|
Thursday, January 8, 2009
|
|
|
|
Temp:
|
-11°C
|
|
Feels like:
|
-16°C
|
|
Humidity:
|
82%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Respect begets respect |
|
|
|
Written by Citizen Staff
|
|
Sunday, 30 November 2008 |
In the early 1980s, James Q. Wilson and George L. Kelling wrote an article entitled "Broken Windows" for The Atlantic Monthly.
The article expounded the view that one broken window in a building will lead to others. And if not repaired, it will induce people to further vandalize the property eventually leading to break ins and other anti-social behaviour.
Or a sidewalk, with litter, will be a place where others will have a tendency to litter. Eventually, bags of trash from take out restaurants will appear and a neighbourhood will be on its way downhill.
Using this social philosophy as a basis, the New York City Transit Authority engaged in an anti-graffiti campaign and zero tolerance approach in its subway system. Subway cars were cleaned every night. Trains were not allowed out in the morning until spotless.
Anyone caught fare-dodging was prosecuted. Easier arrest procedures and background searches enhanced the perception of safety. The New York city subway system was transformed into a much safer and better place. Ridership and safety increased hand in hand.
This improvement in the public perception spilled over into the streets. Mayor Giuliani and Police Commissioner William Bratton cracked down on squeegee kids, visible graffiti, and littering. They credit the "broken windows" approach to their success in decreasing crime and increasing the livability of New York.
But while there is little question about New York becoming a better city over the past decade and a half, the "broken windows" theory or approach is not without its critics. Many point out that the demographic of the city has changed significantly, with fewer youth in the 16- to 25-year-old range or that crime has declined in other cities without a "zero tolerance" approach.
It has been argued that it is virtually impossible to disentangle the variables. Indeed, one recent article pointed out the bias that exists towards predominately black neighbourhoods by both white, Hispanic, and black individuals. Regardless of who is doing the judging, predominately black neighbourhoods were described as disordered - even if they did not significantly differ in their number of "broken windows".
The "broken windows" theory needed to be tested against empirical evidence. And last week, Science magazine reported just such a test.
Kees Keizer and his colleagues at the University of Groningen in the Netherlands have carried out a series of covert experiments in which they observed social behaviour under a variety of conditions.
For example, Groningers were given the chance to steal a five-euro note from a mail box. An addressed envelope with a plastic window ,so that someone passing by could see the contents, was left partially placed in a mail slot. The impression given was that someone had meant to mail the money but hadn't place the letter entirely in the slot.
If the mail box and area was clean and tidy, only 13% of the people walking by took the envelope. Many people that didn't take the envelope did quite the opposite and pushed the envelope into the mail box.
If there was litter on the ground around the mail box, though, 25% of the people took the money and far fewer finished mailing the envelope by pushing it into the mail box. If the mail box was covered in graffiti but the area was clean, the number that took the envelope was 27%.
Similar studies were done with flyers stuck to bicycles to see how many people would litter in the presence of graffiti versus how many would not or whether the sound of illegal firecrackers exploding would induce antisocial behaviour.
The conclusion of this study is that evidence of neglect tends to increase the percentage of people that are willing treat an area with disrespect or neglect. The prevalent attitude seemed to be that if my neighbours are going to litter then I might as well, too.
I mention all of this as a preamble to considering improving our downtown core and surroundings. For as long as I have been in Prince George, people have been talking about downtown improvement.
But real improvement will not likely happen until those that live and work in the downtown area - and those that own the buildings - get on with fixing the metaphorical "broken windows". It is not enough to say that "you want to improve your building but you are waiting for someone to start the process," as I heard one owner say this past week.
Rather, it is a matter of ensuring that all of the core is a livable space. And a place that people do live in. The aesthetics of downtown leave much to be desired and improving them would make a more livable space.
It is like there is a broken window that no one wants to fix. Or everyone is waiting for the city council or the "other guy" to fix. But all that is happening is that more windows are getting broken.
I wish the new city council luck in achieving some real change in our downtown core.
Dr. Todd Whitcombe is a professor at UNBC and a politically active member of the community. His column appears Mondays. E-mail:
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
 |
|
Last Updated ( Sunday, 30 November 2008 )
|
|
|
Who's Online
We have 81 guests and 2 members online
|
|
|
|
Subscribe to this comment's feed
