accommodate growing urban populations. It also encompasses America’s existing infrastructure which is failing and in need of immediate repair (Charap, 2017; Simon and Clark, 2019; Thompson, 2017). If urban practitioners do not validate and address women’s insecurity in public spaces before (re)building takes place, they ensure fear, threat, and insecurity are (once again) built into the physical environment. They guarantee the perpetuation of gender inequality in the United States. That which makes the harasser’s goal easier to achieve will remain common place in our cities. Women will continuously risk and lose their lives while walking home from class or going for a run; and they will repeatedly fall short of achieving all that they could. As previously stated, my professional report serves as a call-to-action.

This is my response.

Proposal and research questions The literature establishes a two-step approach for urban practitioners to address sexual harassment in public spaces: (1) a set of preventative guidelines to be used in initial design and planning phases; and (2) a community engagement process that involves local women as key stakeholders and advisors. As an urban practitioner, I propose an example of each in this report. So, what resources do I have at my disposal to guide or inform these steps? In terms of guidelines, I chose to first revisit existing concepts of urban security and crime prevention in public spaces. While the issue’s lack of validation and attention in the past likely translates to its absence in prevailing models, I had to start somewhere. The existing (or expert) concepts and relative authors I review include: The Death and Life of Great American Cities by Jane Jacobs in 1961; Defensible Space: Crime Prevention through Urban Design by Oscar Newman in 1973; Cities for People in 2010 and Life 8

Between Buildings in 2011 by Jan Gehl; and Timothy Crowes’ third edition of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design in 2013. As expected, normative models fall short. A brief description in Crowe’s work, however, as well as supplemental investigation reveal an untapped resource: the women’s safety audit. Not only does the audit involve local women as a community engagement tool, but its frequent use in other countries around the world provides a reference for design and planning guidelines. To explain: local women conduct an audit of a specific public space which “...assess[es] sense of safety by identifying the factors that make [the] women feel safe and unsafe in the public domain.

Based on these results, recommendations are made for increasing [the] women’s sense of safety and use of public space, by firstly, improving various elements of the built environment and secondly, changing community behaviours and local government policies,” (Women in Cities International, 2008, p. 5). The factors and recommendations are eventually compiled into a culminating report and presented to local governments or agencies for follow through. If collected and synthesized, these factors and recommendations become preliminary design and planning guidelines. This professional report documents such a process, including how I discovered women’s safety audits in the first place. More specifically, it answers the following research questions: 1.

In terms of preventative measures, how do expert concepts address the issue of urban security and crime prevention in public spaces? Why or how do they fall short?

2.

What is the women’s safety audit? Where and how has it been used? How does it fulfill the community engagement component advocated by researchers?

3.

What recommendations can I adapt from existing women’s safety audit reports to inform preventative design and planning guidelines?

9

4.

How do I effectively integrate the audit process and guidelines to create a cohesive two-step approach? What does this approach look like on the ground?

Methodologies and chapter overview To answer these questions and more, I employ a variety of methodologies in the following sequence: A review of existing literature in Chapter 1 defines the problem of sexual harassment in public spaces (street harassment) and its disproportionate impact on women’s lives. It also reveals the novel two-step approach: preventative design and planning guidelines as well as a community engagement component that explicitly focuses on local women’s experiences. Chapter 2 critically examines the expert concepts of urban security and crime prevention most commonly referenced by practitioners to inform said guidelines: Jane Jacobs’ Life and Death of Great American Cities; Oscar Newman’s Defensible Space Theory: Crime Prevention Through Urban Design; Jan Gehl’s Cities for People and Life Between Buildings; and Timothy Crowe’s most recent edition of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED). It is important to note, this examination does not include a literature review of each individual concept. Instead, I provide a brief overview of each author’s contribution and why such models fail to conclusively address the complexities of women’s insecurity and fear in public spaces.

Chapter 3 introduces the women’s safety audit as a means to both fill this gap and guide the community engagement process. I reference an in-depth study conducted by Women in Cities International (2008) as well as other sources to discuss positive outcomes, challenges or barriers, and best practices to-date. Because expert models fall short to address women’s insecurity and fear in public spaces, I compile existing audit reports from around the world and extract all relevant recommendations. Chapter 4 synthesizes these recommendations into a succinct set of twenty-five urban design and planning guidelines.

10

Chapter 5 integrates the audit process and guidelines to create a cohesive two-step approach. I then apply said approach to Republic Square: a public space in Austin’s central business district that I commonly pass through in my daily travels. The results and recommendations are represented as three-dimensional illustrative graphics (created via SketchUp and Adobe Creative Suite software). Lastly, Chapter 6 concludes the report with a summary of all findings and next steps.

Challenges, limitations, and gaps This process is far from linear or straightforward. Furthermore, the strategies I provide are not an end-all-be-all approach to a complex, systemic issue. I spent the greater part of a year chasing numerous dead ends in search of potential solutions or approaches.

I knew the link between street harassment, women’s fear and insecurity, and physical space existed—but not much else. Rather than document all unsatisfactory attempts, I chose to only summarize my review of existing concepts since that was what eventually led to my discovery of women’s safety audits. Other challenges or limitations and subsequent precautions include: •

Lack of representation of a broad range of women’s experiences in the design and planning guidelines. To capture such intersectionality or multiplicity, I referenced reports from various cities and cultures around the world. Diverse sampling encourages or supports more equal representation.

•

Conversely, the reliance on international reports inhibits the guidelines’ application to American public space typologies. Because reports and recommendations come from other cities and cultures around the world, they might not directly translate or apply to public spaces in the United States. That said, many of the factors outlined by local women in the audit reports are similar regardless of 11

country-origin. I also wrote the culminating guidelines to be generally or widely applicable.

•

The unknown background of audit report authors creates unforeseen biases in the recommendations. It is difficult, if not impossible, to infer who exactly wrote the follow-up reports. This challenge or limitation supports an iterative process of checks-and-balances.

•

The synthesized guidelines rely on my personal interpretation of the report recommendations, which could also be biased. However, I did my best to carefully document and organize extracted recommendations. This challenge or limitation supports an iterative process of checks-and-balances.

•

The two-step process does not directly address the actual culprits of sexual harassment: men. My proposal does not diminish or negate the role and responsibility of men and boys. Kearl’s work advises extensive “…public education and community mobilization…” to better educate the male population on how street harassment negatively impacts women’s lives (Kearl, 2018, p. 3). This is still necessary. My proposal is in addition to these efforts.

•

This is a deeply rooted or systemic problem. The approach or process might not actually make a difference. While the literature suggests this approach will make some difference, it is important to recognize (and not downplay) the issue’s complexity and scale. Rather than retreat, we should wholeheartedly accept the challenge. If more disciplines or fields took ownership of the issue and thoughtfully investigated their role and contribution (however big or small)—we would see widespread positive change.

•

Disagreement exists regarding the degree to which certain physical changes in the built environment reinforce or relate to changes in society or efforts to change 12

social norms regarding the presence of women in public spaces and the behavior or men in such spaces (Shaw, 2013, p. 193). Because it is a matter of degree and (some) improvement is likely, I believe it worth the effort. Additionally, much of this disagreement stems from lack of definitive, quantitative research. How are we to confirm the effects and improvements if we do not investigate them?

Lastly, there are several challenges and limitations inherent in women’s safety audits as a community engagement tool. I cover these considerations in Chapter 3.

Next steps While this report offers much in the way of women’s insecurity and fear in public spaces, there is still considerable work to be done. First, urban practitioners must validate and accept responsibility for women’s fear and insecurity in public spaces. Because disagreement exists on the degree to which certain physical factors affect women’s circumstances, there must also be a genuine effort to implement, test, modify, and advance the approach (Shaw, 2013, p. 193). With advancement comes a need to catalogue, gather, and collectively discuss results—which occurs in the form of published reports, regular conferences, and/or supervising agencies solely dedicated to the issue. This also includes agreement regarding responsible parties (see Chapter 4). Furthermore, investigation “…along the fracture lines of race, class, age, sexuality, [and] religion…” is essential to capture and prevent injustices toward more defined or marginalized groups (Seager, 2018, p. 9). We must also educate design and planning students on women’s fear and insecurity in public spaces to embed the matter in contemporary urban lexicon. Lastly, this report opens up a much broader conversation regarding what it means to design and plan more equitable cities overall. It is time we ask: What does a city for women look like? And how do we design and plan a city for all?

13

Terms and definitions I consistently reference a handful of terms throughout this report. To ensure clarity and reader comprehension, I define the terms below: •

Street harassment (sometimes called sexual harassment in public space or abbreviated to harassment) includes: …unwanted interactions in public spaces between strangers that are motivated by a person’s actual or perceived gender, sexual orientation, or gender expression and make the harassee feel annoyed, angry, humiliated, or scared… It ranges from verbal harassment to flashing, following, groping, and rape. It differs from issues like sexual harassment in school and the workplace or dating or domestic violence because it happens between strangers in a public place, which at present means there is less legal recourse. (Stop Street Harassment, 2014, p. 5)

•

Public space (in theory) denotes “…an area or place that is open and accessible to all peoples, regardless of gender, race, ethnicity, age or socio-economic level,” (Social and Human Sciences, 2017). This report argues a majority of public spaces are not truly public, given men’s exclusion of women via harassment. Public spaces include: streets, sidewalks, paths, pavements, bus stops, squares, plazas, parks, playgrounds, beaches, waterfronts, and so on.

•

Urban practitioners include (public and private sector) workers and educators in the fields of architecture, landscape architecture, urban design, urban planning, and so on. I synonymously use the term expert to include the same individuals.

Therefore, expert concepts or models encompasses the knowledge, ideas, and pedagogies of urban practitioners.

•

Security and safety are often used interchangeably by researchers, but they have distinct meanings. Security includes the state of being secure—free from danger, fear, and anxiety. It often implies crime prevention strategies. Safety involves accident avoidance or protection against failure or breakage. When applied to the 14

concepts in this report, woman’s security includes feeling protected from the dangers of sexual harassment and violence as well as accompanying fear and anxiety. A woman’s insecurity is feeling the opposite: in-danger, threatened, and afraid. A woman’s safety includes features that protect her from so-called “selfinflicted” injuries like tripping, falling, or injuring herself in some other way. A majority of researchers use safety when they actually mean security. For the purposes of this report, I will use (in)security. When direct quotations use safety, it should be understood as an incorrect synonym for security.

•

Local knowledge refers to the vital insights provided by resident women who use specific public spaces on a daily (or consistent) basis. Some sources refer to these women as “local women experts” to not insinuate the superiority of professional and academic knowledge (Women in Cities International, 2008, p. 13). To avoid confusion, I refer to these women as local women or local women advisors.

15

Chapter 2: Expert Concepts of Urban Security and Crime Prevention in Public Space The previous chapter establishes women’s insecurity and fear in public spaces as a critical and overlooked issue in contemporary urban planning and design. In Welcome to Your World: How the Built Environment Shapes our Lives, Goldhagen stipulates, “The more we know, the more evident it becomes that we must revisit our received wisdom about cities, architecture, landscape architecture, and the built environment’s relationship to people. And we should undertake this reinvestigation with optimistic dedication, with hopeful vigor…” (2017, p. xxxi). These steps include four expert models or strands of “wisdom” related to urban security and crime prevention in public spaces: The Death and Life of Great American Cities by Jane Jacobs in 1961; Defensible Space: Crime Prevention through Urban Design by Oscar Newman in 1973; Cities for People in 2010 and Life Between Buildings in 2011 by Jan Gehl; and Timothy Crowes’ third edition of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design in 2013. It is important to note there are countless concepts or best practices related to the planning and design of public spaces; however, these four constitute the only examples that provide explicit techniques to improve or ensure security in public spaces. Additionally, I defined “expert” concepts as those commonly referenced in the urban disciplines. There are several feminist authors and agencies (referenced in Chapter 1) who address the issue but are not widely recognized by urban practitioners. For the purposes of this report, I sought models well-known in the field—i.e., the average urban practitioner knows or has heard of these examples. They are also regularly taught in academic settings and found on the book shelves of offices and firms, hence their classification as “expert” concepts or models. In this re-visitation or reinvestigation, I provide a brief overview of each concept; extract and summarize the recommendations or principles for the design and planning of physical space related to 16

security and crime prevention; and outline how or why they fall short when addressing women’s needs. Such a process reveals a gap or oversight regarding what makes women feel more secure and less afraid in public spaces. Based on this review, I argue urban practitioners should look beyond their traditional domains for inspiration and guidance.

