After the light fades - Urban lighting as social infrastructure

Lighting influences safety and feelings of safety

by Mateja Mihinjac

It’s that time of year again. Darkness lingers until nearly 7:30 a.m. and settles again just after 4 p.m. Coupled with weeks of fog that barely lifts, the city can feel like it’s sealed under a grey, misty dome. Echoes of occasional firecrackers in the distance, as we approach the festive season, further amplify feelings of unease.

We’ve written before about how lighting, and sometimes the absence of it, shapes how people experience safety, such as situations where turning lights off can actually reduce risk. This season brings those questions back into sharp focus.

On one of those foggy late mornings, I ran into an elderly man I often see during my dog walks. He told me he now makes sure to take his daily walk while it’s still light. Night walks, especially when combined with fog and poor lighting, make him uncomfortable.

It was a simple comment, but I understood immediately what he meant, shaped by years of working with how people experience safety in public space. And yet, surprisingly, discussions about urban lighting in my city are rare.

 

Sherlock Holmes and Watson's path to 221B Baker Street, London. Lighting, night spaces, and fog play a powerful role in our imagination.

ANXIETY ABOUT THE UNKNOWN

From CPTED and SafeGrowth research, we know that nighttime environments differ fundamentally from daytime ones, both physically and socially. This is precisely why nighttime site visits and safety audits are essential. What feels manageable by day can feel uncertain or threatening after dark, especially when lighting is inadequate, and activity levels drop.

Research consistently shows that feeling safe and comfortable matters. Negative perceptions of safety influence how people use public space and are linked to poorer mental health outcomes, particularly among those experiencing high levels of fear.

Importantly, fear is often highly localised. My own field research on perceptions of safety in downtown Saskatoon showed that immediate, micro-spatial context matters more than broad neighbourhood reputation. Traditional social science surveys ask questions such as “Do you feel safe walking alone at night in your neighbourhood?” 

That fails to capture where fear concentrates. The Saskatoon study zoomed in with more detail and focus. Results were featured in the 2019 Saskatoon Planning publication.

The Sylvia Hotel in Vancouver has figured how to light outdoor paths
in beautiful and artistic ways 

Studies that focus on very small areas, sometimes just a block around someone’s home, show that fear is strongly shaped by what people see and experience nearby. Five cues in particular signal trouble: 

• signs of disorder, 
• poor upkeep, 
• obstructed sightlines, 
• entrapment spots, and 
• poor nighttime visibility.

Even when actual crime rates are low, these environmental cues can amplify anxiety.

The social life of a place matters as much as its physical form. Areas with little activity and visible neglect often feel unsafe, while everyday presence –  people walking, talking, passing through – can offset even imperfect design.

A sense of community doesn’t emerge on its own. It depends on spaces that invite people to be there. And this is where lighting becomes critical.

 

Environmental conditions like snow or fog can help,
or hinder, lighting effects - how about this example?

A SOCIAL ANGLE WITH LUCI

The social environment matters just as much as the physical one. Sparse activity and visible social incivilities heighten fear, while the presence of others can offset poor design. In some cases, social factors outweigh defensive physical measures entirely. 

A sense of community, collective efficacy, and everyday social presence can reduce fear, but only if the environment supports people being there in the first place. And this is where lighting becomes critical.

I recently came across LUCI – Lighting Urban Community International – an international network of cities focused on urban lighting as a tool for sustainable development, cultural and economic life, social cohesion, and quality of life.

LUCI challenges the idea that lighting is merely a technical issue. Instead, it frames lighting as a public health, social, and equity concern. Their research highlights how lighting influences sleep, mobility, safety, social interaction, and wellbeing, especially for vulnerable populations such as older adults. 

Poorly designed lighting can isolate people, discouraging them from going out at night, thereby shrinking their world. Thoughtful lighting, by contrast, supports confidence and connection.

Indirect window lighting and decorative lights can have a powerful impact

LUCI’s work highlights how urban lighting sits at the crossroads of many everyday goals that shape quality of life. It influences who feels included, how comfortably people move through a place, and whether streets and pathways feel legible and welcoming after dark. Lighting affects safety and natural surveillance, but also subtler things like social connection and the confidence to linger rather than hurry through.

