Changing attitudes vs. Changing lives

Plentiful and fun community events in a Calgary neighbourhood - an essential ingredient for successful local organizations  

TOOLKIT: For the past three years, Larry Leach has penned a series of blogs forming a toolkit for neighbourhood livability. In 2023, he introduced outputs and outcomes. In 2024 he explored the nudge factor and Good Neighbourhood Agreements. A year later children and youth centres was followed by Neighbourhood Communications Plans. In this installment, Larry returns to outputs and outcomes, taking the idea further as the foundation for his upcoming presentation at the October SafeGrowth Summit in Calgary.

by Larry Leach 

One might also title this blog Outputs vs. Outcomes, a theme I first described a few years ago. It is a narrative that ends up shaping whether you collaborate or work in a silo. 

In my experience, organizations that value outputs, branding and changing attitudes, tend to be less collaborative than those that value outcomes, changing lives and doing the work. Changing attitudes is still good work, but it’s important to recognize the difference. We fail when trying to be all things to all people.

Jason Tudor, a member of our SafeGrowth Network, describes it this way: 

"I have worked with government agencies, nonprofits, businesses, neighborhood groups, and residents, and I don’t think any one sector is inherently better at collaboration. The difference is whether an organization views collaboration as a means of advancing its own work or achieving a shared community outcome."

If you value achieving a good outcome, you will collaborate with any organization to get there. After many years building community, I can identify organizations that collaborate and those that don’t. Trying to change an uncollaborative group is much harder, if it’s possible at all.

Jason adds: 

“Residents in Hollygrove confronted drug activity, cleaned neglected spaces, installed lighting, organized walking groups, addressed problem properties and businesses, and created solutions when traditional institutions could not or would not respond… but the important outcome was not successfully implementing a SafeGrowth project. It was that residents developed the capacity and confidence to act collectively.”

He describes how the most successful partners were those willing to directly join the neighborhood process rather than owning it themselves. “Collaboration became difficult when institutional procedure, jurisdiction, funding silos, or organizational ownership became more important than solving the neighborhood’s problem.”

The full Hollygrove story is covered extensively in prior blogs, such as back from the brink and a gift for the holidays, and in our forthcoming SafeGrowth book. 

Neighbourhood groups in Hollygrove were careful to choose partner organizations that shared their visions - here they conduct safety audits as part of the safety diagnoses

Another great Safegrowth partner, Pamela Daniels of The Brickerati group in Newark, New Jersey adds: 

“I think successful collaboration for us in Newark has been about leveraging partnerships to achieve mutual outcomes/impact and sometimes that impetus being funding sources themselves." 

"Funders want to see collaborations, shared resources, and less duplicated approaches to reach the same target audiences and collaborative approaches… to achieve greater impact. That synchronicity happened successfully in Newark over time because the field started to realize we aren't competitors but partners in an ecosystem.”

Great neighbourhoods have convenient and safe places to lounge. They also need local organizational methods to keep them that way.  

 

THE SQUEAKY WHEEL GETS THE GREASE

Output Organizations value branding and changing attitudes and often get the attention and funding. That is what they seek. While great for awareness campaigns, when it comes to actual community building, that focus on building a brand can cloud their ability to build relationships to make the change necessary for a good outcome. In turn, that can perpetuate rather than help solve the problem.

Non-profit prognosticators tell me how funders should change the way they look at funding, changing the process of applying and what they fund. The truth is many funders have their own outputs and may not be interested in solving a problem. They prefer to brand themselves in a cause. 

How do you determine whether an organisation is collaborative and whether they’re interested in solving a problem? 

Try these trigger questions when you are assessing partner organizations or seeking funding: 

• Are they saying “we want to collaborate”, but not following with actions?
• Are they actively resisting your ideas?
• Is the problem bureaucracy, conflicting priorities, lack of trust?
• Do you need something specific from them, or are you trying to build a longer-term partnership?

