urb_promoting better public space design

7/29/2019 URB_Promoting Better Public Space Design

1/88

Living with riskPromoting betterpublic space design

Design better streets


2/88

Published in 007 by the Commission or

Architecture and the Built Environment.

Graphic design by Draught Associates.

All rights reserved. No part o this publication

may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,

copied or transmitted without the prior written

consent o the publisher except that the material

may be photocopied or non-commercial

purposes without permission rom the publisher.

This document is available in alternative ormats

on request rom the publisher.

ISBN 1-84633-016-5

CABE is the governments advisor on

architecture, urban design and public space.

As a public body, we encourage policymakers to

create places that work or people. We help local

planners apply national design policy and oer

expert advice to developers and architects. We

show public sector clients how to commission

buildings that meet the needs o their users.

And we seek to inspire the public to demand

more rom their buildings and spaces. Advising,

inuencing and inspiring, we work to create

well-designed, welcoming places.

CABE

1 Kemble Street

London WCB 4AN

T 00 7070 6700

F 00 7070 6777

E [email protected]

www.cabe.org.uk


3/88

Contents

Foreword 5

ExecutiveSummary 6

Chapterone

Publicspaceandtherisksociety 10

Chaptertwo

Aframeworkforanalysingriskinpublic

spacedesign 25

Chapterthree

Theviewsofnationalstakeholders 31

Chapterfour

Howdoesriskaffectpublicspacedesign? 39

Chapterfive

Anagendaforrisk-aware,notrisk-averse,

publicspacedesign 78

AppendixA

Projectsteeringgroup 87

3


4/88

4

Keeping cool:

The Turia River gardens,

Valencia, are located on

the old riverbed whichorms an attractive and

popular walking or cycling

route through the town

ChrisE

dw

ard

s


5/88

Foreword

Exciting public spaces create inspiring and interesting environments. They are the ocal points or communities, the undamental platorm or civic lie. Across all age groups they provide a sense o delight and stimulation within our towns and cities.

However, pressures to minimise risks and liability in the public realm can lead to playing it sae, resulting in bland and standardised spaces. Spaces designed or the norm do not delight, or educate, or provide the exchange thats possible. Dull spaces mean that people are shor t-changed.

At CABE, we believe the design o high-quality public space is essential to making urban lie liveable. Design can both recognise risk, and operate sensibly within the context o risk, without losing the ability to stimulate and engage. The people creating and managing our public spaces ace the challenge o using risk creatively and positively while

recognising the regulatory context within which they operate.

In Living with riskCABE says we can accommodate risk in the public realm without compromising the quality o our places. We must support the creation o innovative and stimulating spaces. In the ace o warnings about health and saety and concerns about liability, we must challenge the tendency to settle or easy solutions.

Living with riskis to be welcomed or its provision o practical lessons or maintaining quality and or boosting our confdence in negotiating risk in the design process.

Jason PriorCABE commissioner

5


6/88

Executive summary

Lessons rom thecase studies

Risk has become a prominenteature o our society.1 Changesin public attitudes, legislation andmedia coverage have producedan environment in which there isa much greater awareness o riskas an issue. Public organisationsand businesses now give greaterpriority to risk management andthere is a perception that the publicis more willing to attribute blame or

accidents and seek compensation.

Our approach

The study, Living with risk:promoting better public spacedesign, ocuses on three issues:

What pressures are drivingthe greater emphases onminimising risk in public space

design and what is helpingsteer organisations towards amore proportionate approach?

How does risk impact onthe dierent stages o thedesign process and how doproessionals, clients and otherstakeholders respond to this?

What are the implications or the quality o public space in the uture?

We explore views rom nationalorganisations concerned withrisk and public space, while 10case studies o public spaceschemes help establish howconsideration o risk impacts onthe dierent stages o the designprocess and the implicationsor the choices o proessionals,clients and the public.

The 10 case studies

Brindleyplace, BirminghamA privately owned and managedcity-centre leisure, residentialand commercial development

Hostraat, Apeldoorn,the NetherlandsThe restoration o watercoursesand water ow in the mainresidential and shoppingstreet in this Dutch town

Park Hill, SheeldA major redevelopment oblocks o council-owned atswith considerable problems ocrime and anti-social behaviour

Exchange Square,ManchesterA major city-centre public squareinvolving innovative design

Kensington High Street,London

A bold project to improvethe quality and saety othe streetscape in a majorshopping destination

Deptord Green, London, andHeatheld Avenue, DoverHome zone schemes or twosmall residential areas

Poundbury, DorsetA privately developed andlargely residential scheme

Handsworth Park, BirminghamThe restoration o a 19thcentury park in an area withconsiderable problems o crimeand anti-social behaviour

River Tame, BirminghamRestoration and improvementsto river and ootpathsin a residential area.

1 Unortunately it is ar easierto justiy playing it saethan use risk creatively.

More evidence is needed to justiya design that uses risk as a positiveeature. Risk-averse decision-making tends to rely on a weaker,less thorough, evidence base, usingstatements about what people may do,oten in an extreme case or example,people may all into the river.Risk assessment and managementdoes require some suppositionabout how people may behave.

However, it is important that thisis as robust as possible and thatpublic space is designed orthe norm, not the exception.

Detailed beore and atermonitoring o the KensingtonHigh Street project was doneto assure decision makersthat the improvement washaving the desired resultand reducing accidents.

Steph

enM

c

Laren

1 Ulrich Beck (199) Risk society: towardsa new modernityLondon: Sage.

6


7/88

2 Strong leadership helpsresist decisions thatare based simply onworstcase scenarios.

The impact o leadership isdemonstrated in several o thecase studies. In KensingtonHigh Street, an individual politiciantook a personal and political chanceto champion an approach that drewheavily on the innovative streetdesigns and trafc-engineeringmeasures o Hans Monderman.The project aimed to increase

risk awareness via the removal oguardrails and similar street saetyeatures, to reduce accidents.

Clients in Brindleyplace,Birmingham, set out with theintention to create a high-qualityenvironment in which risk wastreated proportionately.

3 A strong overall designconcept helps counteractpressures to avoid risk.

Pressure to avoid risk can resultin protracted discussions andnegotiations over specifc designelements. To counteract this astrong overall design conceptinorming the strategic directiono the project rom the outset isvital. In some cases, compromisescan be reached. In others, riskreduction takes precedence, anddesign has to accommodate it.