It also carries environmental and economic weight. Decisions about lighting shape energy use, light pollution, and the character of nighttime activity in local economies. Just as importantly, lighting contributes to public health and overall wellbeing by setting the tone and ambience of public spaces.

Seen this way, lighting is not simply about preventing crime. It is about enabling life after dark and functioning as a form of social infrastructure, especially in places and seasons where daylight is scarce.

 

Night life in the city can be social, fun and safe - proper lighting is the key

RECLAIMING THE NIGHTS

Making lighting part of urban planning means more than installing brighter fixtures and replacing sodium with LED lamps. It requires engaging communities and integrating lighting into broader governance and design decisions. 

Socio-demographic analysis, co-design, and community-driven approaches are essential if lighting is to support wellbeing rather than undermine it. Such co-governance is necessary in SafeGrowth and in all the questions that affect the quality of life of residents.

That elderly man adjusting his walking routine wasn’t responding to crime statistics. He was responding to uncertainty that the darkness and the fog instilled in him. He was responding to a nighttime environment that no longer felt legible or welcoming. It had changed his world.

When cities get lighting right, they don’t just reduce fear. They give people their evenings back.

Haste makes waste - a city at night

Night time sodium lighting along the Saskatoon river boardwalk

I recently returned from a SafeGrowth training in Saskatoon, that city of a quarter million residents in north central Canada. Urban planner Elisabeth Miller and I have been running annual training there with city staff and others for over a decade.

SafeGrowth team project presentations were terrific and after the final day I strolled along the downtown boardwalk park of the South Saskatchewan River.

Plenty of night time visibility with sodium lighting

What a beautiful spot. Most of the boardwalk and surrounding buildings are lit by sodium lighting in spite of the universal rush by lighting specialists to replace night lights with bright white LED lights (some say for safety, I say for economy).

Sodium lighting? Yep, the lights that create that yellowish hue so many love to hate. People strolled along the boardwalk who didn’t seem the least bit fearful! (I didn’t photograph them in order to avoid looking creepy).

Bessborough Hotel on the South Saskatchewan River near the boardwalk

Does this place gets dicey later in summer when summer activities start? Perhaps. But when I walked here it was  beautiful. It might look monotone, but the ambient lighting effect is warm and it certainly isn’t too dark. I’m beginning to think we may be speeding too quickly to replace sodium lighting.

Monotone, but still beautiful lighting

Community mapping - CPTED goes 21st Century

Community mapping guru, Dr. Wansoo Im

My High Line Park post a few weeks ago happened because of my fascinating new friend and community mapping guru, Wansoo Im. He showed us High Line with the energy of an excited tourist, even though he is an area resident, adjunct professor in urban planning at Rutgers University and founder of inventive initiatives in community mapping. I discovered he brings that energy to his work everywhere.

Wansoo is a pretty cool fellow. He has mapped safe routes to school for kids and helped residents use crowdsourcing to map potholes. Huffington Post describes how he got high school students to crowdmap emergency gas stations to help residents stranded during Hurricane Sandy. The New Yorker featured him using crowdsource mapping to solve the problem of finding public washrooms in New York. And now he's turning to community mapping of crime and fear.

Mapping fear to diagnose community perceptions

I met Wansoo at our New Jersey SafeGrowth training where he is testing his community mapping software called Mappler. It uses Google Earth and GPS and most importantly it doesn't rely on complex GIS mapping - the stuff crime analysts spend months mastering. And it's dead easy to use.

Mappler technology works as a smart phone app. Our class was able to input Safety Audit fear data  directly from their observations and view it in real-time on neighborhood maps. Pretty cool stuff.

Community mapping may be the way to tap into engagement in a direct way. And for Millennials growing up as Internet natives it offers a new way they can use their considerable talents to solve community crime.

Campus safety - the fear vs risk paradox

Biomedical Research building, University of Toronto

GUEST BLOG

Novices to CPTED sometimes see things with a clarity others lack. Jennica Collette is a planning student at the Faculty of Environment at the University of Waterloo, Ontario. She and fellow students recently completed their first CPTED study. In this guest blog she summarizes their findings and comes to similar conclusions as reported by Harvard University design students in March.