The Death and Life of Great American Cities by J. Jacobs Within Jacobs’ larger critique of Modernist city planning and design in The Death and Life of Great American Cities, she acknowledges the importance of security in public spaces and offers specific principles to achieve such. Jacobs’ writes, “To keep the city safe is a fundamental task of a city's streets and its sidewalks," as well as, “The bedrock attribute of a successful city district is that a person must feel personally safe and secure on the street among all these strangers. He [or more appropriately, she] must not feel automatically menaced by them,” (1961, p. 30). Prior to Jacobs, expert concepts of urban planning and design prioritized speed, efficiency, functionality, and automobiles—the mechanization of cities and man (i.e., Caucasian males). Jacobs offers a more gendered perspective in which inclusive public spaces are critical to a city’s health, as well as the need to feel secure while using them (Rosenberg, 1994; Van den Berg, 2018). As for specific principles, Jacobs claims the following features explicitly enhance or threaten security in public spaces: 1.

Density: “…the problem of insecurity cannot be solved by spreading people out more thinly, trading the characteristics of cities for the characteristics of suburbs,” (1961, p. 32).

2.

Territoriality: “…there must be a clear demarcation between what is public space and what is private space. Public and private spaces cannot ooze into each other…”

(1961, p. 35).

17

3.

Natural surveillance: “…there must be eyes upon the streets... The buildings… must be oriented to the street. They cannot turn their backs or blank sides on it and leave it blind,” (1961, p. 35).

4.

Mixed-use and diverse programming: “A well-used city street is apt to be a safe street.” Furthermore, “…the sidewalk [and streets] must have users on it fairly continuously… to add to the number of effective eyes on the street…” which is facilitated by “…a substantial quantity of stores and other public places sprinkled along the sidewalks of a district; enterprises and public places that are used by evening and night must be among them especially,” (1961, p. 34-36).

5.

Adequate lighting: “Good lighting is important…” (1961, p. 41-42).

6.

Isolated entrapment sites: “…interior streets, although completely accessible to public use, are closed to public view and they thus lack the checks and inhibitions exerted by eye-policed city streets... These include the elevators and, more important in this case, the fire stairs, and their landings" (1961, p. 43).

7.

Threatening dead spaces: “…a dead place may be an actual vacancy, or it may be a little-used monument of some sort, or it may be a parking lot, or it may simply be a group of banks that are dead after three o'clock in the afternoon,” (1961, p. 263).

Jacobs’ work eventually inspires and informs the other expert models I discuss in this chapter. In other words, The Death and Life of Great American Cities is the foundation for much of what we currently know about security and crime prevention in public spaces.

Defensible Space: Crime Prevention Through Urban Design by O. Newman Newman’s Defensible Space: Crime Prevention Through Urban Design offers specific principles to promote security in residential public spaces. While such mono-

18

programmatic environments differ greatly from more diverse urban settings, the principles are rather general and subsequently worth reviewing. Newman summarizes his model: Defensible space is a model for residential environments which inhibits crime by creating the physical expression of a social fabric that defends itself. All the different elements which combine to make a defensible space have a common goal—an environment in which latent territoriality and sense of community in the inhabitants can be translated into responsibility for ensuring a safe, productive, and well-maintained living space. The potential criminal perceives such a space as controlled by its residents, leaving him an intruder easily recognized and dealt with.

(1973, p. 325).

While the ambiguity of Newman’s concepts allows us to consider them in broader contexts, many researchers critiqued his writings “…on the grounds that they are too vague and ill defined to be empirically tested,” (Reynald and Elffers, 2009, p. 26). In response, Newman later issued a series of conceptual amendments in Design Guidelines for Creating Defensible Space (1975), Communities of Interest (1980), and Factors Influencing Crime and Instability in Urban Housing Developments (Newman and Franck, 1980). For the sake of consistency and simplicity, I only cover his 1973 work in this report. Because Newman focuses on mono-residential environments, increasing specificity only complicates the applicability of his concepts to urban public spaces. A summary of his recommendations or principles include: 1.

Territoriality: “The capacity of the physical environment to create perceived zones of territorial influence: mechanizations for the subdivision and articulation of areas of the residential environment intended to reinforce inhabitants, in their ability to assume territorial attitudes and prerogatives,” (1973, p. 50).

2.

Boundaries and hierarchy: “Mechanisms for creating boundaries which define a hierarchy of increasingly private zones—from public street to private apartment,” include: “…real barriers: U-shaped buildings, high walls and fences, and locked 19

gates and doors…[and] symbolic barriers only: open gateways, light standards, a short run of steps, planting, and changes in the texture of the walking surface,” (1973, p. 65).

3.

Defined zones of use: “The incorporation of amenities and facilities within defined zones of influence which answer to occupants’ needs,” (1973, p. 70).

4.

Clear demarcation of public and private zones: “The reduction in ambiguity of public and private areas and paths in projects so as to provide focus and meaning to surveillance,” (1973, p. 96).

5.

Natural surveillance: “The capacity of physical design to provide surveillance opportunities for residents and their agents: mechanisms for improving the capacity of residents to casually and continually survey the nonprivate areas of their living environment, indoor and out,” (1973, p. 50).

6.

Natural surveillance and visibility: “The glazing, lighting, and positioning of nonprivate areas and access paths, in buildings and out, to facilitate their surveillance by residents and formal authorities. (Access paths refer to vertical paths as well as horizontal ones and include stairs, elevators, corridors, and lobbies, along with the more obvious outside paths,” (1973, p. 80).

7.

Visibility and proper dimensioning: “The dimensions of juxtaposed areas,” which includes: “…the degree to which residents can identify with and survey activity in the related facility…” (1973, p. 114).

8.

Image and Milieu: “The capacity of design to influence the perception of a project’s uniqueness, isolation, and stigma: mechanisms which neutralize the symbolic stigma of the form of housing projects, reducing the image of isolation, and the apparent vulnerability of inhabitants,” (1973, p. 50). These mechanisms include: 20

“…interruptions of the urban circulation pattern,” and “[t]he distinctiveness of building height, project size, materials, and amenities,” (1973, p. 103).

9.

Adjacent areas: “The influence of geographical juxtaposition with ‘safe zones’ on the security of adjacent areas: mechanisms of juxtaposition—the effect of location of a residential environment within a particular urban setting or adjacent to a ‘safe’ or ‘unsafe’ activity area,” (1973, p. 50).

10.

Adjacent mixed use: “Juxtaposition of residential areas with other ‘safe’ functional facilities: commercial, institutional, industrial, and entertainment,” (1973, p. 109).

11.

Adjacent safe streets: “Juxtaposition with safe public streets,” (1973, p. 113).

Cities for People and Life Between Buildings by J. Gehl Compared to the works of Jacobs and Newman, Gehl’s Cities for People and Life Between Buildings provide more precise, space-defining principles to promote security in urban public spaces. Gehl highlights, “…the shortcomings of the functionalistic architecture and city planning that dominated the… [early 20th century]. [His writing]… asked for concern for the people who were to move about in the spaces between the buildings, it urged for an understanding for the subtle qualities, which throughout the history of human settlements, had been related to the meetings of people in public spaces, and it pointed to the life between buildings as a dimension of architecture, urban design and city planning to be carefully treated,” (2010, p. 7). Many of Gehl’s propositions mirror or expand upon the ideas of Jacobs and Newman. Nonetheless, his prescriptive principles provide a more developed understanding of how the physical environment aids in security and crime prevention—specifically in urban public spaces. These principles include:

21

1.

A “lively public realm” and density: “If we reinforce city life so that more people walk and spend time in common spaces, in almost every situation both real and perceived safety [or security] will increase,” (2010, p. 98).

2.

Territoriality: “…[A] clear articulation of private and public territories on the larger arena is an important prerequisite for social opportunities and a sense of security," (2010, p. 101).

3.

Territoriality and adjacent housing: “Housing in particular signifies good connections to the city's important common space and a marked reinforcement of the real and perceived safety [or security] in the evening and at night.” Additionally, “[t]he proximity to housing and residents plays a key role in the feeling of safety [or security],” (2010, p. 99).

4.

Territoriality and the streets: “The disintegration of living public spaces and the gradual transformation of the street areas into an area that is of no real interest to anyone is an important factor contributing to vandalism and crime in the streets,” (2011, p. 76).

5.

Clear affiliation and hierarchy: “Cities have quarters, neighborhoods, housing complexes and single dwellings. Coupled with well-known designations and signals, these structures in themselves help reinforce a sense of affiliation within the larger entity and security for the individual group, household or person,” (2010, p. 101).

6.

Clear boundaries: “Security and the ability to read a situation are reinforced when social structures are supported by clear, physical demarcations,” (2010, p. 102).

7.

Clear transition zones: “A well-proportioned transition zone can keep events at a comfortable arm's length.” Furthermore, “[c]hanges in pavement, landscaping, 22

furniture, hedges, gates and canopies can mark where public space ends and fully or semiprivate transition zones begin,” (2010, p. 103).

8.

Natural surveillance: “There are ‘eyes on the street’…” (2010, p. 99).

9.

Natural surveillance related to building height: “…no one who lives high up can see what is happening down on the street,” (2010, p. 99).

10.

Mixed-use and diverse programming: “Urban areas with mixed functions provide more activities in and near buildings around the clock,” (2010, p. 99).

11.

Lively ground floors: “Given the general desire for safe cities and inviting ground floors, preferred façade options have open metal grills and other types of transparency to protect goods but allow light to stream on the street, and they also given nocturnal pedestrians the pleasure of window shopping,” (2010, p. 101).

12.

Adequate lighting: “The lighting from buildings along city streets can make a significant contribution to the feeling of security when darkness falls” (2010, p. 98).

13.

Wayfinding and signage: "Another contribution to our sense of security is a good city layout that makes it easy for us to find our way around. It is a mark of good urban quality when we can directly find the destination we're looking for without hesitation and detours. It is fine for the streets to be winding and the street network varied. What is important is that the individual links in the network have clear visual characteristics, that space has a distinctive character and that important streets can be distinguished from less important ones. Signs and directions and good lighting at night are crucial elements of the relationship between city structure, sense of locality and feeling of security when walking in the city,” (2010, p. 101).

14.

Protectionism only goes so far: “…fences, signs and cameras signal the insecurity and fear that have crept into communities around the world,” (2010, p. 96).

23

15.

Protection from vehicular traffic: “Another significant safety requirement is protection from vehicular traffic,” (2011, p. 173).

16.

Protection from natural elements: “Protection from sun and heat plays an important part…” (2011, p. 173).

Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design: Third Edition by T. Crowe Crowe’s third edition of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design is the most expansive and thorough contribution I cover in this chapter. Often abbreviated to CPTED, the concept emerged in 1971 with criminologist C. Ray Jeffery. Newman’s concept of Defensible Space inspired much of Jeffrey’s initial writing. Contemporary CPTED is mostly the work of Timothy Crowe, who expanded upon Jeffrey’s early ideas and continuously advanced the model. Crowe eventually published an entire book dedicated to the subject in 1991: the first edition of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (Crowe, 2013, p. xv). Crowe explains, “CPTED is not a reactive discipline. Rather, it is a proactive approach to manipulate the physical environment and bring about the desired behavior of reduced criminal activity as well as reduced fear of crime,” (Crowe, 2013, p. xv). The model draws upon numerous resources, ranging from criminology, to behavioral science and sociology, as well as the design disciplines. There are three overarching principles within CPTED: natural access control, natural surveillance, and territorial reinforcement—all of which are present in the previous three models. He also discusses proper maintenance as important but does not consider it one of the primary principles (Crowe, 2013, p. 27). Where Crowe excels is in his compilation of more than one-hundred sub-principles that often incorporate a mixture of the primary principles depending on site and context (Crowe, 2013, p. 31). In addition to the sheer mass and specificity of his recommendations, Crowe also offers an entire CPTED process that 24

includes crime, demographic, and land use data collection, as well as site observation and user interviews (Crowe, 2013, p. 34). The primary principles include: 1.

“Natural access control. Your space should give some natural indication of where people are allowed and are not allowed. Don’t depend just on locks and guards, but make security part of the layout,” (2013, p. 43).

2.

“Natural surveillance. Again, traditional factors like good lighting are important, but don’t overlook a natural factor such as a strategically placed window or the placement of an employee workstation,” (2013, p. 43).

3.

“Territorial reinforcement. This is an umbrella concept, embodying all natural surveillance and access control principles. It emphasizes the enhancement of ownership and proprietary behaviors,” (2013, p. 43).

The sub-principles include: 4.

“Provide clear border definition of controlled space... Boundaries may be identified physically or symbolically. Fences, shrubbery, or signs are acceptable border definitions. The underlying principle is that a ‘reasonable individual’ must be able to recognize that he is transitioning from public to private space,” (2013, p.

128-129).

5.