Compromise was reachedin the River Tame restorationscheme, Birmingham, bydeciding not to restrict accessto the river, but instead to layootpaths away rom the banks.

A home zone scheme orHeathfeld Avenue, Dover, wasnot implemented ater the Fireand Rescue Service identifedrisks in the design that ledto changes undermining the

original design quality.

Arg

en

tGro

upplc

M

ark

Scott

JohnW

al

teran

dThirdAven

ue

4 Views about whatconstitutes a risk vary betweendierent stakeholders inthe design process.

Risks defned by the public arepredominantly to do with personalsecurity issues arising rom the useo the space (e.g. mugging), ratherthan trip and all hazards in the design.The public is also very concernedabout risks relating to children.Designers can help to alleviatethese risks, but generally they arenot able to eliminate them. This is

because they are based on peoplesperceptions o what might happen aswell as the way in which individualsactually behave in the space.Furthermore, there is oten no overalldecision-maker who can judgebetween these views. This meansthat the particular combinationo actors in one scheme maylead to risk being managed morecareully than in another.

7


8/88

5 Involving the public indesign processes results inmore inormed, evidencebased decisions.

Transparency about the criteria andjudgements being made oers theopportunity to take decisions that aremore inormed and evidence-based.It also allows or design decisionsto be mediated through stakeholderdebate. Such debate helps all partiesestablish what risks are signifcantand how they should be managed. It isalso more likely to result in an inclusive

design that understands risk rom theperspectives o the many dierentgroups who will use the space.10

Residents involved in theregeneration o Handsworth Park,Birmingham, initially requestedthe installation o extensivesecurity measures in the park.Their requests were modifedas peoples perceptions orisk changed over the courseo the design process.

10 CABE (006) The principles o inclusive design(they include you) London: CABE.

6 Design proessionals understandthe idea o risk in ways that aredierent to health and saetyspecialists and insurers. This mustbe recognised and reconciled toenable mutual understanding.

Proessional designers sometimestalk about risk as a design eaturethat osters the creation o exciting,varied and interesting spaces. Theyuse the term risk to reer to thepsychological challenge or users omaking sense o the way the space isconstructed. This does not mean that

designers want to create a dangerousor insecure environment. Health andsaety proessionals consider riskin a dierent way. They are trainedto identiy hazards that may harmindividuals and to make judgementsabout risk, so might ocus on potentialslip hazards rom wet or rozen paving.The dierent ways in which risk isinterpreted and used require clarityo dialogue between groups involvedin the public space design process.

The redesign o Exchange Square,Manchester, included an openwater eature. Despite concernso some stakeholders aboutthe risk o people slipping, thewater eature was constructedand has proved to be a majorattraction in the square.

JoeDMile

s

HilaryT

aylorL

an

dscapeCon

sultan

ts

7 Securing enough unding orthe longterm management andmaintenance o public spaces musbe considered rom the outset.

Inadequate sources o long-termmanagement and maintenanceundermine the quality and value opublic spaces and may not sustain thebenefts o the initial investment. Thecontribution that design can make tohelp ease ongoing maintenance mustalso be considered. Maintenanceis an important actor in reducingrisks to quality o lie that may arise

once schemes are completed.

Key to the ongoing sustainabilityo the River Tame restorationscheme, Birmingham, is themaintenance o trees andshrubbery and ensuring that theriver channel is ree rom debris.Without ongoing maintenancethe site would have implicationsor the saety o its users.11

11 For more inormation on the link between adequate

management regimes and the reduction in vandalism

and anti-social behaviour see CABE Space (005)

Decent parks? Decent behaviour? The linkbetween the quality o parks and user behaviourLondon: CABE.

t

M

arkS

cott

8


9/88

Next steps towardsriskaware public

space design

The design o public space exists ina world o uncertainty: about howdierent groups will view a risk;whether risky or risk-averse behaviourcan be predicted; whether the riskso today will be the risks o tomorrow;and where the legal requirementsrelating to liability start and fnish.

These uncertainties do not inevitably

lead to a culture that purposelyavoids risk in public space design.Saety is achieved through activeuse, citizen surveillance and anengendered sense o personal andsocial responsibility and ownership.A sae place can still be physicallychallenging and exciting, and pushthe boundaries o accepted design.

1 Risks present opportunities that

developers, clients, designers andother stakeholders can harness todeliver highquality public space.

Designers, their clients, developers,and other stakeholders should explicitlyconsider how to ocus on designinnovation and excellence where riskis managed, not eliminated altogether.

Practically, this could involve: Clearly distinguishing between

hazards and substantial risks, andbeing creative in the way substantialrisks are managed. This shouldbe based on the best availableinormation on legal responsibilities,including the Tomlinson case1

Being robust in challengingweak evidence or the worst-case scenario happening

Not demanding adisproportionate weight oevidence to show that positiverisk-taking is appropriate

Ensuring that innovation andexcellence are encouraged throughappropriate mechanisms. Thiscould be a design competition toprocure a good designer or settingstandards or design quality toensure that everyone signs up tothe design vision at the outset.

2 Judgements about risk arebest taken in a process thatinvolves all stakeholders.

Dierent groups involved in public

space design think about risk indierent ways. Interactive designenables an inormed debate on whatconstitutes risk in a particular schemeand how it should be managed.This is particularly important increating an inclusive environment,so designers minimise assumptionsabout how specifc groups mayencounter the space. Some risksare only identifed late in the designprocess during implementation or

once patterns o use are established,or example. Interactive designprocesses will highlight these risks.

Practically, this could involve: Designing and managing a space

or the way people would normallyuse it and not reducing theoverall quality to accommodateexceptional or reak incidents

Ensuring that opportunities orpositive risk-taking are clearlycommunicated to other stakeholderswithin a risk assessment process

Using tools that allow a visualand tangible communication odesign outcomes and changesto the built environment (CABEsSpaceshaper or instance13)

Using a phased design processwhich allows or learning.This enables proessionals todevelop a greater understandingo lay perceptions o risk anduse o a new public space

and respond accordingly.

3 Further promoting the Healthand saety executives (HSEs)sensible approach to riskmanagement14 will enablestakeholders to understand thelegal and regulatory contextin which they operate.

National organisations concernedwith public space recognise thatthe pressures to avoid risk, i letunchecked, will damage the qualityo the environment and the capacityor citizens to beneft rom stimulatingurban design. These organisations

should promote principles o sensiblerisk management to people makingdecisions about public space design.This should concentrate on explaininghow a proportionate approach to riskcan also enable high-quality design.