***

As part of a University of Waterloo social planning class, a group of fellow students and myself wanted to know how urban form influenced safety, both actual and perceived. We chose university campuses, a context that was relevant and familiar, and compared our suburban campus at University of Waterloo to the urban campus at University of Toronto. It was our first CPTED experience.

We started by familiarizing ourselves with CPTED lingo including Oscar Newman’s Defensible Space Theory and Jane Jacob’s "eyes on the street". We looked at reported statistics and charts as well as perceived safety through site visits and random interviews. The results weren’t what we expected.

Initially we assumed the University of Toronto was less safe. Why? Perhaps the strong association between large urban centres and crime or the idea that people who don’t necessarily “belong” at the University can wander through the campus freely and easily. But during interviews we were told both campuses felt safe. Other than identifying some areas of concern, like poorly lit loading areas in Toronto or a woodlot trail in Waterloo, there were rarely moments where students felt like they were in any danger.

Library at the University of Waterloo

When we crunched the numbers we discovered, on a per student basis, there were more crimes at the University of Waterloo than the University of Toronto. Granted, both of these campuses experienced very few serious crimes, mostly petty theft and mischief, but there were simply more of them in Waterloo.

WHY?

One of the most significant differences between the University of Toronto and the University of Waterloo was the presence of people. Even during reading week Toronto’s campus was bustling with activity. In Waterloo, during the weekends and evenings, you could count the people on one hand.

Toronto’s safe environment can be attributed to a combination of multiple uses, permeable grid form and high densities. The Royal Ontario Museum, the Ontario Legislative building, and Queen’s Park all lie within the campus boundary and the grid form makes the campus as much a waypoint as a destination.

Street vendors activating the street at the University of Toronto

In Waterloo a ring road topped off with berms surrounds the campus. We were told buildings were oriented with crowd control in mind rather than legibility. All this makes the campus particularly unappealing for a visitor.

Does built form influence actual and perceived safety? Our first CPTED experience confirmed it does. What we found mostly is that there is so much more to safety than movement predictors and improving lighting (though that is part of it). From a planning perspective a large part of making environments safe is activating spaces and activating communities. It turns out that is also the conclusion of Second-generation CPTED.

Whether it a campus or residential neighbourhood, the key seems to be having people present who are engaged in their environments.

The street as classroom

  Evening CPTED audits - the city at night - photo by snowycactus

A few weeks ago a colleague of mine teaching at Harvard University asked if I would do a webinar with some planning and design students embarking on their first night-time CPTED field project. I talked with Benjamin Scheerbarth, Elise Baudon and Susan Nguyen about the myth and reality of CPTED and the difference between fear and risk; what residents' perceive versus what they actually experience. That's exactly what their research uncovered.

On one hand their observations suggested the area had "strong environmental design to prevent crime". Police on the audit confirmed "an overall safe downtown atmosphere with scattered incidents of [disorder]". On the other hand community members described fears of unsafe pockets and a sketchy area. Crime data suggested problems with theft and assault.

What to think? Who to believe? (I love conundrums like this for students!)

FEAR VS RISK

To the practitioner this is unsurprising. Crime geographers have been saying for some time that risk and fear are very different animals. One has a dangerous bite; the other frightens with a snarl. Yet it's impressive the students uncovered this so quickly.

To their credit the students dove deeper and discovered how events cluster around certain places and times (like bars at closing) and how to target solutions. Their recommendations spanned basic 1st Generation CPTED (better lighting, signage and cameras) and 2nd Generation CPTED  (diversified land uses, evening farmers markets, night-time community walks).

For a first time CPTED project, that's not bad. Not bad at all!

In the eye of the beholder

Fear and risk are two very different things. Solving one does not always solve the other.

I live in one of the most livable towns in the country. It has a variety of bookstores, an active and safe teen skate park, accommodation for the elderly, alternative housing options like cohousing, and two local industries.

There are over 40 restaurants for just 8,000 people (obviously a tourist town) and a festival every weekend from spring till winter. It has one of the most successful farmers markets and a vibrant and architecturally interesting downtown.

There hasn't been a murder in the city for decades and last year there were 52 violent crimes (mostly minor assaults) in the county with about 29,000 residents producing a county violence rate of 17 violent incidents per 100,000 residents.