“Provide clearly marked transitional zones. It is important to provide clearly marked transitional zones moving from public to semipublic to semiprivate to private space. As transitional definition increases, the range of excuses for improper behavior is reduced. The user must be made to acknowledge movement into controlled space,” (2013, p. 129).

6.

“Relocation of gathering areas. It is appropriate to formally designate gathering or congregating areas in locations with good natural surveillance and access control,” (2013, p. 129).

25

7.

“Place safe activities in unsafe locations. Within reason, this strategy may be used to overcome problems on school campuses, parks, offices, or institutional settings.

Safe activities serve as magnets for normal users who exhibit challenging or controlling behaviors (e.g., staring) that tell other normal users that they are safe and that tell abnormal users that they are at greater risk of scrutiny or intervention.

Some caution must be used to assure that a safe activity is not being placed in an unreasonable position that cannot be defended,” (2013, p. 129).

8.

“Place unsafe activities in safe locations. The positioning of vulnerable activities near windows of occupied space or within tightly controlled areas will help overcome risk and make the users of these areas feel safer,” (2013, p. 129).

9.

“Redesignate the use of space to provide natural barriers. Conflicting activities may be separated by distance, natural terrain, or other functions to avoid fearproducing conflict. For instance, the sounds emanating from a basketball court may be disruptive and fear producing for a senior citizen or toddler gathering/play area.

The threat does not have to be real to create the perception of risk for the normal or desired user,” (2013, p. 129).

10.

“Improve scheduling of space. It has generally been found that the effective and productive use of space reduces risk and the perception of risk for normal users.

Conversely, abnormal users feel at greater risk of surveillance and intervention in their activities. Well-thought-out temporal and spatial relationships improve profit and productivity while increasing the control of behavior,” (2013, p. 129).

11.

“Redesign or revamp space to increase the perception of natural surveillance. The perception of surveillance is more powerful than its reality. Hidden cameras do little to make normal users feel safer and, therefore, act safer when they are unaware of the presence of these devices. Likewise, abnormal users do not feel at greater 26

risk of detection when they are oblivious to surveillance potentials. Windows, clear lines of sight, and other natural techniques are often as effective as the use of mechanical or organized methods (e.g., security guards),” (2013, p. 129-130).

12.

“Overcome distance and isolation. Improved communications and design efficiencies increase the perception of natural surveillance and control… Restroom locations and entry designs may be planned to increase convenience and reduce the cost of construction and maintenance,” (2013, p. 130).

Crowe then applies these general sub-principles to specific uses like commercial; public housing; visual or aesthetic space (e.g., landscaping, art, and sculpture); downtown streets and pedestrian environments; parking surface lots and structures; office environments; public restrooms; shopping centers; banks; and so on (2013). This process produces more than one-hundred site-specific sub-principles. I condensed the list above to those specifically related to public spaces and more urban settings.

Why do expert concepts fall short?

Before reviewing my discovery of women’s safety audits, it is important to outline why all four expert concepts fail to conclusively address women’s insecurity and fear in public spaces. This explanation not only justifies my departure from normative models, but supports Goldhagen’s initial stipulation to re-visit and reinvestigate “…our received wisdom about cities…” (2017, p. xxxi). Other than a brief description by Crowe, all four concepts are devoid of women or fail to address women’s issues. They do not explicitly include women in any statements regarding security and crime prevention—let alone the reasons why women feel afraid. Moore argues, “If men and women need different things from their city, the argument goes, trying to design for a universal every-person will subtly disenfranchise half the population. Particularly if default assumptions skew male…”

27

(2019). When we fail to include women (or any other marginalized group for that matter), we risk reverting back to patriarchal assumptions and norms—even when the author is female. This broad exclusion of women means intersectionalities among the female population are also absent. Because the risks associated with incorrect diagnosis are so great (i.e., sexual harassment, violence, and even murder), it is imperative we precisely understand what contributes to such behavior in the built environment as well as what makes all women feel more secure. Lastly, Crowe (and Newman to some degree) focus mostly on property crime and theft which are vastly different offenses than sexual harassment and assault. It follows that their respective guidelines also differ. In conclusion, the absence of gender in these models potentially exaggerates women’s insecurity in public spaces and necessitates a more gender-focused approach.

Discovering the women’s safety audit While rereading Crowe’s Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design, I came across a brief description and potential lead. The passage states: “Studies of public areas where sexual assaults have occurred show that the type and characteristics of fearful places—for example, poor lighting and the presence of hiding places—correlate with the occurrence of crime… [A] rather unique line of “research” has been developed: inventory studies of locations experienced as “fear-provoking.”

This research was initiated by the women’s movement. The objective is practical: to improve perceived and actual safety. This research is done in an extremely practical way: A group of women check several places in the city or neighborhood. They often do this twice for each place: at daytime and after dark. Nowadays they are often accompanied by a few politicians, police officers, lighting experts, urban planners, and city maintenance experts. Plans for amelioration are sometimes made on the spot; research, action, and coordination are unified during these public (crime) audits. (2013, p. 248) He also summarizes a few “‘fear provoking’” factors. They include: 1.

“The presence or absence of people in the area (passersby, users, or residents).”

28

2.

“The status or function of the area, which determines the involvement of the people present. For example, is it a public area or is it a demarcated community space?”

3.

“Visibility. Can residents and passersby see what is happening in public and semipublic spaces?”

4.

“Possibility for surveillance. Can users themselves survey the space properly (lighting, obstacles, unexpected corners, etc.) and can they get their bearings properly in the area?”

5.

“Management and maintenance. A badly maintained, impoverished environment is a sign that nobody feels responsible for the area or what happens in it.”

6.

“The degree of diversity. Large mono-functional areas (industrial estates, office complexes) are deserted for the greater part of the day and night, i.e., no social control. There is also no surveillance on isolated secondary roads,” (2013, p. 248249).

According to Crowe, “Not all of these features need to be present at one time,” (2013, p.

248). Of three-hundred and fifty-six pages and hundreds of guidelines, Crowe covers one of the most significant issues plaguing American women in three short paragraphs. While disappointing, three paragraphs are better than none. It is also important to note: the six principles are near-identical to many of the ideas already advocated by previous authors.

They do not implicate or imbue women’s distinct insecurity, which brings into question their true applicability. Silver lining? I traced these public (crime) audits to the definitive solution or approach I initially set out for: women’s safety audits.

29

Chapter 3: The Women’s Safety Audit …[S]afety audits can be seen as having important potential as a tool for women mobilizing to resist the mental and physical boundaries that mark their use and representation of urban space. This potential can be seen in a variety of ways: in creating a sense of ownership over the spaces used, in strengthening the women's sense of control over their environment, in increasing women's sense of positive social action and, finally, in fostering a sense of women having a right to the city and unfettered use of urban space. (Andrew, 2000, p. 161) Various agencies, think-tanks, and organizations around the world employ women’s safety audits to study and address women’s fear and insecurity in public spaces.

The women’s safety audit “…assess[es] sense of safety by identifying the factors that make women feel safe and unsafe in the public domain. Based on these results, recommendations are made for increasing women’s sense of safety and use of public space, by firstly, improving various elements of the built environment and secondly, changing community behaviours and local government policies,” (Women in Cities International, 2008, p. 5).

There are typically five steps in the audit process: (1) audit preparation and participant training; (2) site visit and audit activity; (3) documentation of findings; (4) final report production with recommendations; and (5) implementation of recommendations (Jagori, 2010, p. 31). During the audit activity, local women who are familiar with or regular users of the space, walk as a group at various times of the day with a checklist and map, writing and diagramming what contributes to their feelings of insecurity and fear in the built environment (see Chapter 5 for example checklist). Sometimes, this is lack of lighting or the inability to correctly and efficiently predict one’s route out of the space due to lack of walkways and exits or wayfinding. Another example includes diminished visibility like the inability to see another user’s face; obstructed site lines; minimal natural surveillance; and/or absence of other women in the space both in true form and representation (i.e., murals depicting women or naming the public space after a woman) (Women in Cities 30

International, 2008). Some of these factors overlap with principles established by the expert concepts in Chapter 2—but not all. As I will discuss in the next chapter, women’s safety audits reveal nuances to these existing principles as well as entirely new considerations.

From there, “…a report is produced and presented to local government officials and other key decision-makers… [I]t is hoped that the changes recommended in the report will be implemented and insecure areas will become more safe places for everyone in the community,” (Women in Cities International, 2008, p. 9). See Figure 1 for an in-depth look at the women’s safety audit process, as proposed by Jagori in “Understanding Women’s Safety: Towards a Gender Inclusive City,” (2010). To determine how women’s safety audits address my research intent and questions, I review use to-date, positive outcomes, challenges, and best practices. This information informs how urban practitioners best integrate the tool into community engagement processes; it also sets the stage for Chapter 4’s synthesis and application of existing audit results as preventative design and planning guidelines.

History and current use For the last thirty-five years, the women’s safety audit has revolutionized women’s security in public spaces. The tool and methodology dates back to the mid-1980s when the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) collaborated with the Metro Toronto Action Committee on Public Violence Against Women and Children (METRAC) to address women’s insecurity on public transport (Whitzman, 2013). More specifically, the team studied and adapted various “…policy processes, developed by other organizations using different kinds of audits, [to create]… the Women’s Safety Audit as a gender-specific response to growing concern about violence against women and women’s feelings of

31

Figure 1:

Women’s safety audit process (Jagori, p. 31, 2010).

32

insecurity,” (Women in Cities International, 2008, p. 9). With assistance and input from local women advisors, the team evaluated numerous subway stations and bus stops throughout Toronto. Rather than rely on existing concepts—which potentially embody patriarchal assumptions and threaten women’s security—TTC and METRAC went straight to the source. They brought local women into the process and relied on their input to formulate recommendations. The endeavor “…led to innovations such as transparent bus shelters, emergency intercoms in stations, elevators to subway platforms to improve accessibility, designated waiting areas at subway stations that are well lit and associated with intercoms and CCTV, and a request-stop programme…” (Whitzman, 2013, p. 43).

METRAC later formalized and expanded the process—offering materials, workshops, and general guidance for others looking to assess and improve women’s security in all public spaces, not just transit-related sites. Because of these efforts, the women’s safety audit “…has been disseminated and adapted by groups of women all over the globe. Today, this tool exists in many different formats and is used in a range of environments. No longer the singular creation of one organization, the women’s safety audit is a dynamic participatory concept that exists in a constant state of modification and improvement,” (Women in Cities International, 2008, p. 9). In fact, “…a 2007 global survey of 163 local governmentcommunity partnerships on women’s safety found that the assessment and action tool most often used is the women’s safety audit,” (Women in Cities International, 2008, p. 5).

Agencies, think-tanks, and organizations in the following cities, provinces, and countries utilize (or have utilized) women’s safety audits: Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Duncan, British Columbia, Canada; Montreal, Quebec, Canada; Rosario, Argentina; Bogota, Columbia; London, England, United Kingdom; Warsaw, Poland; Moscow, Russia; Delhi, India; Dar es Salaam, Tanzania; Abidjan, Republic of Côte d'Ivoire; Nairobi, Kenya; Bubanza, Burundi; Cape Town, South Africa; Johannesburg, South Africa; Durban, South Africa; as 33

well as unspecified cities in Australia and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Note, the United States is not mentioned despite the fact American women experience the same degree of violence as some countries on this list, if not more (United Nations Development Report, 2018). 3 This body of work amasses to an extensive library of raw data, reports, and otherwise—all related to women’s fear and insecurity in public spaces.

In 2008, Women in Cities International (WICI) conducted an in-depth study on women’s safety audits and published a culminating report, titled “Women’s Safety Audits: What Works and Where?” The study includes an extensive literature review of positive outcomes, challenges or barriers, and best practices. WICI also administered a survey to eighteen agencies, think tanks, and organizations using women’s safety audits to affirm and supplement literature review insights; these survey results can also be found in the final report publication. I reference “Women’s Safety Audits: What Works and Where?” throughout this chapter and include other, relevant research published before and after 2008.

Positive outcomes Women’s safety audits prompt numerous positive outcomes. First and foremost, women’s safety audits lead to physical changes in the built environment. WICI elaborates, “Ranging in scale from small, easily implemented gestures to large, costly demolitions, these are the most apparent results of the audit process. It appears that most audits conducted resulted in some level of physical environmental change,” (Women in Cities International, 2008, p. 17-18). This is possible because “[s]afety audits have a particular 3 While violence against women is arguably higher in many of these places according to Human Development

Reports, there are still countries on this list who rank similarly to the United States (0.92)—including Australia (0.938), Canada (0.922), the United Kingdom (0.92), and Poland (0.872) (United Nations Development Program, 2018). Regardless, we should search for ways to eradicate gender violence so long as it exists (< 1).