Practically, this could involve: Helping to train decision-makers to

prioritise more eectively, so thatattention is ocused on the real risks

Emphasising that managingrisks should be about identiyingand taking practical steps not generating paperwork or its own sake

Sharing practical examples ohow a sensible approach torisk management has helpedenable high-quality design.

Proessional designerssometimes talk about

risk as a design eaturethat osters interestingspaces health and saetyproessionals consider riskin a dierent way

1 Tomlinson v Congleton Council and Cheshire

County Council. For more inormation see

www.publications.parliament.uk

13 Spaceshaper is a practical toolkit or use

by anyone whether a local community group

or a proessional to measure the quality o

a public space beore investing time and

money in improving it. For inormation see

www.cabe.org.uk/spaceshaper

14 Health and saety executive (006) Five stepsto risk assessmentLondon. HSE ww w.hse.gov.uk

9


10/88

Chapter onePublic space and the risk society

Risk has become a prominent eature oour society.15 Changes in public attitudes,

legislation and media coverage haveproduced an environment in whichthere is a much greater awareness orisk as an issue. Public organisationsand businesses now give greaterpriority to risk management andthere is a perception that the publicis more willing to attribute blame oraccidents and seek compensation.

The design o public space is one omany activities aected by perceptions orisk. Some argue that risk considerationsreduce the quality o public space. CABESpaces report What are we scared o?16

highlighted how concern about risk couldaect proessional designers and theirclients and reduce the potential to createstimulating and innovative public spaces.Although risk aversion is a constraint,

however, public spaces clearly can be ohigh design quality, many winning GreenFlag or other Civic Trust awards.

But the signifcance o the debate on riskmeans that we need to know more about what

impact it has on public space design and ourstreets, parks and squares. In recent yearsthe quality o our parks and open spaces hasimproved. The challenge now is to sustain thisimprovement and ensure our public spaces aredesigned and maintained to a high-quality.17

This chapter shows that perceptions o riskare inuenced by wider social processes thatinclude the media, social norms and attitudes

towards government and experts. The dierentways in which risk is interpreted meanspublic space designers operate in a world ouncertainty. The chapter concludes with theimplications o this or public space design.

15 Ulrich Beck (199) Risk society: towards a new modernityLondon: Sage.16 CABE Space (005) What are we scared o?London: CABE.17 National Audit Ofce (006) Enhancing urban green spaceLondon: Ofce o t he Deputy Prime Minister.

10


11/88

This study was commissioned to answer theollowing question:

How does the management o risk,in relation to ensuring public saety,inluence the design quality ourban public space?

We have divided this question into three components:

1 What orces are driving a greater emphasison risk in public space design, and to whatextent are there countervailing pressurespromoting a more proportionate approach?

At what stages in the design process do theseorces come into play, and how do proessionals,clients, and other stakeholders respond?

3 What are the implications or the qualityo public space in the uture?

This study does not specifcally consider risk to workers,and others, during construction and maintenancework. Instead the report explicitly ocuses on themanagement o risk in regard to public saety. Howeverwe recognise that health and saety considerations dohave the potential to impact on public space design.18

In this chapter we set out the context or the study, considerthe nature o risk and types o public spaces.In chapter two, we provide a ramework or understandingthe relationship between risk and public space design, andexplain how our data was collected. In chapter three weset out the views o national stakeholders on these issues,and highlight some o the key dilemmas or public spacedesigners; these are demonstrated in 10 case studies o

public space design processes in chapter our. The casestudies provide a detailed view o how risk impacts on thedesign process and how it is managed in dierent ways.Finally, chapter fve draws conclusions rom the study,identifes deeper risk issues arising rom changes in oururban spaces, and makes recommendations or the designproession, its clients, developers and other stakeholders.

Gre

enFlagAwardsSh

effield

City

Coun

cil

Urban oasis: Sheelds peace gardens have

transormed the city centre and the ountains have

become a popular place to play in ne weather 18 For more inormation see the Health and saety executive website www.hse.gov.uk

11


12/88

What is risk in a public space context?

Risk cannot be defned objectively. Values andbelies in society shape how we understand risk andinuence the priority we give to it. Judgements onwhether a eature o public space design is a risk canbe reached by proessional designers alone, or indiscussion with clients, citizens, and other stakeholders.But what is risk? It is best to defne our terms.

It is helpul to distinguish a risk rom a hazard:

A hazard is something that may cause harm A risk is the chance o that harm occurring,

and the likely impact i it does.

Hazards in a public space context might include:

Kerbs which people may trip over Trees whose branches may all in strong winds Water eatures into which children may all or which

may reeze in winter, creating slippery areas.

The risk associated with each o these hazardsis a matter o judgement. For example:

People may trip over kerbs, but generally kerbs arevisible and people encounter them on a regularbasis. I they do trip, the extent o the injury is likelyto be small. So the risk may be judged to be low

Water eatures are sometimes seen as more risky, inpart because the impact o a child alling in can be greater.However, designers may decide that therisk is low because the hazard is obvious andparents can normally be expected to supervise orwarn their children.

Riskassessment procedures provide a means o identiyinghazards and determining the extent o risk.They assist the process o judgement by public spacedesigners and other stakeholders about which risks aresignifcant and require active management. Careul useo risk management techniques can help to determine thelevel o thought and action that is needed in relation to thechance o the hazard occurring and the scale o its impact.

Risk aversion occurs when all or most hazards come to beseen as risks that require active management. Here, peoplelose the ability to discriminate between minor risks that areunlikely to occur and/or will have limited impact, and majorrisks that are likely to occur and/or wi ll have a major impact.

Risk aversion occurs when all ormost hazards come to be seen asrisks that require active management

Top BottomUrban oasis: Sheelds peace Market day: Old Market Square,

gardens have transormed the city Nottingham is one o the largest city

centre and the ountains have become squares in Britain. It was redesigned

a popular place to play in ne weather and reopened to acclaim in March 2007

DoorstepGreensN

aturalEn

glan

d

P

aulL

avelle

1


13/88

Why public space proessionals needto reconsider their approach to risk

In some quarters there is a concern that riskmanagement has become a constraint on choiceand exibility in public space design. This is alsoapparent in a wider reconsideration o the role orisk management in other spheres o society.