GETTING CREDIT - BUILDING TRUST

Rather than pushing them harder, consider these steps:

1. Understand their incentives. Organizations respond to what helps achieve their goals. Frame your proposal around their priorities, not yours. 
2. Lower the risk of saying yes. Start with one small, low-risk project with clear roles and a timeline. Relationships take time. 
3. Identify the decision-maker. People may appear ready to collaborate but lack the authority. Find the person who can authorize action. It makes a big difference. 
4. Track agreements in writing. After meetings, briefly summarize what was discussed, who agreed to what, and next steps. This creates clarity without confrontation. 
5. Know when to stop investing your time. After repeated delays, cancellations or silence, it may be more productive to find another partner or project.

Jason sums this up: "Perhaps the simplest test I have found for identifying a genuinely collaborative organization is this: If someone else receives the credit, but the community gets the outcome, would the organization still consider the project a success? If the answer is yes, you probably have a very good collaborator."

Pamela adds: "It takes time for guards to come down. It takes time for competitive natures to dwindle. So, funding sources as the impetus [can] speed that up and certainly ushered in new approaches in Newark when it happened."

As Stephen Covey describes in his book by the same name - change moves at the speed of trust. And that applies only when we believe that our Outcomes are more important than our Outputs.  

The curious case of the falling murder rate

Toronto, Canada - Toronto's metro is generally considered among the safest in North America, with a combined population of 7 million and a total homicide rate of less than 1 per 100,000 - photo Tamjeed, Pixels

by Gregory Saville

Two years ago, I wrote A Shot in the Dark: Murder Under U.S. Presidents about crime statistics and the curious habit of politicians taking credit when crime falls and blaming someone else when it rises.

This year, as has been the case since the 1990s, the U.S. homicide rate has continued to fall, aside from a blip during Covid. I have been writing about crime rate trends for 15 years. Five years ago, I wrote In the peaks and valleys of crime. And now, having read the latest about declining homicide rates, here we are again. 

This time, before anyone takes credit, and before researchers delve into potential causes like tough laws, crime crackdowns, more security cameras, or goodness knows what, let’s take one extra step! 

Let’s not tune into the ideological bleating about tougher incarceration or the enforcement of illegal immigration. Let’s do a little experiment. Let’s look elsewhere and consider what has been happening to homicide outside the U.S.

San Francisco, California. "The Bay" metro area comprises numerous jurisdictions just under 5 million population. Its combined homicide rate is 3 per 100,000 - three times higher than Toronto.

 

THE EXTRA STEP

Criminologists often use homicide as one of the more reliable measures for comparing crime trends. I have written previously it is not perfect. All official crime statistics are surrogates for a much more complicated reality, and reporting and recording practices differ. But homicide suffers less from the non-reporting problems than other crime statistics.

That makes the North American comparison interesting.

Between 1990 and 2007, homicide rates (the number of homicides per 100,000 people) declined in all three North American countries:

• Mexico: 17.3 → 8.1 = 53% decline
• United States: 9.3 → 5.7 = 39% decline
• Canada: 2.37 → 1.82 = 23% decline

Therefore, by the end of the 1990–2007 period, Mexico's homicide rate was actually below the homicide rate the United States had experienced during its own peaks.

 

Numerous sources were drawn for this chart, including: Canada — Statistics Canada, Homicide Survey, Table 35-10-0068-01; the United States, FBI Uniform Crime Reporting data; The United States, FBI Uniform Crime Reporting data; U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics - Homicide Trends in the United States; the UNODC Intentional-Homicide Series, distributed through the World Bank; and the Mexican historical series data.

Three countries with very different governments, policies, policing systems and social conditions. All experiencing substantial homicide declines during roughly the same period. Most strikingly, Mexico experienced the largest decline of the three! 

I wrote a while back that we should not do what Mexico is doing. This suggests I was wrong!

Mexican military in Michoacan, activated in the War Against Drug Trafficking - photo Diego Fernandez, public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

 

THEN THINGS CHANGED

Then Mexico's rate explodes in 2007 from 8.12 to 23.5 in 2011. What happened? 