34

ability to relate the very concrete to the more abstract. By engaging women in thinking about what they like and use in their immediate environment, and what they do not like and indeed fear, the audits create opportunities for linking the physical environment to the social one and for concretely imagining a more secure and more livable city,” (Andrew, 2000, p. 162). The audit process illuminates or brings awareness to how gender inequity is built into and exaggerated by the built environment; it takes seemingly amorphous issues and provides direct resolutions that go beyond mere protectionism. Second, women’s safety audits empower women and imbue invaluable skillsets for catalyzing social change.

Similar to Social Impact Design or Public Interest Design, the process validates and relies on local women’s experience and knowledge while encouraging “…women to take ownership of public space and participate in local decision-making,” (Women in Cities International, 2008, p. 9). Drawing upon the work of Liz Ogbu: “Instead of privileging the designer as the sole expert, the expertise of the client is also viewed as having significant value… In this framework, the working method of a project is conceived as an act of co-creation. This does not mean that designers cede their expertise, but instead that there is a coming together of what Aswan et al. (2011) have referred to as the “expert citizen” or designer, and “citizen expert” or client (p. 32)… The engagement is deep and often long term, requiring investment and creativity not only around the product but also the process. (2012, p. 575-576) WICI further argues, “Participants [i.e., women] report gaining new skills, confidence and feelings of legitimacy as a result of the women’s safety audit,” (2008, p. 19). This can range from more technical proficiencies like photography, design, and map making to interpersonal prowess involving leadership, group work, and government operations (2008, p. 19). Third, the women’s safety audit process prompts healing dialogues while providing support for women battling sexual trauma—all of which is exceedingly rare in contemporary society outside online forums. Kapadia and Robertson explain: 35

“…women have the opportunity to discuss, in a safe place, places and spaces in their area where… they don’t feel safe and investigate why. The process involves at times sharing very personal experiences of direct crime (such as rape, sexual assault, muggings and homophobic/racist/other abuse)… A number of times, women have spoken of their experiences for the very first time, having never previously been given or taken the space or opportunity to speak out before,” (2006, p. 54).

This platform to share trauma and support one another might be the only therapeutic opportunity women get in their lifetime. Fourth, women’s safety audits enable and protect autonomy. As I discussed in Chapter 1, women’s sense of security depends on autonomy: women must be involved in their own saving and maintain the personal ability to negotiate reasonable risk throughout their daily lives (Garber, 2000). Women’s safety audits do just that by helping women take charge and save themselves, in the very spaces they once feared and/or avoided. Lastly, women’s safety audits reveal and accommodate identity layers that often exacerbate insecurity and fear. Kapadia and Robertson suggest “…there are some issues that are generally of concern to all women… However, what also comes to light is that the same space may be used and perceived differently depending on woman’s socio/economic/financial/ethnic/religious identity and other experiences,” (2006, p. 53).

So long as local women participants are a true representation or assembly of all women using the space, the audit emphasizes intersectionality. Lastly, women’s safety audits encourage gender mainstreaming in the urban disciplines. A 2009 study by Whitzman and team determined: …[T]his tool can be effective in validating local women's experiences, developing partnerships with local governments and other key urban decision-makers, creating the impetus for spillover effects such as women's employment programs, or training for architects and planners, and making small but concrete improvements to places… Women's safety audits can thus be conceptualized as a promising tool not only in reducing violence and insecurity in public space, but as a mechanism for increased gender equality in urban planning, design, and governance. (Whitzman et al., 2009, p. 215-216) 36

Outlined as a next step in Chapter 1, women’s safety audits open up a much broader conversation regarding what it means to design and plan more equitable cities overall.

Various other places around the world include gender mainstreaming strategies in their comprehensive or strategic plans and the women’s safety audit is a catalyst for such improvements. Unfortunately, these positive outcomes and opportunities do not come without challenges or obstacles.

Challenges Numerous challenges complicate and/or inhibit women’s safety audits. The first issue involves “[l]ack of resources and support,” (Women in Cities International, 2008, p.

19). From funding and data to human capital, women’s safety audits require inputs like any other initiative. The snag? Women’s safety audits tackle an issue many individuals believe to be incurable; unrelated to the built environment; and/or not an issue at all. These “many individuals” tend to be those who have not experienced street harassment: most often men.

And who are most often in positions of power to grant resources and support? Also, men.

For this reason, it can be difficult to secure the funding and assistance necessary to complete the process. The second significant barrier includes “[f]ailure to follow up,” (Women in Cities International, 2008, p. 21). WICI explains, “If, after an audit is complete, recommendations are ignored or forgotten, local women experts are likely to feel discouraged and ineffectual (Whitzman, 2002b; CAFSU, 2002). Moreover, if changes are not implemented, women may feel more insecure in their environments than before they began the audit,” (2008, p. 21). The audit requires women to precisely pinpoint that which makes them insecure and fearful. These factors are often buried or suppressed before the audit and immensely overwhelming once uncovered and unaddressed. The third challenge addresses “[c]oncern that the women’s safety audit diverts important resources away from 37

other community causes... In some communities, changes recommended by safety audits have conflicted with aesthetic or service regulations and values (Trench and Jones, 1995; Whitzman, 2002a). Also, as Whitzman points out, recommended changes can restrict the freedom of other groups who use public space, such as homeless people… (2002a, p. 315),” (Women in Cities International, 2008, p. 20). In many cases, the women’s safety audit illuminates other faults or shortcomings in American society. A city’s failure to assist and reduce its homeless population, for example, will result in women avoiding the locations and areas where most homeless people congregate. The pervasiveness or magnitude of audit recommendations can be overwhelming for some governing agencies. The fourth barrier occurs when women’s safety audits struggle to fully capture the intersectionalities between women, despite their theoretical ability to do so. WICI elaborates: …[I]t may be that safety audits are not able to bring together diverse groups of women in areas where no common values or needs are perceived to exist… [S]ome women may be less likely to participate in safety audits held at night because they do not feel comfortable leaving their homes at that time (WACAV, 1995, p.24). Or, if someone is an immigrant or refugee, they may not feel entitled to give their opinion about politicized matters (Whitzman, 2002b). Other possible barriers identified include lack of child care, shyness/lack of confidence, mistrust of public bodies, language issues, lack of transportation, lack of time, isolation, and poor health (Cowichan Women Against Violence Society, 2002; Dean, 2002; WACAV, 1995; Paquin, 1998). (2008, p. 20) Women’s safety audits are often diagnostic in that they are used after-the-fact when women’s security has already been jeopardized. And while most audits are done in groups, they still require women to visit hostile environments that potentially hold traumatic associations—which they might not want or feel ready to face. Lastly, WICI warns of “professional co-optation,” which “…occur[s] in situations where the specialized knowledge that professionals possess is considered more valid than the experiential knowledge of other audit participants (Whitzman, 1995),” (2008, p. 20). When we fail to 38

recognize, prioritize, and employ “local women’s expertise,” we risk the loss of gendered perspectives as well as the nuances of place, time, and culture. Additionally, professional co-option” runs the risk of ulterior motives that do not actually involve solving women’s insecurity, like positive publicity and re-electability (Women in Cities International, 2008).

To ensure the (proper) use of women’s safety audits in American urban disciplines, we must resolve or minimize these challenges and obstacles.

Best practices WICI’s report provides an extensive list of women’s safety audit best practices, based on existing literature and synthesized survey results. Many of these practices are inherent in the positive outcomes and challenges—as well as Jagori’s in-depth audit process provided in Figure 1 (p. 31, 2010). These best practices include: •

“Focusing on the local level,” or prioritizing local specificity to involve local women and capture site-specific, everyday nuances (2008, p. 14; italics added for emphasis). Employ creative community outreach methods to contact and recruit local women as audit participants and key stakeholders or advisors.

•

“Involving professionals and key decision-makers,” who have the resources and technical knowledge to implement prescribed changes (2008, p. 14; italics added for emphasis).

•

“Engaging government support,” or taking advantage of government resources and influence (2008, p. 14; italics added for emphasis). Many public spaces fall under the domain or jurisdiction of local governments. If the public space is privately owned, including local government officials in the audit process (as observers) might inspire or grant additional resources and even catalyze further efforts or initiatives.

39

•

“Timing for change,” to take advantage of political, economic, or development opportunities (2008, p. 17; italics added for emphasis).

•

“Establishing a dedicated team and clarifying responsibilities,” since “…choosing a respected individual or organization to lead the process can facilitate coherent planning and follow-ups,” (2008, p. 16; italics added for emphasis).

•

“Representing the community, especially the most vulnerable,” to capture intersectionalities among women and ensure full participation (2008, p. 15-16; italics added for emphasis). Pursue a true representation of all women who frequent the public space.

•

“Researching women’s security,” within the audit site so that “…the impact of women’s actual and perceived sense of personal insecurity can be discussed in more concrete terms,” (2008, p. 15; italics added for emphasis). Research crime statistics (specifically as they relate to women) within and adjacent to the public space prior to the audit. Interviews with local police and nearby businesses might also be helpful.

•

“Setting realistic goals,” so that the process is efficient and goals are achievable (2008, p. 16; italics added for emphasis).

•

“Creating a collaborative community structure,” which means “…all members of the audit process must agree on its value for the community as well as its objectives,” (2008, p. 15; italics added for emphasis).

•

“Confidence-building and education,” which includes, “[i]nstruction on lobbying, group work, mapping and leadership… [so that women] possess the required skills to complete all aspects of the safety audit,” (2008, p. 16; italics added for emphasis).

Therapeutic focus groups that encourage local women to discuss individual trauma 40

with social workers and/or psychologists can promote healing, community, and confidence-building as well.

•

“Making follow-up meaningful,” which includes assembling and sharing the report, as well as actually following through with prescribed recommendations (2008, p.

17; italics added for emphasis).

While the mere integration of women’s safety audits into preliminary design and planning phases captures many of these best practices, urban practitioners must still actively ensure each is accounted for and considered. Understanding the positive outcomes, challenges, and best practices to-date promotes a more inclusive and successful result overall. The next chapter explores the creation of preventative urban design and planning guidelines from existing audit results.

41

Chapter 4: Preventative Urban Design and Planning Guidelines This report establishes a two-step approach for urban practitioners to address sexual harassment in public spaces as well as women’s consequential fear, insecurity, and exclusion: (1) a set of preventative guidelines to be used in initial design and planning phases; this eliminates that which makes the harasser’s goal easier to achieve. And (2) a community engagement process that involves local women as key stakeholders and advisors; this not only ensures accuracy and true applicability of the guidelines, but helps women “unsee” the men who are not actually there. Chapter 3 introduces the women’s safety audit as the ideal community engagement tool; Chapter 4 (this chapter) describes my process of converting existing women’s safety audit results to preliminary design and planning guidelines. These preventative guidelines establish a baseline from which urban practitioners can educate and initiate conversation. They could function similar to ADA regulations or environmental/conservation standards. For those familiar with the Congress of the New Urbanism, these preventative guidelines could even inform a similar “charter” of “…principles to guide public policy, development practice, urban planning, and design…” (Congress for the New Urbanism, n.d.). Their final form is beyond the realm or possibility of this initial report and why I identify the process as a next step in Chapter 1.

Process To convert existing women’s safety audit results to preliminary design and planning guidelines, I developed and executed the following steps: 1.

Collect as many existing audit reports as possible. I searched international web platforms and translated found reports to English using Google Translate. These sources include: 42

a.

“Women’s Safety Audits: What Works and Where?” (Women in Cities International, 2008);

b.

“Women’s Safety Audit – Event Checklist” (Office for Women, 2017);

c.

“Cobble Hill Safety Audit Summary” (Cowichan Women Against Violence, n.d.);

d.

“A Handbook on Women's Safety Audits in Low-income Urban Neighbourhoods: A Focus on Essential Services” (Mehrotra, 2010);

e.

“Understanding Women’s Safety: Towards a Gender Inclusive City” (Jagori, 2010);

f.

“Kelowna: Planning for Safer Communities Workshop” (Dame and Grant; 2001);

g.

“Building Safe and Inclusive Cities for Women: A Practical Guide” (Oleary and Viswanath, 2011);

h.

“Gender Tool Kit: Transport Maximizing the Benefits of Improved Mobility for All” (Asian Development Bank, 2013);

i.

“Pour un environnment urbane securitaire: Formation express” (Villa de Montreal, 2002);

j.

“City of Toronto Safety Audit Checklist for Parks” (City of Toronto, n.d.);

k.

“Women’s Safety Audit Kit Guidebook” (Smith, n.d.);

l.

“Safe Public Spaces for Women and Girls” (UN Women, 2010);

m.

“Tools for Gathering Information about Women’s Safety and Inclusion in Cities: Experiences from the Gender Inclusive Cities Programme” (Women in Cities International, 2011); and

n.