Some public bodies, as well as pressure groups suchas Living streets and PLAYLINK,19 argue that organisationsand proessionals respond to a ear o possible litigationrom individuals by adopting an unduly restrictive andpoorly understood interpretation o health and saetyregulations. They are campaigning or a more sensible

and proportionate approach to risk management.

The development o risk aversion is part o the gradualchange in attitudes to risk in the UK. Both criminal andcivil law have the potential to impact on attitudes to risk.Regulation, such as the Health and Saety at Work Act1974, the Environment Protection Act and highwayslegislation provides a ramework that has broadened inscope over recent decades. Construction, design andmanagement regulations place statutory responsibilitieson designers and apply to all design work carried out orconstruction purposes. The Disability and Discrimination

Act 005 introduced the Disability Equality Duty whichobliges those who design, manage and maintain buildingsand public spaces to ensure that disabled people playa ull part in shaping an inclusive built environmentand beneft ully rom it. Regulatory bodies such as theHealth and saety executive (HSE) and local authoritiesenorce these acts and associated regulations.

Most o this legislation is goal-setting, identiying a standardthat needs to be reached rather than being prescriptiveabout the measures that have to be taken. However, it iseasy or guidance on means o compliance to becomeviewed as prescriptive requirements. Over time, public andpolitical pressures as well as court decisions have led to acontinued expansion o the scope covered by these duties.

Claims or compensation in civil law are thought bysome stakeholders to have a rising profle in the minds odesigners. Individuals may have a right to compensation ithey can demonstrate that someone has been negligent or

has ailed to discharge a duty placed on them by statutorylaw such as the Occupiers Liability Act 1957 or the Healthand Saety at Work Act. The aected individual pursuescompensation without involving regulatory bodies.

As a result, the risk agenda has widened beyond theworkplace to include personal security, adventureactivities, risks to the environment, and other areas olie. Risk assessment and risk management have becomestandard practice in many occupations and activities.

Recently, the idea that there is a compensation culture hasbecome popular. This is the perception that individualsincreasingly seek to blame those responsible or misortunesthey suer, and turn to litigation in the hope o obtaining

fnancial compensation.

Now, however, people are developing more criticalattitudes to our risk culture. There is a major debatein the UK about whether the regulation o riskhas gone too ar, and a growing realisation o theundesirable eects o risk aversion on society.

A recent report by the Better regulationtask orce is outspoken in its criticisms oregulatory overkill and risk aversion:

We all manage risk every day in our lives,whether crossing the road, playing sport, buyinginsurance, taking fight or even bungee jumping.We rightly expect certain basic saeguards to bein place, butthe overregulation o risk and theresulting glut o rules and guidelines make us lesswilling to take responsibility or risk, underminetrust and dilute our sense o adventure.20

For instance, the UK Highways Liability Joint TaskGroup notes that public perceptions o danger onhighways is oten dierent to accident records:

When things appear dangerous, individualstake care; where the appearance is one o saetyindividuals may drop their guard and accidentsensue. Consequently individuals sometimespressurise local authorities to introduce measuresthat create nothing more than an appearance osaety and perversely introduce true danger.21

People are developing more critical

attitudes to our risk culture. There is amajor debate in the UK about whetherthe regulation o risk has gone too ar

19 Better regulation task orce (004) Better routes to redress London: Better

regulation task orce; House o Lords Economic Aairs Inquiry on Risk:

Response rom Living streets. www.livingstreets.org.uk; ww w.playlink.org.uk

20 Better regulation task orce (006) Risk, responsibility,regulation: whose risk is it anyway?

21 UK Highways Liability Joint Task Group (005) Highway risk and liability claims:

a practical guide to appendix C o the roads board report Well maintained

highways Code o practice or highway maintenance management.

13


14/88

Is there a compensation culture?

The idea o the compensation culture is thatindividuals are now more willing to make claims ornegligence against public authorities and otherbodies at whose hands they believe they havesuered injury. The compensation culture is apowerul idea, reinorced through the media and thegrowth o no win, no ee practices by legal frms.

However, is the evidence or a compensation culture in the UK so clear-cut? And i so, how is it inuencing public bodies, including those involved in public space design, to be more cautious in the approaches they take?

The reality o a compensation culture is hardto establish. The Better regulation task orceBetter routes to redress study argued that thecompensation culture was all in the mind. It said:Almost everyone we talked totold us that thereality is somewhat di erent, because the numbero personal injury claims is going down.22

However, the study recognised that there was a strong belie in the compensation culture due to a combination o media coverage (sometimes

inaccurate), claims management companies, peoples desire to fnd someone to blame or their accident, and the constant repetition o the term by public commentators.

The Select committee on constitutional aairsalso recently reviewed proessional and academicevidence and concluded that: The evidence doesnot support the view that increased litigationhas created a compensation culture23

The evidence base, including that considered by these inquiries, indicates that the idea o a

Seventyone per cent o citizenssurveyed agree or strongly agreethat health and saety compensationclaims have gone too ar

compensation culture is an oversimplifcationo a more complex situation:

Long-term trends in personal injury claims haveremained relatively stable since the late 1990s24

Mean damages awarded in cases brought by no win,no ee companies ell between 00 and 00525

There has been little change in the volumeo new claims. However, the cost oclaims has risen dramatically, partly dueto the introduction o scales or awards orcompensation related to loss o earnings, andthe ees charged by claimants solicitors26

Most claims against highway authoritiesrelate to alleged defciencies in maintenance.Claims or design aults are relatively rare27

Local authorities and other public authorities are nowmore aware o the problem o claims or negligence,and are introducing policies and procedures thatboth reduce the number o claims (such as designguides or public space; improved inspectionand maintenance regimes) and enable them tosuccessully repudiate non-genuine claims.28

Data on claims in relation to public space is not

available, but there is some evidence to supportthe view that local authorities have been the targeto an increased number o claims. Thisarises partly rom their responsibilities orsubstantial areas o public space and therange o tasks they have in regard these.29

Whether or not the compensation culture exists,people think that something needs to be done toreduce claims or compensation. Seventy-one percent o citizens surveyed agree or stronglyagree that health and saety compensationclaims have gone too ar.30

22 Better regulation task orce (004) Better routes to redress London:

Better regulation task orce.