Beginning in late 2006, the Mexican federal government launched a massive police and military crackdown against the drug cartels. The decades-old cartel ecosystem destabilized, traditional cartels fragmented, rival groups fought over territory, and homicide exploded. In 2015, another crackdown destabilized the situation again.  

 

Mexico City - the capital of Mexico has over 20 million population and the city proper 9 million. The homicide rate in the city proper is 8 per 100,000, over twice that of San Francisco and eight times higher than Toronto - Photo Alcantara, Pixels

The upshot was after declining for almost two decades, Mexico's homicide rate nearly tripled within a few years. This unintended consequence of state action is well documented by numerous sources, including Oscar Contreras Velasco. 

 

MEANWHILE, NORTH OF BORDER... 

All this time, Canada continued its long-term downward trajectory just like the U.S. Except for a blip during Covid, the homicide rate in both countries declined. Now, Canadian and American homicide rates have again fallen dramatically in step with each other. 

This is in spite of the fact that Canada has no U.S-style community violence interrupter programs, growing incarceration rates, nor immigration crackdowns. Yet the homicide rate still declines. In spite of the fact that Canadian police have generally cleared a substantially larger proportion of homicides (70%) than police in the United States (54%), both U.S. and Canadian rates decline.

As for Mexico, note that, after the 2007 – 2017 decade of murder, homicide rates there too are falling as well, just as they were prior to the decade of murder.

Setting aside the 2007-2017 decade of unintended consequences, Mexico, Canada, and the newest U.S. figures simply add another chapter to that same story that has been going on in all three countries for a very long time.

 

With the exception of the Mexican decade of Murder, homicide rates in all three countries had an overall declining pattern - sources in above graph 

 

HOW CAN THIS BE? 

Here is the question this extra step asks: How can three different countries with very different governments, criminal-justice systems and social systems end with the same homicide reduction trend?

Let's be clear: Leaders make decisions that matter and governments implement policies that can help or hurt. Yet when similar declines appear across borders and across governments of very different political stripes, perhaps we should be cautious about congratulating the person standing beside the graph.

Here is a more interesting question: What does the graph itself tell us?

Homicide has been declining for a very long time. The crime decline began in the early 1990s and continued under leaders of all political parties and in different countries. Canada and the U.S. experienced similar long-term declines and in 2025, their homicide rates fell again.

None of this means governments and presidents are irrelevant. Policing, prevention, economics, demographics, and countless other factors matter.

Maybe macro trends within societies over the long periods of time affect crime trends beyond borders, governments and political parties. And maybe those kinds of trends are not found in national crime policies or statistical blips.

Perhaps leaders deserve a little less credit, and criminology deserves a little more curiosity.

When school safety becomes a tech race

School design matters for safety. International CPTED Association CPTED in Schools Guidebook - photo by Jeremy Bitterman Photography, Lacamas Lake ES/Mahlum Architects 

by Gregory Saville

“In May, 2022, there was a school shooting… as I watched it unfold, having been in law enforcement for 23 years, I saw the mistakes that were being made and I got angry. I got really angry!" – James Fuller, Director of Operations, Northern Star, non-profit school safety coalition.

A few years ago, my friend James Fuller uttered those words when, in response to the tragic Uvalde school shooting in Texas, he worked with other colleagues to launch Northern Star, a non-profit school safety coalition. I was invited to advise and join this group on their search for answers to this ongoing nightmare that is school violence. 

Months later there we sat, in our first leadership workshop on prevention strategies and school safety plans. I looked around the room and was impressed with all the experience: educators, police, ex-military, veterans, mental health experts, school principals, and criminologists.

Here was a volunteer group of passionate and committed souls, community members and parents among them, dedicating their considerable experience to the complex problem of school violence. James wanted answers, not a rush for public safety theatre (the use of high visible security measures with the appearance of safety, regardless of whether they reduce risk).

Their first decision: adopt school safety planning that was evidence-based, community-based and effective! What a breath of fresh air.

Then this week happened.

RISK AND REALITY

On Monday I watched a newsclip from a private school in Colorado that plans to use high-speed mini-drones that fire pepper-spray and strike active shooters. What could go wrong?