“Women’s Safety Audits Move into the Streets of Toronto,” (“Women's Safety,” 1989).

43

2.

Extract all raw audit results as well as prescribed recommendations related to physical changes in the built environment. This amassed to over a thousand separate comments.

3.

Utilize text analyzers to identify common themes and organize extracted material accordingly. These common themes eventually became the major categories of connectivity, movement, visibility, surveillance, programming, and maintenance.

4.

Synthesize and condense similar results and recommendations into a set of clear and focused guidelines. I spent the better part of four months working and reworking these guidelines to ensure clarity and applicability.

Culminating guidelines Connectivity and movement 1.

Provide easy access to and from the site in the form of diverse mobility options, e.g., transit stops, bike lanes, complete sidewalks, crosswalks, pedestrian signals, and (affordable) parking opportunities in close proximity to the site. A woman should be able to get to and from the site with ease; the more mobility options, the less likely she is to get stranded or feel stuck with no means of escape.

2.

Provide easy access to and from supporting site services or amenities, e.g., bike storage, restrooms, water fountains, emergency call boxes, device charging stations, and so on. Do not spatially (or visually) isolate such services or amenities (see Visibility and surveillance). A woman should not have to go looking for site services or amenities; she should not have to isolate herself to utilize essential resources.

3.

Encourage spatial porosity and contextual integration by providing multiple site entries and/or exits, responding to adjacencies, and/or contributing to larger urban 44

agendas. There should not be only one way in or out of the site and a woman should not feel isolated from her surroundings. See Visibility and surveillance. See Figure 2 for an adverse example.

Figure 2:

Ann and Roy Butler

hike and bike path in Austin, Texas.

4.

Provide ample, well-designed site paths that are accessible to children, parents with strollers, the elderly, and people with disabilities, e.g., well-lit, low rise, drop curb, wide, and with areas or zones of slow-moving traffic. Because women are still primary care givers in most households, they are responsible for the care of children and elderly family members. Women must be able to travel or move throughout the site with ease when accompanied by such individuals.

5.

Eliminate movement indicators which occur when a potential attacker can predict a womanâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s movement or escape route. The provision of multiple paths or routes and several entries or exits are examples of disabling movement predictors (See Guideline 3). Also see Figure 2 for an adverse example.

6.

Provide a clear, spatial layout of the site with well-articulated zones of use and distinctly defined limits, edges, and thresholds. A woman should be able to quickly assess the site and understand what is happening, where. Note: well-defined edges and limits should not create movement indicators or inhibit visibility (see Guideline 4, Visibility and surveillance, as well as Programming for inclusivity).

45

7.

Employ landmarks, paving design, building articulation, etc., to orient women and aid in place recognition. Preserve associated view corridors (see Visibility and surveillance). A woman should be able to quickly assess her surroundings and understand where she is—both in relation to the site as well as larger urban contexts.

8.

Incorporate wayfinding or easy-to-read signage that helps women find their way.

This signage should include point locations; how and where to get to help; ADA routes; entrances and/or exits; etc. Ensure all graphics are gender-inclusive. Locate signage at all site entrances and/or exits as well as throughout the site—especially in areas where other place recognition devices cannot be employed.

Visibility and surveillance 9.

Provide ample lighting within the site and while traveling to and from supporting site services and amenities. Ensure consistent lighting by employing a variety of lighting strategies that maximize coverage and functionality while minimizing glare (longer-life LEDs; combination of overhead, up-light, indirect fixtures).

Include frequent lighting checks in operation and maintenance plans and develop procedures for site users to report lighting outages (see Operations and Maintenance). If “dark skies” is preferred or required, dark sky approved fixtures (generally shielded or full cut off luminaires) and more innovative lighting strategies should be employed. Provide restful lighting that does not cast alarming shadows. Ensure lighting is operational during all site hours and programmed to align with seasonal day light changes. Darkness makes the harasser’s goal easier to achieve by providing cover. Sensing this threat, women will pursue avoidance behaviors as a means of precaution.

46

10.

Provide clear, well-kept paths and sightlines that are not obstructed by pillars, sharp (unexpected) corners, walls, advertisement panels, snowbanks, ditches, parked cars, waste bins, low-canopy trees, overgrown or dense vegetation, changes in elevation (tunnels), and other obstructions. A woman should be able to easily identify a face twenty yards away and see into other activity zones—especially children’s play areas. To achieve this, utilize transparent materials and planting strategies that enable or encourage visibility. Avoid the vertical separation of pedestrian thoroughfares. If this is not possible, transparent or highly visible overhead crossovers are permissible. Isolated, dark tunnels should be avoided at all costs. See Figure 3 for a supportive and adverse example.

Figure 3:

Low-canopy trees and

over-grown vegetation inhibit site visibility.

11.

Support natural surveillance and “eyes on the street” through adjacent doors, windows, balconies, main entrances, high activity zones, and so on. Ensure the site layout provides for maximum visibility of the street, parking areas, paths, and walkways. This natural surveillance makes the harasser’s goal more difficult to achieve and ensures women they are not alone.

47

12.

Provide moments for both prospect and refuge. This includes clearly demarcated spaces that enable women to survey other activity zones from an edge, boundary, or threshold. These spaces often include a “back” that minimizes one’s sight range to 180° or less. See Figure 4 for a supportive example.

Figure 4:

13.

Prospect and refuge.

Identify and resolve (through elimination or design) all “non-spaces” and entrapment spots within, adjacent, or in close proximity to the site. These formal and informal zones may be small, poorly lit, isolated, and/or unused—seemingly invisible to users and passerby. Examples of “non-spaces” include abandoned lots, empty spaces between districts, alleys, dead-ends, and gaps or spaces between buildings. Entrapment spots are often enclosed on three sides by some type of barrier (i.e., walls, fences or bushes) and adjacent to pedestrian routes. They can include elevators, stairwells, recessed areas or alcoves for waste collection and doorways, vacant shops, maze-like public restrooms, loading docks, and even parking structures (below- and above-ground). See Figure 5 for a supportive and adverse example.

Figure 5:

Eliminating entrapment spots.

48

Programming for inclusion 14.

Provide or encourage mixed uses and placemaking—many places to hangout, walk, play, eat, shop, exercise, etc. for diverse user groups at different times of the day. Develop specific activities for off-hours that will ensure consistent presence within the site. Provide opportunities to stay and linger: furniture, food vendors, activities for children, shade, interesting things like public art. Foster a sense of ownership by pursuing programming partnerships with local women’s groups, or creating opportunities to make a living (farmer’s markets, etc.). Ensure all temporary uses (even construction) account for women’s safety and security within the space.

15.

Highlight or celebrate the presence of women (both in true form and representation) by engaging local women’s groups; pursuing women-oriented programming; including murals or statues/monuments/sculptures of women; or naming the site after a woman. See Figure 6 for a supportive and adverse example.

Figure 6:

Mural of women along Lamar Boulevard near West 3rd Street in

Austin, Texas (before and after).

16.

Provide provisions for young children and the elderly (since women are often primary care givers). For children's play zones, provide adjacent amenities for 49

parents and methods of containment that do not visually isolate or break sightlines.

Allocate space for stroller storage and movement (stair ramps) as well as site furniture that accommodates handicapped individuals.

17.

Provide access to clean and secure toilet facilities with space for changing childrenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s diapers and strollers (since women are often primary care givers). See Connectivity and movement.

18.

Provide provisions for different seasons (shade when hot, protection when cold).

Not only are these provisions important for womenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s comfort while using the space, but also for those who might be accompanying themâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;like children and elderly relatives.

19.

When high attendance is expected, pursue methods of de-crowding that eliminate the possibility of women being forced into close contact with others. See Figure 7 for a supportive and adverse example.

Figure 7: 20.

De-crowding at a bus station.

Provide holistic strategies for discouraging undesirable occupation of the site (including drug and alcohol use, or homelessness). These occupations are often 50

deemed threatening to women who will pursue avoidance behaviors as a means of precaution.

21.

Ensure all site features are specified with women in mind, i.e., furniture that is ergonomic for the female form.

Operations and maintenance 22.

Ensure the site has a thorough operations and maintenance plan that provides daily, weekly, monthly, and annual checklists, to all zones within the space. A wellcared for space signals more security than an ill-managed, dilapidated space.

Develop reporting procedures for women to submit maintenance issues or requests.

23.

Ensure the site is absent of graffiti through easily-cleaned surfaces or the use of murals. Murals can deter graffiti. Graffiti not only signals lack of care or maintenance, but the presence of potential entrapment spots (graffiti is more feasible in less-visible, isolated spacesâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;i.e., entrapment spots). Also see Figure 5 for a supportive and adverse example.

24.

Provide frequently placed trash and recycling receptacles to eliminate litter. The presence of litter or trash signals lack of care and maintenance and potential threat.

25.

Specify durable materials that ensure the site will not look to be in disrepair or pose safety risks to women.

Reflection and insights So how do these guidelines compare to the expert concepts of Chapter 2? I initially argued expert models fail to conclusively address womenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s insecurity and fear in public spaces. The culminating guidelines outlined in this chapter support such conclusions. Some guidelines overlap with principles established by expert conceptsâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;but not all. For 51

example: Jacobs, Newman, Gehl, and Crowe do not explicitly discuss movement indicators. In fact, Crowe conversely recommends only “…one way in or out to promote the perception of potential entrapment for abnormal users of space,” in his discussions of natural access control (2013, p. 47). This disregards the potential victims or intent of “abnormal users” and ignores crimes beyond that of property. Another previously undocumented guideline recommends highlighting or celebrating the presence of women in public spaces. This can be done by engaging local women’s groups and providing women-oriented programming, as well as dedicating statues, monuments, and sculptures to women or naming the site after a woman. Such efforts not only build community and confidence but assure women that they are seen, heard, represented, and important. When overlap does occur, the guidelines provide more detail than expert concepts. For example, Jacobs discusses entrapment sites: “…interior streets, although completely accessible to public use, are closed to public view and they thus lack the checks and inhibitions exerted by eye-policed city streets... These include the elevators and, more important in this case, the fire stairs, and their landings” (1961, p. 43). She also writes about dead spaces: “…a dead place may be an actual vacancy, or it may be a little-used monument of some sort, or it may be a parking lot, or it may simply be a group of banks that are dead after three o'clock in the afternoon,” (1961, p. 263). However, these entrapment spots and dead spaces include much more than Jacobs suggests. This detail or prescription is vital. Because the risks associated with incorrect diagnosis are so great (i.e., sexual harassment, violence, and even murder), it is imperative we precisely understand what contributes to such behavior in the built environment as well as what makes women feel more secure and less afraid.

Beyond surpassing expert models to address women’s insecurity in public spaces, this process reveals various other insights. First, many of the guidelines mirror existing recommendations related to place-making and “good” design. This suggests that designing 52

and planning for women 1) creates better environments for everyone and 2) our inability to design and plan good public spaces (on a fairly basic level) jeopardizes women’s security to cost lives. It would be a lie to say I was not disappointed by the familiarity or simplicity of each guideline; this is not rocket science. On a personal level, I could better justify or accept the issue’s persistence and lack of attention in the urban disciplines if it required a near impossible solution or fix. But it does not. It merely requires us to try. Second, many of these guidelines seem unrelated to the issue at hand. How does the provision of femaleergonomic site furniture encourage women’s security? At first, I omitted many of these seemingly unrelated comments or recommendations. But I eventually realized feeling seen, heard, represented, and thus important, imbues confidence and ownership. It helps women “unsee” the men who are not actually there. Third, these guidelines provide agency and priority. There is an infinite number of principles related to the design and planning of public spaces. This process suggests the aforementioned twenty-five guidelines should take precedent. Furthermore, city governments negotiating future projects and priorities should seriously consider and prioritize improvements to public spaces. Fourth, this process suggests we cannot solve this issue with just one urban discipline. The guidelines are multidisciplinary and require effort on numerous fronts. I often struggled throughout this process to differentiate between design and policy; between urban design, planning, landscape architecture, and so on. The guidelines are theoretically simple but their responsible party is ambiguous. Does a public sidewalk belong to the City, the developer, the architect, or the landscape architect? It is for a future report or study to explicitly break down each guideline and assign this authority. Lastly, these guidelines support the entire process or two-step approach. The new considerations, nuances, and more-detailed descriptions (as compared to normative models) were only revealed by directly engaging and asking local women. Urban professionals must not disregard this wisdom and 53

proficiencyâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;or rob women of their opportunity to build community, confidence, and autonomy.