23 Select committee on constitutional aairs Compensation culture: third report, Session 005-06, HC754, 006, para 31.24 Select committee on constitutional aairs Compensation culture:third report, Session 005-06, HC754, 006, paras 33-4.

25 Department o constitutional aairs (006) The unding opersonal in jury litigation: compar isons over time and across juri sdic tions, DCA Research Series /06, DCA, London.26 Zurich financial services written evidence to Select committee on constitutional

aairs Compensation culture, third report, Session 005-06, HC754 II, 006.

27 Department or Transport (007) Manual or streets

London: Her Majestys Stationery Ofce.

28 Data rom our research with stakeholders and local authorities; see also examples later in this chapter.

29 Local government association/Zurich municipal Suing the council:helping the citizen or harming the community?004.

30 HSE evidence to the Select committee on constitutional aairs, 005.

14


15/88

The HSE is also advocating a more sensible approachto risk management. It has been concerned or sometime about the trend or risk management to becomeoverly detailed and driven by pressures to deendorganisations rom liability claims over even minorincidents. Insurers as well are promoting the viewthat risk should be managed, not managed out.

In mid-006, the HSE launched a campaign toencourage a more proportionate approach to risk.The HSE is urging people to concentrate on realrisks that may cause harm and suering, and to avoidtrivial risks and petty health and saety issues:

The perception o a compensation culture contributes

to excessive risk aversion and unnecessarybureaucracy. Whilst a degree o risk aversion,proportionate to the level o risk, is very healthy,real problems arise when this balance gets lost.31

The campaign is a response to the way in which the ideao health and saety has generated a belie that all risksshould be eliminated. There is a sense o rustration,but also concern that responses to risk by organisations,employers, insurers and government itsel have got out ocontrol. Policies requiring risk-assessment procedures or allmatters, red tape, paper trails and litigation ears all produce

risk responses that are potentially counterproductive.

As the chairman o the Health and saety commission(HSC) observed, risk management should be aboutkeeping people sae not stopping their lives.32

The HSE initiative is linked to revised and simplifedguidance on conducting risk assessments. The HSE states:

A risk assessment is simply a careul examination owhat, in your work, could cause harm to people, sothat you can weigh up whether you have taken enoughprecautions or should do more to prevent harm.33

It also points out:

The law does not expect you to eliminate all risk,but you are required to protect people as ar asreasonably practicable.

The HSE recommends that people do not overcomplicatethe risk-assessment and management process. It pointsout that in many settings the risks are well known andthe necessary control measures are easy to apply.

31 Health and saety executive written evidence to Select committee on constitutional

aairs Compensation culture: third report, Session 005-06, HC754 II, 006.32 Health and saety executive (006) Get a lie, says HSC HSC

Press Release, August.

New HSE guidance on risk management

The HSE says that sensible risk management is about:

Ensuring that workers and the public are properly protected

Providing overall beneft to society by balancing benefts and risks. This should have a ocus on reducing real risks both those that arise more oten and those with serious consequences

Enabling innovation and learning, not stiing them Ensuring that those who create risks manage them

responsibly and understand that ailure to manage real risks responsibly is likely to lead to robust action

Enabling individuals to understand that as well as the right to protection, they also have to exercise responsibility.

The HSE explains that sensible risk management is not about:

Creating a totally risk-ree society Generating paperwork mountains Scaring people by exaggerating

or publicising trivial risks Stopping important recreational

and learning activities or individuals

where the risks are managed Reducing peoples protection rom risks

that cause real harm and suering.34

The HSE oers a fve-step process or conducting a risk assessment:

Step one identiy the hazards

Step two decide who might be harmed and how

Step three evaluate the risks and decide on precautions

Step our record your fndings and implement them

Step fve review your assessment and update i necessary.35

Our report is part o this process o reconsideringapproaches to risk, and o asking whether thereis a better way o going about things.

33 Health and saety executive (006) Five steps to risk assessment, London: HSE.34 Health and saety executive (006) Get a lie, says HSC HSC

Press Release, August.

35 Health and saety executive (006) Five steps to risk assessment, London: HSE.

15


16/88

What are public spaces?

Public spaces are outdoor open spaces that are publiclyaccessible. This oers a wide range o dierent typeso ormal public space or example, parks, squares,streets, play areas and so on. It also includes inormalspaces such as empty building plots that may be used bypeople when taking a short-cut between other locations.

That streets and public spaces should be designedaround peoples needs is at the centre o inclusivedesign. CABE accepts the social model o disability.This is that in the built environment people are notdisabled by their own capabilities but by societys ailureto meet their needs. Disability is a state that anyone

can fnd themselves in as a result o poor design.

While recognising the nature o inormal placeshere, or example vacant land, in this study weconsider three types o public space parks, streetsand civic spaces. There is already considerablematerial available on the impact o risk perceptionson the design o play areas, and thus we haveexcluded this type o space rom our study.36

Public spaces are regulated in dierent ways, andsome may be closely monitored. Certain types o

activity (busking, street artists , public drinking) may beprevented through local enorcement. Local authoritiescontrol many public spaces. Others, such as squaresin many retail or business developments, are privatelyowned and the public does not have an automatic righto entry, although or all practical purposes they can beconsidered public spaces i they are publicly accessible.

Because public spaces are open, they are the ocuso interest or a wide range o stakeholders, all owhom have dierent interests in the question o risk.Dierent stakeholder groups, including those whodesign, use, regulate and maintain public space such as lobby groups, proessionals, businesses,media, government bodies, utility groups, insurers,and enorcement/emergency services will havetheir own understanding o risk. Activities o somegroups may be considered to create risk or others. Butequally, some users may be more susceptible to riskthan others, which shows the complexity o the publicspace design proessionals task in managing risk.

Dierent stakeholder groups will

have their own understanding o risk

How do people understand risk inpublic spaces?

Our review o the existing research and guidance,together with interviews with stakeholders,reveals that there are three main types o risk with

3which public space users are concerned:37

Risks to the person or example:

Crime against the person Accidents caused by motor vehicles Other accidents causing physical injury

Risks to property or example:

Vandalism and grafti Car crime Burglary Flooding/subsidence

Risks to quality o lie or example:

Loss o community cohesion

Social exclusion Reduced environmental quality, oten due to an

inadequatemaintenance regime Pollution Over-intrusive CCTV Obstruction by parked cars Anti-social behaviour Economic loss

Although these concerns are common acrossthe population, there is evidence that dierentgroups respond to risk in dierent ways. People willaccept a higher level o risk rom activ ities that givethem benefts, and where the activity is voluntari lyundertaken.38 This is relevant to public space design,since such spaces are oten used voluntarily andgive benefts (exercise, entertainment, leisure,shopping). Thus, people are likely to be less riskaverse in these situations. The public also has asophisticated relationship with media coverage o risk.

