Revisiting blue lights - the New York City project

by Mateja Mihinjac

Over a decade ago our colleague Ivana Dankova wrote a guest blog presenting her research on blue lights in Glasgow. 

She reported not only the beautification effect of blue lighting but also a calming effect they might have by inducing serotonin production. In her research she echoed the findings of the Japanese study  that demonstrated the possible link between blue lighting and reduction in suicides. 

It appears that blue lights are not out of fashion just yet. The New York City Metro Transit Authority (MTA) is now installing them at subway stations with the purpose of deterring suicide attempts in a so-called Track Intrusion Blue Lights pilot program.

NYC's BLUE LIGHTS PROGRAM

The pilot program emerged as one of the MTA’s Track Trespassing Task Force’s recommendations for curbing a surge in track intrusion incidents over the past five years. The MTA observed 234 incidents in 2022, amounting to a nearly 25% increase in incidents from 2018 and decided to respond to calls for action following the task force’s recommendations.

Some claim that blue lights trigger calming serotonin responses
in the brain, thereby calming potential suicidal and criminal impulses

WHAT DOES THE EVIDENCE SAY?

One of the most cited studies on the link between blue lights and suicide prevention comes from the metropolitan area train station system in Japan. The study examining data in a period between 2000 and 2010 found an 84% drop in completed suicides at 11 treatment stations with blue lights installed compared to 60 control stations with no blue lights installed.

In a subsequent study, the authors also examined the displacement effect of suicides. While finding a 74% drop in the number of suicides between 2000 and 2013 at 14 stations that had blue lights installed they found no increase in the number of suicides at five neighbouring control stations with no blue lights installed. (They did not measure whether suicides displaced to other locations.)

In another study analysing all railway suicide attempts in Japan at stations with blue lights, the authors cautioned against magnifying the effect of blue lights. Their detailed analysis of data showed that the majority of suicide attempts had not actually occurred within the station premises at night when the lights would be on. 

The scientific evidence for blue light effectiveness is mixed, 
but some data suggest it has at least minimal impact

They concluded “The installation of blue lights on platforms… [has] a much smaller impact than previously estimated.” The authors suggest that the estimate of the preventive effect of blue lights should be more conservative.  

The City of Glasgow, Scotland, and Nara City, Japan, also reported a reduction in crime rates owing to blue lights and some call for the installation of blue lighting in American cities to reduce a surge in violence.

THE DEBATE CONTINUES 

More evidence is needed as research on the effectiveness of blue lights is still up for debate. At this point, it seems blue lights alone will have a limited effect on crime and suicide prevention. However, even with minimal impact, its relatively low cost compared to other more effective methods such as full-height platform screen doors  make it an attractive and quick alternative for decision-makers expected to act on public order and related social issues.

It appears that the MTA’s Track Trespassing Task Force is well aware of the need for a holistic approach, such as SafeGrowth, that does not rely only on blue lights, but that (among other responses) includes: 

• partnerships with relevant organisations, 
• a crisis lifeline campaign, 
• a subway safety plan with the expanded presence of NYPD, 
• the installation of track intrusion detection systems, 
• expansion of CCTV, 
• a screen door pilot program. 

Similarly, just as individual hardship cannot be addressed with one isolated response, neither can neighbourhood safety and liveability. As we have emphasized repeatedly in this blog, a holistic approach that is tailored to neighbourhood-specific issues, along with partnerships with local residents and stakeholders, is the best way forward. 

Suicide prevention and neighborhood livability

by Tarah Hodgkinson

September marks suicide prevention month. Numerous events and strategies are popping up around the world from RU OK? Day in Australia to #Bethe1To in the United States. All of these strategies are attempting to address suicide and mental health. 

In many of the neighbourhoods where we work, suicide and mental health is a common topic. Indeed, I spent time with a rural community a few weeks ago in which residents recounted the loss of several young lives to suicide. This has only been exacerbated by the effects of COVID-19 related to social isolation and financial insecurity. Fortunately, there are suicide prevention strategies that can make a difference.

Suicide prevention can take many forms. Target hardening approaches try to increase the effort to take one’s life in the hopes of saving lives by making suicide more difficult.

Some of these efforts include physical barriers, such as fencing on tall bridges to prevent jumping. Others are somewhat unintentional, such as removing carbon monoxide from domestic gas supplies in the UK that resulted in almost a 100% decrease in suicides by gas poisoning. 

Designing engaging and inclusive outdoor spaces - a place to go for help

HOW, BUT NOT WHY

While these kinds of target hardening prevention strategies are useful, and often successful, they do not address the why of suicide. Suicide is often the last resort, an attempt to escape inconceivable pain and trauma. This pain and trauma do not occur in a vacuum but are influenced by a person’s mental health and their environment. One example is long-term mental health problems arising from adolescent bullying in the neighborhood. Another example is adverse childhood experiences within the family.

Clearly, suicide prevention can do much more than a marketing campaign to tell people to reach out, or by making suicide more difficult. 

While the risk factors for suicide range from individual to ecological, there are numerous ways that we can make our neighbourhoods and communities more resilient to suicide. These include structural changes such as affordable and accessible housing and shelter, paying people a living wage, creating neighborhood opportunities for youth and the elderly and inexpensive access to health care including locally-based, mental health and trauma-informed care. 

If we are to fully address and mitigate suicide, these structural changes are integral in the creation of a healthy neighborhood. 

Healthy and liveable neighbourhoods, where people are connected, cohesive and cared for play an important role in improving mental health and preventing suicide. And we all have a role to play in that kind of prevention.