54

Chapter 5: Integrative Approach and Application So, how do I effectively integrate the audit process and guidelines to create a cohesive two-step approach? What does this approach look like on the ground? The steps are not sequential in that one must proceed or follow the other. In fact, urban practitioners should conduct or employ them simultaneously to compare and contrast relative results— i.e. a system of checks-and-balances. This continuously advances our understanding of the issue; enables women to build necessary skills, confidence, and autonomy; assigns hierarchy or priority based on local conditions; and ensures we do not inadvertently jeopardize women’s security by making false or incomplete assumptions. What if a guideline does not apply (for whatever reason), or in-fact threatens local women’s security?

What if the guidelines do not account for a culturally-specific phenomenon that gravely impacts local women’s lives? Urban practitioners require a mechanism to capture and address such uncertainty or specificity. Thus, both steps are essential and one should not supersede or replace the other. To explain further, I apply the two-step approach to Republic Square (and immediately adjacent areas) in Austin, Texas as an in-depth case study.

Republic Square is a public space in Austin’s central business district that I commonly pass through in my daily travels. Beyond its prevalence in normal commutes, I selected the public space because: (1) The site embodies a variety of public space typologies, which allow me to test the guidelines’ applicability in diverse settings. These typologies include square, park, pedestrian promenade, streetscape, and so on. (2) Republic Square is well-designed and thoughtful. It was even awarded the 2018 Best Public Place

by Austin’s ULI division (Downtown Austin Alliance, 2020). Despite all this, I still experience sexual harassment and consequential fear while there. I hoped the application 55

would reveal what explicitly causes such insecurity and help me feel more confident and assured while there. (3) The site was renovated in 2017 as a joint venture between the Downtown Austin Alliance, Austin Parks Foundation, and the City of Austin Parks and Recreation Department. They contracted Design Workshop—a local landscape architecture, planning, and urban design firm—to lead the redevelopment. 4 I had the privilege of working at Design Workshop during the early stages of this report. I did not participate in the design or planning of the Square but learned of its operation and maintenance plan as well as other necessary case study considerations. Lastly, (4) a site that presents both supportive and adverse indicators is more informative than a site that is an absolute success or failure. It enables a more productive conversation overall.

To fulfill the case study, I conduct a women’s safety audit on Republic Square and immediately adjacent areas; see Figures 8-17. 5 I then apply audit insights to the preventative design and planning guidelines as a means to verify each recommendation and understand local nuances. I visually represent the culminating results as a report of three-dimensional illustrative graphics (created via SketchUp and Adobe Creative Suite software) and text descriptions; see Figures 18-47. Additional discussion at the end of this chapter summarizes all findings as well as my personal reactions to the audit exercise. It should be noted that many of the audit sub-steps and best practices outlined by Jagori and WICI in Chapter 3 are beyond the scope of my report. However, I comply with as many as possible given available resources and on-going COVID-19 restrictions.

4 Design Workshop was responsible for the Square redevelopment only and adhered to program requirements

set forth by the City and other agencies. Adjacent areas (including the Federal Courthouse Plaza, Hotel Zaza, and so on) were beyond their scope of work. Mack Scogin Merrill Elam Architects and Peterson Studio were responsible for the Federal Courthouse and adjacent plaza.

5 I utilize an example women’s safety audit provided by the Australian Capital Territory Government’s Office of Women (2017). While the audit is intended for events in public spaces, it was the most in-depth specimen I could find. Thus, I simply crossed out sections that were not applicable to Republic Square.

56

Womenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s safety audit exercise

Figure 8:

Womenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s safety audit site boundary and walking route.

57

Figure 9:

Page 1 of transcribed womenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s safety audit checklist (Office for Women,

2017).

58

Figure 10:

Page 2 of transcribed womenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s safety audit checklist (Office for Women,

2017).

59

Figure 11:

Page 3 of transcribed womenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s safety audit checklist (Office for Women,

2017).

60

Figure 12:

Page 4 of transcribed womenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s safety audit checklist (Office for Women,

2017).

61

Figure 13:

Page 5 of transcribed womenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s safety audit checklist (Office for Women,

2017).

62

Figure 14: 2017).

Page 6 of transcribed womenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s safety audit checklist (Office for Women, 63

Figure 15: 2017).

Page 7 of transcribed womenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s safety audit checklist (Office for Women, 64

Figure 16:

Page 8 of transcribed womenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s safety audit checklist (Office for Women,

2017).

65

Figure 17:

Transcribed womenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s safety audit map.

66

Case study document

Figure 18:

Case study document cover page.

67

Figure 19:

Page 1 of case study document.

68

Figure 20:

Page 2 of case study document.

69

Figure 21:

Page 3 of case study document.

70

Figure 22:

Page 4 of case study document.

71

Figure 23:

Page 5 of case study document.

72

Figure 24:

Page 6 of case study document.

73

Figure 25:

Page 7 of case study document.

74

Figure 26:

Page 8 of case study document.

75

Figure 27:

Page 9 of case study document.

76

Figure 28:

Page 10 of case study document.

77

Figure 29:

Page 11 of case study document.

78

Figure 30:

Page 12 of case study document.

79

Figure 31:

Page 13 of case study document.

80

Figure 32:

Page 14 of case study document.

81

Figure 33:

Page 15 of case study document.

82

Figure 34:

Page 16 of case study document.

83

Figure 35:

Page 17 of case study document.

84

Figure 36:

Page 18 of case study document.

85

Figure 37:

Page 19 of case study document.

86

Figure 38:

Page 20 of case study document.

87

Figure 39:

Page 21 of case study document.

88

Figure 40:

Page 22 of case study document.

89

Figure 41:

Page 23 of case study document.

90

Figure 42:

Page 24 of case study document.

91

Figure 43:

Page 25 of case study document.

92

Figure 44:

Page 26 of case study document.

93

Figure 45:

Page 27 of case study document.

94

Figure 46:

Page 28 of case study document.

95

Figure 47:

Page 29 of case study document.

96

Final discussion and personal reactions The case study reveals numerous insights regarding women’s (in)security in Republic Square; it also demonstrates the necessary two-step approach and system of checks-and-balances. The site aligns with many of the guidelines and audit inquiries—but not all. Recommendations for improvements to the public space include: •

Install an east-west, dedicated bike lane along West 4th Street. Provide B-cycle discounts or incentives to women.

•

Install complete sidewalks within 500 feet of the Square. Ensure sidewalks provide adequate lighting and visibility, especially when adjacent to low-activity land uses like parking garages and lots.

•

Install a crosswalk and pedestrian signal at West 5th Street.

•

Provide more affordable parking opportunities in close proximity to the site.

Dedicate adjacent street parking to vulnerable site users or provide women-only parking spots—if permissible by law. Partner with adjacent lot owners to offer parking discounts to women.

•

Install emergency call boxes throughout the site, especially in the Federal Courthouse Plaza.

•

Install device charging stations throughout the site. The stations can be incorporated into site furniture or exist as stand-alone charging pods.

•

Spatially (and visually) integrate the Federal Courthouse Plaza. There is no relationship between the Plaza and Square, which causes the Plaza to feel isolated and insecure.

•

Resolve the Plaza’s movement indicators. Redesign adjacent planters to allow passage and connection.

97

•

There is no relationship between Hotel Zaza and the Square. Activate hotel street frontage along Guadalupe Street and pursue other creative measures to integrate the two spaces.

•

Secure a tenant and open the on-site cafe. This activates nearby seating areas and designates a clear zone of use.

•

Define a consistent use for the Federal Courthouse Plaza and program accordingly.

Ensure the use is distinct and clearly discernible.

•

Define a consistent use for the Square’s southern portion along West 4th Street and program accordingly. Ensure the use is distinct and clearly discernible.

•

Install site lighting to illuminate the central green space as well as all other darks zones throughout the Square. This includes lighting to illuminate dark, densely planted zones.

•

Install site lighting to illuminate all dark zones in and adjacent to the Federal Courthouse Plaza.

•

Install consistent street lighting along all sidewalks within 500 feet of the Square— especially along West 4th and 5th Streets.

•

Install site and street lighting in adjacent parking lots.

•

Resolve lack of visibility caused by large utility boxes along West 5th Street.

•

Resolve lack of visibility caused by dense vegetation and parked cars along West 5th Street.

•

Resolve lack of visibility caused by low-canopy trees, elevation change, and dense vegetation adjacent to the Federal Courthouse Plaza. Provide clear sightlines between the Plaza and Square.

•

Pursue creative methods to improve general visibility in the Federal Courthouse Plaza.

98

•

Trim or prune dense vegetation to provide visibility or clear sightlines through all planted zones.

•

Promote or create natural surveillance on the street level (shops, restaurants, etc.)

There is a lack of natural surveillance (in general). Neighboring high-rise buildings provide surveillance—but the Square’s trees and sheer distance from said buildings block or hinder views.

•

Provide increased street visibility along West 5th and Guadalupe Streets as well as in the Federal Courthouse Plaza.

•

Moments of prospects and refuge only work if there are equal numbers of men and women in the space. Pursue creative programming initiatives and other methods to promote women’s equal use of the space.

•

Resolve all entrapment spots—including the Federal Courthouse Plaza and adjacent stairway, nearby parking lots and structures, as well as alleyways.

•

Develop or provide consistent programming devices. Weekend farmer’s markets and other occasional events are a great start; however, much of the Square is unprogrammed the remainder of the week (75%). This could include daily food trucks throughout the Federal Courthouse Plaza or along West 4th Street, with special incentives for women-owned businesses. This could also include more movable furniture options and games within the central green space.

•

Partner with local women’s groups to explore other programming opportunities.

•

The area lacks mixed use. When redevelopment of north and south sites occur, prioritize restaurants and shops that engage and bring activity to the Square at different times of the day (especially in evening hours).

•

When construction for adjacent redevelopments occurs, ensure the job sites account for women’s safety and security.

99

•

Dedicate a space or portion of the Square to an influential woman in Texas’ history—like Emma Tenayuca, Miriam A. Ferguson, or Bessie Coleman.

•

Collaborate with local women artists to commission temporary / rotating sculptures or artwork that celebrate women.

•

Provide provisions for children. This might include games in the central green space or adapting an area (like an existing planter) for nature play. If adapting an area for nature play, provide methods of containment like low, transparent screens or fencing.

•

The City of Austin must holistically address homelessness. The Square’s downtown location, on-site transit station, and secluded areas (Federal Courthouse Plaza) attract a large population of homeless or transient individuals. While they have just as much a right to use the space, their presence is disconcerting and threatening to women.

Women will avoid the Square so long as such occupation exists.

Based on the audit exercise, I identified high priority items that most contributed to my feelings of insecurity in and around the space. This prioritization would not have been possible if I had only implemented the guidelines. Such items include the general lack of visibility, presence of movement indicators, and overall isolation within the Federal Courthouse Plaza. The Plaza has no relationship to the Square and feels threatening— especially in evening hours. The Square’s lack of adjacent mixed uses and consistent programming also trigger fear and unease. There is virtually no natural surveillance of the space and facing or opposing blocks pose entrapment spots. In particular, the surface parking lot along West 4th Street is extremely disconcerting. While conducting the audit, a man cat-called and followed me as I walked to my parked car. In terms of programming, the site was empty other than eight men utilizing site furniture or lounging in the grass. I was the only woman in the Square. The audit also revealed local nuances that would not 100

have been possible if I had only implemented the guidelines. For example, moments of prospect and refuge only work when occupied by both men and women. Men dominated the Squareâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s sole space for such activity and I felt uneasy occupying it as the only woman on site. Additionally, the guidelines advocate both easy access to and from the site in the form of diverse mobility options as well as holistic strategies to discourage undesirable occupation (including drug and alcohol use, or homelessness). Specific to Austin, these guidelines are at odds with one another. Many homeless or transient individuals ride the bus to avoid the cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s extreme weather, especially in hot summer months. Republic Squareâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s on-site transit station often draws such individuals to the space. And while they have just as much a right to be there as anyone, their presence is threatening to women.

This begs the question of whether an on-site transit station is preferred, or if locating it one block down would allow both easy access to and from the site as well as enough distance to discourage undesirable occupation. Either way, the City of Austin should pursue holistic strategies to help such individuals. Lastly, I experienced elevated feelings of confidence, ownership, and perceived security after the audit exercise. The process of visiting and meticulously combing through the site; assessing what specifically causes my fear and unease; as well as brainstorming potential solutions did exactly what the original research suggested: it helped me unsee the men who were not actually there.