36 See, or example, National childrens bureau: www.ncb.org.uk; Play

England: www.playengland.org.uk; PLAYLINK: www.playlink.org.uk

37 Data rom our research with st akeholders and local authorities (see chapter

three); House o Lords Economic Aairs Inquiry on Risk: Response rom Living

streets, www.livingstreets.org.uk; P. Slovic (ed.) (000) The perception o

risk London: Earthscan; Of ce o the Deputy Prime Minister (004) Saerplaces: the planning system and crime prevent ion , London: ODPM.38 P. Slovic (ed) (000) The perception o riskLondon: Earthscan.

16


17/88

PeterNeal

StephenMcLaren

Neglected space: poorly maintained

public space can have a negative

impact on its surrounding community

However, there are dierences within the population. Peopleunder 5 years old, and in particular young men, have lowerlevels o risk awareness, knowledge and understanding.They have the highest propensity to take risks. People inthe older age groups (over 60) tend to hold mixed attitudes.On the one hand, they have a degree o pragmatism, borneo experience, that risk is a part o everyday lie. But theyare also aware that they may be particularly at risk (romcancer, alls and everyday accidents).39 Thus, the ear ocrime among older people, particularly those living alone,is oten higher than expected, given prevailing crime rates.

Those in the lower socio-economic groups tend to be morereactive in their approach to risk issues and eel powerlessto respond. A study or the National Consumer Council40

ound that those in higher socio-economic groups andthose aged 30 to 60 tend to think about and engage withrisk issues more than other groups; it also ound thatwhile men and women have similar attitudes towards riskissues, women are more cautious than men in terms obehaviour. Thus they tend to stop buying things or avoidcertain situations i they ear there might be risks involved.

Finally, some risks can become show-stoppers thathave a major impact on society or a particular publicspace project. This usually occurs when a particularevent happens that taps into the deep-seated concerns

o the public or designers.

It is important or public space designers to understandpublic perceptions o risk, and the way in which dierentgroups respond. The way dierent groups are expectedto use the space may enable them to adopt an approachin which risk is used as a positive element in the designto a dierent extent in dierent places. Equally, peoplewill not have uniorm attitudes when conronted by risk.This poses a major challenge or public space designersin designing or variety rather than the norm or lowestcommon denominator in terms o risk perception.

Sharing space: Bideord Quay, Devon is one o

a collection o CABEs streets case studies at

www.cabe.org.uk/streets

39 J. Petts, S. Wheeley, J. Homan and S. Niemeyer (003) Risk literacy and thepubl ic: MMR, air po llut ion and mobile phones London: Department o Health.40 National consumer council (00) Running risks; a summary oNCC research into consumers views on riskLondon: NCC.

17


18/88

Do lay people and experts agree ordier in the way they assess risk?

Public space designers are experts, drawing on their proessional training to identiy and assess risks. But is there any evidence that their views either correspond to or dier rom those o lay people?

Research evidence shows that when peopleassess risk, they place great reliance on personalexperience o accidents and incidents (or the lacko such incidents), the particular circumstances atthe time (or example, whether they are rushing tocatch a bus), and local knowledge o what really

happens in the public space (rather than whatdesigners or experts think happens). People alsorely heavily on interactions with their riends andwork colleagues in making risk assessments.41

As a result, individuals may discount or ignoresome signifcant risks, particularly where personalevidence does not support the ofcial line.42

People assess risks against a wider set oconsiderations than are typically used by experts,which may be one reason why some public spaceschemes have had to have retroftting to deter

people rom taking risks that were not consideredby the designers.

However, this evidence suggests that theway in which proessionals reason aboutrisk has more in common with that o laypeople than might be expected. Experienceand inormal contact with colleagues shapeproessionals views about risk. In proessionalnetworks, stories about how individuals gotit wrong have a considerable resonance,and can contribute to risk-averse practice.

How important is the media inshaping peoples views o risk?

Social amplifcation o risk describes the way inwhich some hazards and events become a ocuso signifcant social and political concern whileother potentially more serious events receivecomparatively little attention.43 An initial eventstarts the process, and is interpreted by variousstakeholders including the media, government,industry, consumer bodies and pressure groups in terms o their values and interests. Then, as the incident passes rom group to group, so it is amplifed or given greater weight. Sometimes the starting point can be a serious

event, but it may also be an unusual but trivial incident.

Thus the media plays a key role in theamplifcation process, through reporting notonly the initial incident but also subsequentstatements and actions by stakeholders.However, recent research into the role othe media in risk amplifcation reutes theidea that the lay public arepassive recipientso expert risk knowledge.44 It ound thatindividuals draw upon multiple inormation

sources and understanding o risk. The mediacan only ampliy (or attenuate) risk i theycapture or resonate with the public mood.

In turn, members o the public are sophisticatedusers o what is an increasingly large and variedmedia they understand hype andsensationalism when they see it. They alsorecognise the labels and styles o the media andthe impact o these on the inormation beingpresented to them. They have clear criteria orevaluating utility, credibility and responsibility.

41 S. Sahara, J. Petts, S. McAlpine, M . Pattison and S. MacRae (00)

Workers understanding o chemical risks electroplating case study

Occupational and environmental medicine 59, 689-695.

42 J. Petts, T. Horlick-Jones and G. Murdock (001) Social amplifcation o risk: the media and the public contract resea rch report 39/001, Sudbury:

HSE Books; T. Horlick-Jones (005) Inormal logics o risk: contingency and

modes o practical reasoning Journal o risk research 8(3), 53-7. 43 R. E. Kasperson, O. Renn and P. Slovic (1988) Social amplifcation

o risk: a conceptual ramework Risk analysis 8, 177-187.

44 J. Petts, T. Horlick-Jones and G. Murdock (001) Social amplifcation o risk: the

media and the public contract research report39/001, Sudbury: HSE Books.