Each year, the vast majority of schools in the U.S. will never experience gun violence. Depending on how you measure the problem, there is an average risk of roughly 1 incident per 400 schools that experience a shooting incident, whether or not there is injury. Mass shootings with injuries and fatalities are much rarer at about 1 incident per 10,000 schools. 

Does the low-risk matter if drones help, even slightly? If they help, who can argue with that logic? Not the state of Georgia who has spent $500,000 to pilot the drone system in five public schools. Not Florida who has spent over $550,000 to implement the technology at three high schools. And now, not one Colorado public charter school that decided to pay for its own drones. 

Thats over a million dollars! It is never wise to argue actuarial logic when it comes to the emotional topic of child safety. Still, a million dollars might go a long way with other evidence-based mitigation and prevention strategies. 

Should school safety employ defensive technologies or socially sophisticated prevention solutions?
Photo - Minidrone ZLEA, CC BY-SA 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons

Let’s be crystal clear. Schools should prepare for all high-risk tragedies, no matter how rare. And I am not the Luddite in this case because I have not seen the drones up close nor seen evaluation trials on their effectiveness. 

Yet, I cannot ignore the elephant in the room! Are we yet again investing in the latest reaction technology while neglecting other forms prevention? 

Those of us with years working and researching the science of crime prevention wonder if this is a pattern we’ve seen before. SafeGrowth blogs over the past decade tell a cautionary tale about reactive suppression technologies and highly targeted response strategies. Consider:

• Predictive policing
• SQF policing
• K5 security robots, and
• ShotSpotter AI technology.

In SafeGrowth, when it comes to technology, we employ a simple principle learned over the years. Don't discard effective prevention while embracing the latest suppression technology. As the ancient German proverb warns, don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater. 

Whether intended or not, highly publicized defensive technologies can contribute to the cultural script surrounding rare but highly publicized forms of violence. That doesn't mean the drones cause violence, but it does mean educators and communicators should think carefully about how these technologies are presented alongside what we know about contagion effects. 

Balancing safety - the ying/yang approach

A BALANCED RESPONSE

What if there was another approach? What it we adopted a more balanced covenant between technologically sophisticated reactive solutions and the socially sophisticated preventive solutions with evidence of success? 

Call it the ying/yang for school violence prevention.

What if school leaders decided that every dollar invested in emergency suppression technologies should be matched by equal attention to helping local schools create their own comprehensive safety approach? Like what?

Approaches like those promoted by Northern Star’s methodology for school-based safety plans. Approaches like those the International CPTED Association recommends in their CPTED in Schools Guidebook to build pro-social school cultures, encourage safer environmental designs, strengthen peer networks, and improve self-awareness and conflict management. (NOTE: Those strategies are part of this year’s ICA CPTED Conference in Calgary, Oct. 2-4) 

Perhaps, in addition to drones, there will even be an approach that forges voluntary agreements with media news conglomerates to limit the sensationalizing of tragic shooting events. Limiting crime contagion might also go a long way to prevent school shootings. 

Security technology is attractive because it promises certainty. Communities are difficult because they require patience. School violence prevention is not easy, but nothing worthwhile ever is. Imagine if spending was more balanced...what a difference that might make! 

SafeGrowth and 안심 - A shared vision with Korean CPTED researchers

Skyline of Seoul, South Korea, by night. Over 25 million in the metro area, one of the most advanced cities in the world. Leaping ahead with the latest CPTED - photo CC BY-SA 2.0, via Wikimedia Commons.

 

by Gregory Saville

When the Korean CPTED delegation departed Seoul last Sunday to meet us in Denver, they traveled 16 hours and crossed 16 time zones. Twenty-four years earlier, two South Korean scholars published a study applying space syntax theory to evaluate CPTED in the International CPTED Association’s official journal, Volume 1, Issue 1.

Across that distance and span of time, South Korea has quietly become one of the world's most innovative laboratories for CPTED research and practice.