101

Chapter 6: Conclusion Borrowing from the work of Patricia Williams, Deirdre Davis defines street harassment as “spirit murder.” Spirit murder consists of many micro aggressions, “[h]undreds, if not thousands of spirit injuries and assaults—some major, some minor—the cumulative effect of which is the slow death of the psyche, the soul and the persona.” Defining street harassment as spirit murder captures the powerfully damaging effects of sexually harassing behavior on the street. In isolation, each comment and leer may seem like nothing more than a trivial annoyance, a fact of life in a boorish urban environment. But when multiplied by man after man, day after day, week after week, year after year, street harassment profoundly affects a woman's life and liberty. (Thompson, 1993, p. 316) Sexual harassment in public spaces (or street harassment) and women’s consequential fear, insecurity, and exclusion are critical and overlooked issues in contemporary urban design and planning (Thompson, 1993; Kearl, 2010; Crouch, 2009; Safe Cities, 2010; Shaw et al., 2013; Whitzman, 2013; Project for Public Spaces, 2015; de Madariaga, 2016; Beebeejuan, 2017; UN Women, 2019; Soraganvi, n.d.; Lambrick and Rainero, 2010; Nickitin, 2011; Shaw et al., 2013; UN Habitat, 2016; Beebeejuan, 2017; Moore, 2019). Urban migration, shifting gender roles, as well as failing infrastructure necessitate immediate intervention. If urban practitioners fail to validate and address the issue before (re)building takes place, they ensure gender inequality is (once again) built into the physical environment. My professional report serves as a call-to-action.

In response, I propose a two-step approach for urban practitioners: (1) a set of preventative guidelines to be used in initial design and planning phases; as well as (2) a community engagement process that involves local women as key advisors and stakeholders. Drawing upon Sarah Williams Goldhagen’s recommendation to “…revisit our received wisdom about cities…[,]” I review four existing (expert) concepts related to urban security and crime prevention in public spaces (2017, p. xxxi). They include: The Death and Life of Great American Cities by Jane Jacobs in 1961; Defensible Space: Crime Prevention through Urban Design by Oscar Newman in 1973; Cities for People in 2010 102

and Life Between Buildings in 2011 by Jan Gehl; and Timothy Crowes’ third edition of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design in 2013. As expected, these normative models fall short. Their lack of attention to gender potentially exaggerates women’s insecurity in public spaces and necessitates a more gender-focused approach. A brief description in Crowe’s work, however, reveals an untapped resource: the women’s safety audit. Not only does the audit involve local women as a community engagement tool, but its frequent use in other countries around the world provides a reference for preliminary design and planning guidelines. With guidance from WICI’s 2008 study, I outline the audit’s history and use to-date; positive outcomes; challenges; and best practices. I also convert existing women’s safety audit results to a set of twenty-five design and planning guidelines. These preventative guidelines establish a baseline from which urban practitioners can educate and initiate conversation related to women’s insecurity in public spaces. It should be noted that both steps are essential to conclusively address the issue, and one should not supersede or replace the other. In fact, urban practitioners should conduct or employ them simultaneously to compare and contrast relative results—i.e. a system of checks-and-balances. This continuously advances our understanding of the issue; enables women to build necessary skills, confidence, and autonomy; assigns hierarchy or priority based on local conditions; and ensures we do not inadvertently jeopardize women’s security by making false or incomplete assumptions. Finally, I conduct an in-depth case study of Republic Square in Austin, Texas to demonstrate an integration of the audit process and guidelines on the ground.

While this report offers much in the way of women’s insecurity and fear in public spaces, there is still considerable work to be done. Next steps include: (1) validate and accept responsibility for women’s fear and insecurity in public spaces; (2) implement, test, modify, and advance the approach; (3) catalogue, gather, and collectively discuss results; 103

(4) investigate “…along the fracture lines of race, class, age, sexuality, [and] religion…” to capture and prevent injustices toward more defined or marginalized groups (Seager, 2018, p. 9); (5) educate design and planning students on women’s fear and insecurity in public spaces to embed the matter in contemporary urban lexicon; and (6) initiate a much broader conversation regarding what it means to design and plan more equitable cities overall. It is time we ask: What does a city for women look like? And how do we design and plan a city for all?

104

References Abbey-Lambertz, K. (2016, April 26). Cities aren't designed for women. here's why they should be. Retrieved September 9, 2019, from HuffPost website: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/cities-designed-for-womenus_571a0cdfe4b0d0042da8d264 Andrew, C. (2000). Resisting Boundaries? Using Safety Audits for Women. In K. B. Miranne & A. H. Young (Eds.), Gendering the City: Women, Boundaries, and Visions of Urban Life (pp. 157-168). New York, NY: Macmillan Education.

Andrew, C., & Legacy, C. (2013). The role of partnerships in creating inclusive cities. In C. Whitzman, C. Legacy, C. Andrew, F. Klodawsky, M. Shaw, & K. Viswanath (Eds.), Building Inclusive Cities: Women's safety and the right to the city (pp. 90102). New York, NY: Routledge.

Armborst, T., D'Oca, D., & Theodore, G. (2017). The arsenal of exclusion & inclusion (R. Gold, Ed.). New York, NY: Actar Publishers.

Asian Development Bank. (2013). Gender Tool Kit: Transport Maximizing the Benefits of Improved Mobility for All. Retrieved from https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/institutional-document/33901/files/gendertool-kit-transport.pdf Beebeejaun, Y. (2017). Gender, urban space, and the right to everyday life. Journal of Urban Affairs, 39(3), 323-334. https://doi.org/10.1080/07352166.2016.1255526 Bloomingrock. (n.d.). Designing safe cities for women. Retrieved September 10, 2019, from Smart Cities Dive website: https://www.smartcitiesdive.com/ex/sustainablecitiescollective/designing-safecities-women/1052876/ Cardoso, L. F. (2017, March 20). Street harassment is a public health problem. Retrieved September 12, 2019, from City Lab website: https://www.citylab.com/equity/2017/03/street-harassment-is-a-public-healthproblem-the-case-of-mexico-city/520185/ Chan, D. (2018, March 26). What Counts as 'Real' City Planning? Retrieved January 20, 2020, from City Lab website: https://www.citylab.com/equity/2018/03/whatcounts-as-real-city-planning/556082/ City of Toronto. (n.d.). City of Toronto Safety Audit Checklist for Parks. Retrieved from https://recpro.memberclicks.net/assets/Library/Parks/parks_safety_audit_form.pdf 105

Congress for the New Urbanism. (n.d.). The Charter of the New Urbanism. Retrieved April 3, 2020, from https://www.cnu.org/who-we-are/charter-new-urbanism Cowichan Women Against Society. (n.d.). Cowichan valley safer futures project - final report. Retrieved from https://www.cvrd.bc.ca/DocumentCenter/View/1618/2Cowichan-Valley-Safer-Futures-Project-Final-Re Cowichan Women Against Violence. (n.d.). Cobble Hill Safety Audit [Pamphlet].

Retrieved from https://www.cvrd.bc.ca/DocumentCenter/View/1615/90-CobbleHill-Safety-Audit?bidId= Creating safe public spaces. (n.d.). Retrieved September 10, 2019, from UN Women website: https://www.unwomen.org/en/what-we-do/ending-violence-againstwomen/creating-safe-public-spaces Crouch, M. (n.d.). Sexual harassment in public space. Social Philosophy Today, 25. https://doi.org/10.5840/socphiltoday20092511 Dame, T., & Grant, A. (n.d.). Women and community safety project: Kelowna planning for safer communities workshop. Retrieved from https://d3gxp3iknbs7bs.cloudfront.net/attachments/4cdccdfd-4c57-498c-b73782f399f127a6.pdf Dame, T., & Grant, A. (2010, November). Women and Community Safety Project: Kelowna Planning for Safer Communities Workshop. Retrieved from Cowichan Valley Safer Futures website: https://d3gxp3iknbs7bs.cloudfront.net/attachments/4cdccdfd-4c57-498c-b73782f399f127a6.pdf Dean, F. (2013, September 26). What a city designed for women looks like. Retrieved August 29, 2019, from Chatelaine website: https://www.chatelaine.com/living/urban-planning-city-for-women/ de Madariaga, I. S., & Nueman, M. (2016). Mainstreaming gender in the city. The Town Planning Review, 87(5), 493-504. https://doi.org/10.3828/tpr.2016.33 Doost, A. (2018, January 7). Runners still waiting for safety improvements along Austin's popular hike-and-bike trail after attacks. kxan . Retrieved from https://www.kxan.com/news/local/austin/runners-still-waiting-for-safetyimprovements-along-austins-popular-hike-and-bike-trail-after-attacks/ Downtown Alliance. (2018, August 29). Republic Square was named "2018 Best Public Place" at last night's @uli_austin Impact Awards! This project was made possible 106

by a partnership between @downtownaustin @austinparksfdn & @austincityparks. Thanks to the incredible project team who worked on the renovation: [Instagram update]. Retrieved from https://www.instagram.com/p/BnEni-jhe0P/ Downtown Alliance. (2020). [Republic Square]. Retrieved March 26, 2020, from Republic Square website: https://republicsquare.org Evaluating park safety: The safety audit process. (2008, December 31). Retrieved September 12, 2019, from Project for Public Spaces website: https://www.pps.org/article/torontosafetyaudit Felton, C. (2019, July 25). August 2019 Top Events & Festivals [Photograph]. Retrieved from https://www.austintexas.org/austin-insider-blog/post/august-top-eventsfestivals/ Friman, M., Ettema, D., & Olsson, L. E. (Eds.). (2018). Quality of Life and Daily Travel.

Springer International. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-76623-2 Garber, J. A. (2000). "Not Named or Identified": Politics and the Search for Anonymity in the City . In K. B. Miranne & A. H. Young (Eds.), Gendering the City: Women, Boundaries, and Visions of Urban Life (pp. 19-39). New York, NY: Macmillan Education.

Garnham, J. P. (2018, August 1). Making a 'safe' city safer for women: Lessons from madrid. Retrieved August 29, 2019, from CityLab website: https://www.citylab.com/equity/2018/08/making-a-safe-city-safer-for-womenlessons-from-madrid/566510/ Gehl, J. (2010). Cities for people. Washington D.C.: Island Press.

Goldhagen, S. W. (2017). Welcome to your world: How the built environment shapes our lives. New York, NY: Harper Collins Publishers.

Greed, C. (2010). Non-Sexist City. In R. Hutchinson (Ed.), The Encyclopedia of Urban Studies (pp. 570-572). http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412971973.n206 Guberman, C. (2002, May). Empowerment Strategies for Women: The Safety Audit: What's Next? Paper presented at First International Seminar on Women's Safety â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Making the Links, MontrĂŠal, Quebec.

107

Hall, B. (1991). The women's safety audit kit. Canadian Woman Studies, 11(4), 90.

Retrieved from https://cws.journals.yorku.ca/index.php/cws/article/viewFile/10670/9759 Hayden, D. (1980). What would a non-sexist city be like? Speculations on housing, urban design, and human work. The University of Chicago Press, 5(3), S170-S187.

Retrieved from JSTOR database.

History and vision. (2018). Retrieved January 13, 2020, from https://metoomvmt.org/about/#history website: https://metoomvmt.org/about/#history International Transport Forum. (2018). Women's Safety and Security: A Public Transport Priority. Paris: OECD Publishing, Jacobs, J. (1961). The death and life of great american cities. New York, NY: Random House.

Jagori. (n.d.). Understanding women's safety: Towards a gender inclusive city. Retrieved from http://www.safedelhi.in/sites/default/files/reports/gic-delhi-report.pdf Jagori. (2010). Understanding Women's Safety: Towards a Gender Inclusive City. New Delhi, India: Jagori.

Jagori. (2010, August). Understanding Women's Safety: Towards a Gender Inclusive City. Retrieved from http://www.endvawnow.org/uploads/browser/files/understanding_womens_safety .pdf Kapadia, A., & Robertson, C. (2006). In the Field: Local Women Confronting Fears to Improve Neighborhood Safety in the UK. Women & Environments International Magazine, 70(71), 53-55.

Kearl, H. (n.d.). Unsafe and harassed in public spaces: A national street harassment report. Retrieved from https://www.nccpsafety.org/assets/files/library/National_Street_Harassment_Repo rt.pdf Kearl, H. (2010). Stop street harassment: Making public places safe and welcoming for women. Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger.

Kearl, H. (2010). Stop street harassment: Making public spaces safe and welcoming for women. Santa Barbara, CA: Prager.

108

Kearl, H. (2018). The facts behind the #metoo movement: A national study on sexual harassment and assault. Retrieved from http://www.stopstreetharassment.org/wpcontent/uploads/2018/01/Full-Report-2018-National-Study-on-SexualHarassment-and-Assault.pdf Kliff, S. (2017, September 8). The truth about the gender wage gap. Retrieved January 19, 2020, from Vox Media website: https://www.vox.com/2017/9/8/16268362/gender-wage-gap-explained Korn, J. (2018, March 27). Women's safety must be a part of transportation planning.