18


19/88

19

Designers sometimes use

elements of risk to create

interest and excitement

Creative space: Parc Gulliver in Valencia, Spain,

provides an exciting and innovative adventure

space with a huge fbreglass model o Gulliver,rom the novel Gullivers Travels

ChrisEdwards


20/88

Risk as a show-stopper

People are generally concerned with immediate andpersonal aspects o risk, but sometimes a big issuewill emerge that can be a show-stopper slowingor halting a whole project. In our case studies, wecame across a number o these, where dierentstakeholders in the public space design processstruggled with a major issue. They includeddesign choices to reduce anti-social behaviourand provision or emergency-vehicle access.

When risk becomes a show-stopper we have toquestion whether it is the perceived risk itsel thatis the cause or whether the risk issue is being used

as a surrogate or other concerns. Sometimes,ocusing on risks associated with uncertainty ounderstanding and expert knowledge can seem amore productive line o argument to those opposedto a development rather than trying to argue on socialand moral or economic and nancial grounds.

Arguments that local amenity will be lost, that houseprices might be devalued, that the responsibleorganisation cannot be trusted, or simply that peopledo not like change in their environment, are lessamenable to measurement and objective consideration

in ormal decision processes, whereas the risks tohealth (or example) are more so. Thus, risk issues cancome to dominate an argument in decision-making,when in act other concerns and questions mightbe trying to surace.

Creative space: Parc Gulliver in Valencia, Spain,

provides an exciting and innovative adventure

space with a huge fibreglass model of Gulliver,

from the novel Gullivers Travels

ChrisEdwards

What are the implications for public

space design?

Proessionals, clients and other stakeholders ace majorchallenges in managing risk in public space design. Thisis because risk in public spaces can have both desirableand undesirable characteristics. Designers sometimesuse elements o risk to create interest and excitement, somanaging risk in public space design is oten complex.

Introducing aspects o risk into a design can have apositive impact on peoples experience o a publicspace. Shared suraces, where the boundaries betweenpedestrians and vehicles is ambiguous, can both reduceaccidents and improve the street scene by removing

the clutter associated with saety barriers and warningsigns (see case study o Kensington High Street).

Introducing aspects o risk to design is not incompatiblewith the needs o disabled people. Strategies thatdeliver walkability or many can also deliver inclusivedesign. However, design strategies, principles orphilosophies that are misapplied as pattern books orcopied wholesale, or in part, rom one context to anothercan exclude whole parts o society rom a given space.

Uneven suraces can provide a place or creative exploration

(or example, by children and young people) as well as addingnew textures to a space (see case study o Exchange Square).Water jets emerging rom a fat surace in an unpredictablemanner introduce risk in an interesting and humorous way.

However, there are also undesirable aspects o publicspace risk. In particular, injuries and incidents associatedwith public spaces lead to increased regulation andretrotting. Recent cases o injury in play areas, romtoppling trees and gravestones, and in high-prole placessuch as the Diana, Princess o Wales Memorial Fountain have heightened awareness o risks in public spaces.45

These incidents give an impression o poor regulation orisk, although the reality in individual cases may have beendierent. Nevertheless, they may result in overreactionby public authorities in order to avoid urther incidents.Changes may also be made to the design eatureinvolved that may sometimes reduce design quality.

Water jets emerging from a flat surface

in an unpredictable manner introduce

risk in an interesting and humorous way

45 Money down the drain? The Observer, 25 July 2004; Assessing and

managing risk Horticulture Week, 20 April 2006; Safety in Cemeteries,

National ederation o cemetery riends. www.cemeteryriends.org.uk

20


21/88

Public space designers have dierent theories aboutthe relationship between risk and design. For example,Safer places46 shows how planners, developers andother designers can use crime-prevention principlesto make parks, streets and other public spaces saer.The Secured by Design initiative launched by theAssociation o chie police ofcers47 is also based ona theory that particular k inds o public space design canreduce anti-social behaviour, or example by acilitatingpassive surveillance.48 Others would argue that thisis only eective where there are cohesive communitiesthat have common values about how people shouldbehave in public spaces and are willing to imposethese norms on anyone on anti-social behaviour.

Injuries and incidents associated

with public spaces lead to increased

regulation and retrofitting

Peoples fountain: the Diana, Princess of Wales

Fountain, Hyde Park has a million visitors a year. A

balance of management and maintenance is vital

Designing public spaces that increase

personal safety

The risks associated with security and crime are akey eature o public space design. These are r isksthat individuals using public space may be unable toavoid, because public space is by defnition open toall. Designers adopt dierent approaches to this risk.One strategy draws on Jane Jacobs seminal workThedeath and life of great american cities. She argued ora mixing o urban unctions that would maintain streetlie at dierent times o the day and week in order toensure passive surveillance or eyes on the street.49

Formal surveillance using CCTV cameras has taken over

rom neighbourhood watch or neighbourly watchulnessin many residential areas/housing estates, possibly dueto greater anonymity among members o the community.The Secured by Design initiative oers guidance todesigners on ways in which passive surveillance can bereintroduced into residential and other environments.

An alternative to surveillance is withdrawal rom thesocial environment. Gated communities, enclosed andprivately managed shopping malls and commercial ofcecentres all construct a private zone o saety, bringinga sense o civilisation or order in retreating rom civic

(public) space.50

On the whole, these are privilegedcommunities that can aord to buy their saety.

PeterGuenzel

HeleneBinet

46 Ofce o the Deputy Prime Minister (004) Safer places: the 49 Jane Jacobs (1961) The death and life of great american cities,

planning system and crime prevent ion London: ODPM. New York; Random House.

47 www.securedbydesign.com 50 Kim Dovey (1998) Safety and danger in urban design, paper presented48 An example o passive surveil lance is where houses are designe d so at the Conere nce on Saer Communi ties : Strategi c Directi ons in

that their ront doors look over a communal area. In this way, people will Urban Planning , Austra lian institute o criminology and the Victorian

see what is happening as they enter and leave their houses, and those community council against violence, Melbourne, 10-11 September

who might wish to engage in anti-social behaviour will be deterred. 1998. www.aic.gov.au/conerences/urban/dovey.pd

1


22/88

The risks that people perceive in public spaces can aecttheir use and enjoyment o these acilities. In London,39 per cent o women and 18 per cent o men reportedthat they elt unsae in Londons green spaces, and 66 percent o mothers said that they would not let their childrenplay unsupervised.51 Reduced use o public spaces dueto concern about risk has a number o negative socialand health impacts. People oten use public spaces orleisure activities, including walking or pleasure, ootballand play. This gives opportunities or social engagementand the exercise reduces the risk o health problems likeobesity and heart disease.52 Some local authorities nowpromote health walks in local parks as part o their strategyto improve health and well-being.53 Designers, thereore,may need to work with agencies like the police and local

authority park rangers in order to produce environmentswhere undesirable social and health risks are minimised.54

Individuals and groups perceive and value risk in dierentways. The promotion o inclusive design challengesproessionals and other stakeholders to develop anunderstanding o risk rom the perspective o the manydierent groups who may use the space.55 Since August006 most planning applications should include a designand access statement. These documents explain the thinkingbehind a planning application and should include inormationon how everyone, including older people and disabled

people, will be able to use the place that is being built.56

On some issues, there may be similar views betweengroups, but trade-o s may sometimes have to be made.Here the designer should be transparent in reachingthe judgement o how to deal with these issues.