Last week we hosted visitors from the Architecture and Urban Research Institute (AURI), a government research institute in the Republic of Korea, led by Dr Eunhee Kim. The members of the group included: 

• Dr. Eunhee Kim, Director, CPTED Research Center, AURI; 
• Dr. Youngweoo Kim, Associate Research Fellow, CPTED Research Center, AURI; 
• Jaeseok Her, Assistant Research Fellow (Spatial AI and Big Data Division), AURI; 
• Hongseok Choi, doctoral candidate, City & Metropolitan Planning, University of Utah (former AURI). 

EARLY CONNECTIONS 

Late last year, AURI reached out to us for some background on SafeGrowth, the International CPTED Association, and our generational approach to CPTED. In May, we collaborated with them in an online webinar with some of their talented researchers. That is when I learned about the astounding progress of Korean CPTED over the past 20 years, especially in a few areas where they have leapfrogged past many other places with CPTED (how many CPTED instructors teach space syntax, or even know what it means?).

Beginning a three-day tour of Denver metro at the Arvada City Hall, Colorado

Before they arrived, we read AURI's recent work using virtual reality to evaluate neighborhood design and a study on using machine learning to explore relationships between urban environments and emergency calls for service. That research reported, “green areas have been mixed in the literature, [but] this study newly demonstrates that green spaces in urban Seoul are associated with reduced 112 [911] call occurrence”. It was a finding that seems to reinforce the Third-generation CPTED environmental principle of biophilia and how green land use can reduce fears and crime rates.

This was an exciting moment! 

Eight members of the SafeGrowth Network appearing virtually from across North America, including some also from the International CPTED Association, joined Mateja and I at the introductory workshop in Arvada in welcoming our Korean guests. Their visit was a professional exchange for research and education, but I suspected they would show us more than vice versa.

 

THE SITE VISITS

Obviously, the Koreans did not need more evidence on crime hotspots, lighting, target hardening, or access control. They have decades of experience with those concepts. Instead, we toured sites showing a more complex, urban planning side of SafeGrowth and CPTED, especially Smart Growth planning of which SafeGrowth is based and in which metro Denver excels. Smart Growth integrates compact development, walkability, mixed land uses, and transportation into complete neighborhoods.

One of our sites included the successful Transit Oriented Development (TOD) in Arvada’s Olde Town centered on the RTD commuter train station. 

Arvada City Hall meeting with Mayor Lauren Simpson, City Manager Don Wick, and their respective staff members

We met our gracious hosts, Arvada City Mayor Lauren Simpson and City Manager Don Wick, and their staffs to learn about TOD governance and development issues. 

Although the modern term Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) was popularized by planner Peter Calthorpe, transit-centered neighborhoods have existed for many years in cities like Seoul, Tokyo, Singapore, Vancouver, Minneapolis, Stockholm, and London. 

Yet despite their importance, TODs remain one of the least-developed areas of CPTED practice. We spent considerable time discussing how walkability, connectivity, mixed land uses, and human-scale design influence neighborhood safety and crime.

We then traveled to Lakewood’s new downtown, mixed-use development also based on Smart Growth, one of the first in the country, constructed from the ground-up twenty years ago. 

We spent time with artists at the Denver Art Society to learn about the social impact of Third Places on neighborhoods like the Arts District of Santa Fe and then followed with another Third Place, this one an adaptive reuse mall, the Edgewater Public Market. 

 

Dr. Eunhee Kim and Jaeseok Her speaking to Denver Art Society
artist Dana Mooney

Hongseok Choi speaking with Denver Art Society artist Allard Broderick

We have posted prior blogs on the Third Places crime immunity effects and the Denver Art Society. Third Places have a growing role in SafeGrowth to stabilize troubled areas in a way that no policing or target hardening ever could. 

We spent one morning at the Denver Police Academy with academy Director, Lt. Jessie Campion and Commander Jacob Herrera, from the Operational Innovation Bureau. They kindly permitted us a visit to examine police crime prevention strategies and training, including a CPTED report on the historic Denver Union Station following a crime spike in 2021. 