In short, it is safe and vibrant.

Gotham City crime

New York City is also one of the most vibrant cities in the country and by every meaningful measure, it dwarfs my town. It has thousands of restaurants, bookstores, festivals, and every other amenity imaginable serving a city of over 8 million. It has a lower crime rate than most large cities. Yet, in comparison to my town the violent crime rate last year in NYC was 55 violent crimes per 100,000 residents.

In other words, the violent crime rate there was three times higher than here.

Yet a former neighbor, a young woman who lived in New York until recently, describes feeling much safer on New York streets than here. She is more concerned about walking home in the dark here than walking there even though her actual risk is 3 times higher (To be fair I doubt she knew the different rates, only how she felt).

Why?

The Truth about Risk

Perception and risk are two entirely different animals. I have spent many years working in high crime places. I learn about the cues of environment, attitude of the locals, and actual crime risks. My first lesson - we may feel safe but not be so.

This week I read a great blog about crime risk by Sam Harris titled The Truth about Violence. He cites four basic safety principles including how to avoid dangerous places and people.

Harris also describes a truism about us: It is unpleasant to study the details of crime and violence—and for this reason many of us never do. I am convinced, however, that some planning and preparation can greatly reduce a person’s risk.

I agree.

Read Harris's blog. It's worthwhile.

Some trails are happy ones...

"UnHappy Trails? Where's the research?"

No doubt considerable fear exists on the streets of London after this week's riots. Whole books are written on urban crime and fear. What about rural places far from urban mayhem? The Gabriola Island murders from last blog suggest rural crimes too ferment fears of public places like nature trails.

This is ironic. Parks and trails are statistically far safer than bars at closing time or inside homes when domestic strife turns violent. Study after study tell us public trails are safe, such as Tod Schneider's article on bike trails back in 2000.

Yet those are urban studies. Research has yet to examine rural nature trails and crime. CPTED was born, after all, in the city.

I was recently interviewed by a horticulture magazine about trees and crime asking these very questions. The article, Trees Thwart Shady Behavior, described a study on crime and residential trees by examining 2,813 single-family homes in Portland, Oregon.

Controlling for visual appearance, presence of barriers, and street activity, the study showed "houses fronted with more street trees had lower crime rates". That was all crime rates, including vandalism and burglary.

Read it HERE.

Hatfield/McCoy - Round #2: civic entitlement on steriods

I’m depressed by Wendy Sarkissian’s blog below on fear of the Other, this apparent chasm between the Collaborative-Diverse and the Self-Interested. In the former case we have evidence of sustained neighborhood safety; in the latter case, personal safety.

Is there room for both? Are our recession-weary, increasingly class-segregated, masses regressing into Hatfield/McCoy feuds of neighborhood development? The Collaboratives versus the Inwards?

Today the span of this gulf showed up in an excellent Toronto Star column: Jane Jacobs great ideas have morphed into pettiness.

Say’s columnist Christie Blatchford:

"Where Ms. Jacobs, for instance, was instrumental in stopping a highway which would have torn apart some lovely parts of the old city – the Spadina Expressway – on my street her successors have succeeded in stopping a daycare.

My hunch is Jane Jacobs would be appalled to see how civic engagement has become…civic entitlement, wherein everyone expects to be notified and consulted about every single thing that everyone else is doing."

Have Toronto’s famed Jacobsian-style communities gone mad?

Adam Smith, the father of modern capitalism, believed sympathy for others 

was the glue to civil communities - photo Kim Traynor (Creative Commons)

As if on cue, philosopher Mark Kingwell attacks what he calls The Shout Doctrine. Kingwell believes the real social glue of community is civility and sympathy for others.

In this month’s issue of The Walrus magazine he says:

"Adam Smith, in The Theory of Moral Sentiments, persuasively suggested that sympathy, the recognition of shared human vulnerability, is the real glue of social structures. Contractual theories, like the ones popularized a century earlier by Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, miss the point. 

We would not make a contract with another, much less hold to it, unless we already recognized the other as an entity worthy of our consideration."

They may not know each other, but Sarkissian, Blatchford and Kingwell tell the same story. We should pay attention.