Retrieved September 6, 2019, from Next City: Inspiring Better Cities website: https://nextcity.org/daily/entry/womens-safety-must-be-part-of-transportationplanning Lambrick, M., & Rainero, L. (2010). Safe Cities. Retrieved from http://www.endvawnow.org/en/modules/view/12-safe-cities.html Little, J., Peake, L. L., & Richardson, P. (Eds.). (1988). Women in Cities: Gender and the Built Environment. New York, NY: Macmillan Education.

Loverage, M. (2018, May 24). What's up with seoul's pink parking spaces for women.

Retrieved September 12, 2019, from City Lab website: https://www.citylab.com/life/2018/05/whats-up-with-seouls-pink-parking-spacesfor-women/561041/ Madan, M., & Nalla, M. K. (2016). Sexual harassment in public spaces: Examining gender differences in perceived seriousness and victimization. International Criminal Justice Review, 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1177/1057567716639093 Mehrotra, S. T. (2010, November). A Handbook on Women's Safety Audits in Low-income Urban Neighbourhoods: A Focus on Essential Services. New Delhi, India: Jagori.

Mehrotra, S. T. (2010, November). A Handbook on Women's Safety Audits in Low-income Urban Neighbourhoods: A Focus on Essential Services. Retrieved from Jagori website: http://www.jagori.org/wp-content/uploads/2006/01/Handbook1.pdf Micklow, A., Kancilia, E., & Warner, M. (2015, November). The Need to Plan for Women: Planning with a Gender Lens: Issue Brief, November 2015. American Planning Association.

Milroy, B. M. (2000). Epilogue: Cracks, Light, Energy. In K. B. Miranne & A. H. Young (Eds.), Gendering the City: Women, Boundaries, and Visions of Urban Life (pp.

209-217). New York, NY: Macmillan Education.

109

Miranne, K. B., & Young, A. H. (Eds.). (2000). Gendering the city: Women, boundaries, and visions of urban life. Oxford, England: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. Moore, O. (2019). The 'baked-in biases' of the public square: Calls grow to redesign cities with women in mind. Retrieved from The Globe and Mail: Toronto website: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/toronto/article-designing-safer-citiesfor-women/ Newman, O. (1973). Defensible space: Crime prevention through urban design. Athens Center of Ekistics, 36(216), 325-332. Retrieved from JSTOR database.

Nikitin, C. (2011, July 19). Safer cities for women and girls through a place-based approach. Retrieved September 21, 2019, from Project for Public Spaces website: https://www.pps.org/article/safer-cities-for-women-and-girls-through-a-placebased-approach Office for Women. (2017). Women's Safety Audit - Events Checklist [Pamphlet]. ACT Government Community Services.

Ogbu, L. (2012). Reframing Practice: Identifying a Framework for Social Impact Design.

Journal of Urban Design, 17(4), 573-589. https://doiorg.ezproxy.lib.utexas.edu/10.1080/13574809.2012.706364 O'Leary, R., & Viswanath, K. (2011, July). Building Safe and Inclusive Cities for Women: A Practical Guide. Retrieved from Jagori website: https://www2.unwomen.org//media/field%20office%20eseasia/docs/publications/2015/southasia/reportstudies/ 01_evaw/building%20safe%20inclusive%20cities%20for%20women_apractical%20guide_20111.pdf?la=en&vs=3039 Parkinson, J. R. (2012). Democracy and public space: The physical sites of democratic performance. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Perez, C. C. (2019). Invisible women: Data bias in a world designed for men. New York, NY: Abrams Press.

Perone, C. (2016). Grounds for future gendered urban agendas: Policy patterns and practice implications. The Town Planning Review, 87(5), 585-606. doi:http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.lib.utexas.edu/10.3828/tpr.2016.36 Phillips, H. (2018, May 9). Staying safe in the texas capital. Austin Women. Retrieved from https://atxwoman.com/staying-safe-texas-capital/ 110

Plunkett, J. (2014, May 5). Movies in the Park at Republic Square Park [Photograph].

Retrieved from https://www.austintexas.org/austin-insider-blog/post/2014movies-in-the-park/ Project for Public Spaces. (2015, October 4). "Public spaces for all": Celebrating world habitat day 2015. Retrieved September 21, 2019, from Project for Public Spaces website: https://www.pps.org/article/public-spaces-celebrating-world-habitat-day2015 Rendell, J., Penner, B., & Borden, I. (2000). Gender space architecture: An interdisciplinary introduction. New York, NY: Routledge. @republicsqatx. (2018, February 16). We LOVE hosting the SFC Farmers' Market downtown each week! [Instagram update]. Retrieved from https://www.instagram.com/p/BfRgQ9UA5rS/ @republicsqatx. (2018, June 8). Exciting news! The restrooms and water fountains are now open at the square. The facility is fully accessible and family friendly! Our ambassador team will keep the restrooms clean and stocked during open hours from 6am to 10pm daily. [Instagram update]. Retrieved from https://www.instagram.com/republicsqatx/ @republicsqatx. (2018, July 25). It's showtime! [Instagram update]. Retrieved from https://www.instagram.com/p/BlqXpaRBA6M/ @republicsqatx. (2018, August 29). Republic Square was named "2018 Best Public Place" at last night's @uli_austin Impact Awards! This project was made possible by a partnership between @downtownaustin @austinparksfdn & @austincityparks. [Instagram update]. Retrieved from https://www.instagram.com/p/BnEni-jhe0P/ @republicsqatx. (2019, June 28). Fresh at the market this week [Instagram update].

Retrieved from https://www.instagram.com/p/BzQtWJ1AyE2/ @republicsqatx. (2020, April 7). Beginning this Thursday, April 9 at sunset, all parks and trails, including Republic + other downtown squares, will be closed through sunrise on Monday, April 13. Although Republic Square will be closed, the @sfcfarmersmarket will remain open on the promenade and 4th street! [Instagram update]. Retrieved from https://www.instagram.com/p/B-sdjxtl9VT/ Reynald, D. M., & Elffers, H. (2009). The Future of Newman's Defensible Space Theory: Linking Defensible Space and the Routine Activities of Place. European Journal of Criminology, 6(1), 25-46. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477370808098103 111

Richards, J., Jiang, X., Kelly, P., Chau, J., Bauman, A., & Ding, D. (2015). Don't worry, be happy: cross-sectional associations between physical activity and happiness in 15 European countries. BMC Public Health, 15(53). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-015-1391-4 Rosenberg, E. (1994). Public and private: Rereading jane jacobs. Landscape Journal, 13(2), 139-144.

Samuels, A. (2016, April 13). Murdered UT-Austin student was sexually assaulted, strangled. Retrieved January 13, 2020, from USA Today website: https://www.usatoday.com/story/college/2016/04/13/murdered-ut-austin-studentwas-sexually-assaulted-strangled/37416597/ Sandberg, L., & Ronnblom, M. (2016). Imagining the ideal city, planning the genderequal city in UmeĂĽ, Sweden. Gender, Place & Culture, 23(12), 1750-1762. https://doi.org/10.1080/0966369X.2016.1249346 Sandercock, L. (1998). Making the invisible visible: A multicultural planning history.

Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Sandercock, L., & Forsyth, A. (2007). A gender agenda: New directions for planning theory. Journal of the American Planning Association, 58(1), 49-59. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944369208975534 Seager, J. (2018). The women's atlas (5th ed.). New York, NY: Penguin Books.

Sepe, M. (2017). The Role of Public Space to Achieve Urban Happiness. International Journal of Sustainable Development and Planning, 12(4), 724-733. https://doi.org/10.2495/SDP-V12-N4-724-733.

Shaw, M. (2013). How do we evaluate the safety of women. In C. Whitzman, C. Legacy, C. Andrew, F. Klodawsky, M. Shaw, & K. Viswanath (Eds.), Building Inclusive Cities: Women's safety and the right to the city (pp. 184-200). New York, NY: Routledge.

Shaw, M., Andrew, C., Whitzman, C., Klodawsky, F., Viswanath, K., & Legacy, C. (2013). Challenges, opportunities and tools [Introduction]. In C. Whitzman, C. Legacy, C. Andrew, F. Klodawsky, M. Shaw, & K. Viswanath (Eds.), Building Inclusive Cities: Women's safety and the right to the city (pp. 1-16). New York, NY: Routledge .

Smith, N. P. (n.d.). Women's Safety Audit Kit Guidebook. METRAC. 112

Solnit, R. (2016, October 11). City of women. The New Yorker. Retrieved from https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/city-of-women Soraganvi, A. S. (2017). Safe Public Places: Rethinking Design for Women Safety.

International Journal on Emerging Technologies, 8(1), 304-308.

Spain, D. (1992). Gendered spaces. The University of North Carolina Press.

Strawbridge, J. (2016, May 4). Designing gender into and out of public space. Retrieved September 10, 2019, from Next City website: https://nextcity.org/daily/entry/designing-gender-into-and-out-of-public-space Thompson, D. M. (1993). "The Woman in the Street:" Reclaiming the Public Space from Sexual Harassment. Yale Journal of Law and Feminism, 6(2), 313-348.

UN Habitat. (2016, February). Global Public Space Toolkit: From Global Principles to Local Policies and Practice. Nairobi, Kenya: United Nations Human Settlements Programme.

UN Women. (2010, October 30). Safe Public Spaces for Women and Girls. Retrieved January 2, 2020, from http://www.endvawnow.org/en/articles/251-safe-publicspaces-for-women-and-girls.html UN Women. (2017, October). Safe Cities and Safe Public Spaces: Global Results Report.

New York, NY: UN Women.

UN Women. (2019, June). Safe Cities and Safe Public Spaces. Retrieved January 31, 2020, from UN Women website: https://www.unwomen.org//media/headquarters/attachments/sections/how%20we%20work/flagship%20prog rammes/fpi-brief-safe-cities-and-safe-public-spaces-en.pdf?la=en&vs=2740 Villa de Montreal. (2002). Pour un environnement urbain sĂŠcuritaire: Ville de MontrĂŠal Formation express. Retrieved from https://femmesetvilles.org/downloadable/paquin_fr.pdf Viswanath, K. (2013). Gender Inclusive Cities Programme: implementing change for women's safety. In C. Whitzman (Author), Building Inclusive Cities: Women's safety and the right to the city (pp. 75-89). New York, NY: Routledge.

Whitzman, C. (2006). Women and Community Safety: A Retrospect and Prospect.

Women & Environments International Magazine, 70, 24-27.

113

Whitzman, C. (2013). Women's safety and everday mobility. In C. Whitzman, C. Legacy, C. Andrew, F. Klodawsky, M. Shaw, & K. Viswanath (Eds.), Building Inclusive Cities: Women's safety and the right to the city (pp. 35-52). New York, NY: Routledge.

Whitzman, C., Legacy, C., Andrew, C., Klodawsky, F., Shaw, M., & Viswanath, K. (Eds.). (2013). Building inclusive cities: Women's safety and the right to the city.

New York, NY: Routledge.

Whitzman, C., Shaw, M., Andrew, C., & Travers, K. (2009). The effectiveness of women ' s safety audits. Security Journal, 22(3), 205-218.

Women in Cities International. (2008). Women's safety audits: What works and where?

Retrieved from https://www.peacewomen.org/sites/default/files/wps_womensafetyaudits_unhabit at_0.pdf Women in Cities International. (2011). Tools for Gathering Information about Women's Safety and Inclusion in Cities. Retrieved from https://femmesetvilles.org/downloadable/tools%20for%20gathering%20informati on%20en.pdf Women in Cities International. (2011). Tools for Gathering Information about Women's Safety and Inclusion in Cities: Experiences from the Gender Inclusive Cities Programme. MontrĂŠal,, QuĂŠbec: Women in Cities International.

Women's Safety Audits Move into the Streets of Metro Toronto. (1989). Women and Environments;, 12(1), 8.

114

Vita Emilie Marie Twilling graduated from Arizona State University in 2015 with a Bachelor of Science in Design, emphasis in Architectural Studies, as well as minor in Sustainability. She worked for a private architecture firm in San Antonio and Austin for two years prior to graduate school and contributed to a wide-range of project typesâ&#x20AC;&#x201D; including ecological-conservation, urban development, civic/cultural, and hospitality.

Throughout graduate school, she worked for a private landscape architecture, planning, and urban design firm in Austin. While there, she assisted with various comprehensive plans for cities and towns in Texas, Louisiana, and South Carolina as well as park masterplans, streetscapes, and design guidelines. She graduated in May of 2020 with Masters of Science in Community and Regional Planning as well as Urban Design (dual degree). She currently lives in Washington D.C. and works for the Architect of the Capitol.

Permanent email: em.twilling@gmail.com Emilie Twilling typed this report.

115