Police Lt. Jesse Campion toured the delegation through the academy and described tools of the trade in the Denver training programs

We ended our third day with a visit to Harmony Village, a cohousing development in Golden, Colorado. The Denver metropolitan region is home to about a dozen cohousing communities, among the largest concentrations of cohousing developments in North America.

The community gardens at the Harmony Village Cohousing in Golden, CO.

At first glance, the neighborhood looks much like any well-designed residential development, with plenty of natural surveillance and territorial controls, attractive homes, pedestrian pathways, gardens, and shared recreation areas. But the difference lies beneath the physical design. 

Residents own their homes but also intentionally share responsibility for governing the community, organizing activities, maintaining common spaces, and building relationships with one another. They learn conflict resolution techniques and organizing skills. In many respects, the neighborhood functions as a small, self-governing community. This illustrates why second-generation CPTED extends far beyond physical design.

The cohousing visit sparked considerable discussion since cohousing combines private home ownership with intentional community building and resident self-governance. For SafeGrowth, that distinction is important. 

Lorraine Neimela touring the delegates through Harmony Village Cohousing

Strong neighborhoods emerge not only from good design, but also from the capacity of residents to organize and collectively solve local problems. This is what too many Condo Associations and Homeowner Associations lack and what digital platforms like Nextdoor do not always achieve. In fact, studies now suggest they often do the opposite by encouraging fear of strangers, amplifying rumors, and replacing face-to-face interaction. 

Our thanks go to Lorraine Niemela from Harmony Village for touring us and the Koreans to view how cohousing, as with SafeGrowth, strengthens relationships first, so residents develop the capacity to solve problems together rather than simply report them.

 

안심

Korea has mastered many of the physical and technological dimensions of CPTED. This site visit was a great opportunity to show how SafeGrowth begins where those strengths leave off. It retains traditional CPTED, but it also asks how neighborhoods continue learning, adapting, and governing themselves long after the design work is finished. 

During the visit I learned that the Korean word 안심 best captures the SafeGrowth philosophy. It loosely translates to peace of mind and feelings of safety. That was the SafeGrowth concept we wanted to convey during the three days of their visit.

We were delighted to welcome our new Korean CPTED colleagues and impressed with their intuitive grasp of crime and safety problems in complex neighborhood systems where everything is interconnected to everything else. We barely had time to introduce the latest possible evolution of CPTED theory into complex adaptive systems. Next time, perhaps!  

As we said our goodbyes, I couldn't help but think of the final scene in the classic 1943 film Casablanca: "…I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship." 

I am convinced that is so. 

Helping neighbourhoods adapt to urban change

 

Miklošičeva Street in the Slovenian capital of Ljubljana, closed for renovation. Improvements included wider pedestrian areas, improved cycling, greenery, improved seating and more positive social interaction. It met the European Union's carbon neutral and smart city goals for 2030. It also met significant public protest and opposition. 

by Mateja Mihinjac

Imagine strolling down a vibrant boulevard shaded by mature trees, where pedestrians and cyclists move comfortably through public space. People pause on benches to watch the world go by, while cafés spill onto wide terraces filled with conversation. Instead of being just another road, the street becomes a place to meet, linger and enjoy urban life.

This is the vision behind the redesign of Miklošičeva Street, one of the busiest and most important streets in Slovenia's capital city, Ljubljana.

 

A VISION MEETS RESISTANCE

Miklošičeva Street is one of Ljubljana's busiest corridors, linking the city's main railway and bus station with Prešeren Square and the historic centre. In June, the City of Ljubljana launched a two-year pilot project to transform the street into a greener, safer and more people-oriented public space. The redesign includes wider pedestrian areas, improved cycling infrastructure, additional greenery and outdoor seating, while reducing through traffic to encourage walking, cycling and social interaction.

In one of the busiest corridors, construction redesign creates chaos for
those working and walking downtown.

The project supports Ljubljana's Integrated Transport Strategy 2025–2032 and the EU Mission for 100 Climate-Neutral and Smart Cities by 2030.

Yet, almost as soon as construction began, public opposition emerged. A public petition calling to "Return Miklošičeva to its previous state!" quickly gained attention. 

Critics argue that it will increase congestion, restrict access to businesses and homes, create confusion for all road users, and that the project has not been developed in sufficient dialogue with the local community. Whether these concerns prove justified remains to be seen. 

The more interesting question is, however, why the opposition became so visible only after construction had begun when the plans had been publicly available for months?

Resistance to new urban development is not unique to Ljubljana.

 

When a massive new sports stadium was introduced in Denver this year,
hundreds of residents attended information sessions as part
of a "public participation" process.

RESISTANCE IS PART OF URBAN CHANGE

When New York City proposed pedestrianising Times Square in 2009, critics predicted traffic chaos and economic decline. The city responded by introducing a temporary pilot, collected data on traffic, safety and retail performance, and used the evidence to guide the final redesign while publicly shared findings. Many of the early fears proved unfounded.

Copenhagen followed a different approach, gradually expanding its cycling network over several decades. Incremental improvements allowed both the infrastructure and the public to adapt, helping the city become one of the world's leading cycling capitals. 

Not every renewal project succeeds. During research in one North American city, I observed strong opposition to new downtown bike lanes despite evidence of their potential benefits. Political pressure eventually led to some of the lanes being removed.

These examples suggest that opposition is neither unusual nor evidence of poor design. Usually, it is a predictable part of urban transformation. The real question is this: Why does resistance occur and how cities can help the residents navigate it?

Road redevelopment in Ljubljana's Miklošičeva Street  

 

WHY DO WE RESIST?

Behavioural psychology offers some insights.

Status quo bias – Our tendency is to prefer familiar conditions over uncertain alternatives. Samuelson and Zeckhauser argue that the status quo acts as a psychological anchor, making any departure from established routines feel like a loss rather than a potential improvement.

For those who live, work or regularly travel along Miklošičeva Street, the redesign disrupts familiar routes and long-established habits. What planners see as progress may initially feel like unnecessary disruption to people using the space every day.

Loss aversion – Behavioural design research has resulted in Prospect Theory showing that people \ experience the pain of losing something more strongly than the pleasure of gaining something new. 

Both loss aversion and status quo bias show up with remarkable frequency in urban redevelopment – AI-generated imagery from ChatGPT for this blog 

In street revitalisation, this means people often focus on what they might lose such as parking, familiar routes or established routines. They tend to ignore or overlook benefits yet to materialise, such as safer streets, more greenery or livelier public spaces.

Thus, opposition may be less about rejecting the future than about letting go of the familiar present.

 

 

PUBLIC CONSULTATION & ENGAGEMENT TRAP

On Miklošičeva Street public consultation did take place before construction began, although it attracted far less attention than the opposition that followed. In March 2026, the City of Ljubljana and the Ministry of Environment, Climate and Energy invited residents to learn about the project and provide feedback through a half-day public event and an online survey. 

So, why did opposition become so visible only after construction began?

Behavioural psychology provides another answer. For one, the plan seemed abstract until changes became visible. When road markings appeared, parking spaces disappeared or familiar routes changed, status quo bias and loss aversion arose as powerful motivators for action.

Another answer is the nature of public engagement itself. I argued previously, that informing and consulting residents is not the same as involving them in shaping decisions. In our upcoming book Hope Rises, we call this concept the engagement trap.

Meaningful participation requires more than asking for opinions. It requires enabling residents to identify problems, create a shared vision and help design solutions. Only when that happens will change become something the residents co-create and feel part of the process. This is why SafeGrowth often deploys methods such as Search Conferences to help this co-creation process. Search conferences are interactive, future-oriented and carefully guided planning sessions with community members. They are widely used in fields such as public health, and we have deployed them in cities around the world. 

 

Our first search conference launched the SafeGrowth Network in Canmore, Alberta in 2015. These participative planning session are a powerful way to develop shared ownership and a vision for future actions – AI imagery generated for this blog.

ANTICIPATING RESISTANCE VS BEING SURPRISED 

The purpose of community engagement is not to eliminate disagreement, but to build trust, create shared ownership and help communities adapt to change. It is about helping them navigate the journey from the familiar to the unknown. That means treating neighbourhood revitalisation as a social process, not only an engineering project.

SafeGrowth views neighbourhoods as living social ecosystems. Over time they develop routines, relationships and shared habits in how people use space. In all our training, students are taught to look, listen and hear those patterns during their site visits. The book What We See describes how urbanist Jane Jacobs emphasised the power of going to the street to find those ecological patterns.

When residents help identify problems, create a shared vision and shape solutions, change becomes their project rather than the city's. Successful revitalisation emerges when communities have the opportunity to learn and grow alongside the places they call home. 

AI and Machine Knowing: A new challenge for CPTED and crime prevention

This Saturday's ICA Masterclass on CPTED White Papers will explore frontier AI systems, machine learning, and the pros and cons of AI and CPTED. The session is a primer for the AI and CPTED sessions at the 2026 CPTED conference, Oct 2-4 in Calgary. 

by Gregory Saville

Artificial intelligence is arriving in crime prevention faster than many practitioners realize. We’ve been posting blogs about AI in crime prevention for years. In my 2023 blog, Stop Dave, I’m Afraid, I reported on Smart City research by Finnish AI researchers.  

Last year, in Gambling with the Future I summarized Nobel Laureate, Professor Geoffrey Hintons’ warning at the latest AI conference. In What 1980s Weather models taught me about crime prediction I described my own research experience with scientific weather forecasting models. 

Today the story has expanded again. From predictive analytics and digital twins to large language models and autonomous surveillance systems, the question is no longer whether AI will influence CPTED. The question is how.

For decades, CPTED practitioners have focused on the relationship between people and places. We have examined territoriality, access control, surveillance, maintenance, social cohesion, and neighborhood capacity. Yet frontier AI systems introduce something new into that equation: machine knowing.

ARE YOU USING A FRONTIER SYSTEM?

Frontier systems include leading generative LLMs such as ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini, along with advanced multimodal systems that work with images, audio, and video. They are less common in predictive analytics, such as hotspot mapping and crime forecasting. Some frontier systems are now becoming agentic, meaning they can pursue goals with limited supervision, although these remain in the early stages of deployment.

Frontier systems raise a new question: What happens when a machine begins interpreting places, risks, and human behavior alongside, or instead of, human observers?

That question forms the foundation of the Masterclass this Saturday. The session serves as a primer for the larger AI and CPTED discussions planned for the ICA Conference in Calgary this October.

AI-assisted auditing may help practitioners identify environmental risks, but human interpretation remains essential - AI-generated imagery for this blog 

SATURDAY’S MASTERCLASS 

On Saturday, the Masterclass begins with an unusual exercise. I begin with a conversation between myself and the same AI system chatbot I used throughout the development of the CPTED and AI White Paper. The purpose is not to demonstrate technology, but to explore a deeper question. How should we relate to an intelligence that can reason, explain, persuade, and create knowledge while making mistakes that appear convincing?

One of the most important concepts discussed will be the phenomenon known as a confabulation rate. In 2023, I described the problem of AI hallucinations. Confabulation takes that concern a step further. 

It refers to the frequency with which an AI system generates information that may be partly true and sounds plausible but is incorrect or entirely fabricated.

The future of prevention may depend less on what AI knows and more on how communities use that knowledge - AI-generated image for this blog

WHY DOES THIS MATTER IN PREVENTION? 

Confabulation matters because prevention professionals increasingly rely on digital information. If AI is used to analyze crime patterns, evaluate risk, generate recommendations, support neighborhood planning, or advise decision-makers, practitioners must understand both its capabilities and its limitations. Errors like confabulation rates may never vanish, so we must understand when and how they occur.

The opportunities and risks are extraordinary. The future of CPTED and crime prevention will not be shaped only by better environmental design or social cohesion. It will also be shaped by how we choose to work with increasingly powerful forms of machine intelligence.

Join me on Saturday, June 27 as we begin exploring that future.