This, however, means that risk cannot always be predicted.Spaces are used in ways their designers may not haveanticipated by skateboarders in public squares, or example.There is also a dynamic relationship between public spacesand users. The space creates opportunities that may reducerisk, or example by increasing night-time usage, thusreducing ears or personal security. Or it may increase riski, say, joyriders start to use a park or racing stolen cars.

Finally, the emergence o privatised spaces can displacerisks. In these spaces, public-sector control is ceded tobusiness and private security companies. A 006 Royalinstitution o chartered surveyors report has illustratedhow this creates the phenomenon o highly regulated,low-risk, auent public spaces displacing problems suchas anti-social behaviour and drug abuseon to neighbouring poorer areas.57

Risk cannot always be predictedSpaces are used in ways theirdesigners may not have anticipated

The consequence is that the design o public space ispotentially subject to uncertainty, debate and conict inrelation to the nature, scale, incidence and resolution o risk.

Top Bottom

Healthy streets: goodquality Public art: An art installation provides

public spaces play a pivotal role in both interest and seating in Queen

promoting and sustaining health Street, Londonencouraging people to walk and

cycle around their neighbourhoods

51 Mayor o London (004) Mak ing London parks sae or women and children

press release, 3 March; CABE (005) Parks need parkorce London: CABE.

52 Greenspace Scotland (n.d.) Making the Links No 8: Greenspace,

health and well-being. www.greenspace.org.uk

53 For example, Shefeld City Council now oers more than 0

walks a week, lasting between 30 and 45 minutes in parks and

green spaces near peoples homes. www.shefeld.gov.uk

54 The CABE Space publicationPaying or parks urther explores theopportunities o multi-agency partnerships or the delivery o projects

that meet cross-cutting targets, or instance or public health, crime

reduction or sustainable development. CABE (006) Paying or parks:eight models or unding urban green space London: CABE.

55 CABE (006) The principles o inclusive design (they include you) London: CABE56 CABE (006) Design and access statements: How to write, read and use them London: CABE.

57 Royal institution o chartered surveyors (006)

What kind o world are we building?London: RICS.

CABE

Space

ChrisE

dw

ard

s


23/88

To what extent should designers

take responsibility for risks to public

space users?

Good public space design and management canreduce some o the undesirable risks or users, orinstance by highlighting bins or other obstacleswith tactile inormation or blind and partiallysighted people, but it cannot eliminate them all.This leaves a dilemma or design proessionals:

Should they take on the responsibility or protectingpeople and design or risk minimisation?

Or should they leave individuals to takeresponsibility or their own welare, andrisk blame i there are accidents?

We can illustrate this issue by considering thedesign o a major water eature in a busy shoppingarea. Should the designer seek to minimise riskthrough the design itsel (or example by installingphysical barriers between people and the water),emphasising the artifcial nature o the eature? Orshould the designer aim to encourage people totake responsibility or themselves and others, andin so doing potentially produce a more interesting,

exciting, accessible, even natural eature?58

(Seeour case studies o Brindleyplace and Apeldoorn).

Oten, the organisation responsible or the publicspace takes responsibility or managing the risks, butapproaches vary depending on the nature o the space.

I the water eature is an open canal or river, there is likely tobe reliance on people taking responsibility or themselves i they choose to run or cycle along a towpath, or example.Erecting a physical barrier along the entire length to ensurethat someone cannot all into the water is unlikely to be acost-eective risk-reduction measure. It would certainlydetract rom the naturalness o the eature. But wouldthe decision change i the authority wanted to proactivelyencourage cycling on the towpath even make it part oa cycle route? Or i there were a number o accidents?

On the whole, evidence shows that people wantthe reedom to choose how to respond to risk inormed by sufcient and relevant inormation.

Evidence shows that people want the

freedom to choose how to respond to risk

58 Furthermore, it should be borne in mind that there are huge wayfnding

benefts to including ountains in water eatures as the sound o

water can act as a navigational tool or blind and partially sighted

people (see the case study o E xchange Square, Manchester).

Waterside walking : walkers enjoy a stroll along theRiver Trent in Newark, Nottinghamshire

MarkEllisandAs

hleyBingham

3


24/88

4

Conclusion

This chapter shows that risk is undamentally a unctiono proessional and lay perception and experience,shaped by wider social processes. These include themedia, social norms, and attitudes towards governmentand experts. These norms may be translated intoregulations and established procedures withinorganisations, which can be resistant to change.

The inherently contested nature o risk caused bythese dierent attitudes and judgements meansthat public space designers operate in a worldo uncertainty. These uncertainties include:

Whether what they regard as a riskwill be seen that way by users

Whether dierent groups o users will agree onwhat is and is not a risk, or how serious the risk is

Whether the space will generate risksunoreseen by the designers

Where the legal requirements relatingto liability start and end

Whether they should undertake a comprehensiverisk assessment, attempting to identiy all possiblerisks, or something more selective and the

consequences in terms o the impact on designquality and potential subsequent liability Whether something that is regarded as a risk

now (such as skateboarding in public squares)will continue to be a risk in the uture, as ashionsand social norms change, and thereore whetherretroftting is needed to minimise this risk.

Making judgements about these issues is a difcult task. I twould be easy or designers to take a risk-averse approach,and minimise the hazards that space users might ace. Amore challenging route is to use risk to create interest andstimulation in the design, but in the context o an appropriatelevel o risk management. In chapter two we explore thisissue urther by setting out a framework for analysing therelationship between risk and design.

24


25/88

Chapter twoA ramework or analysing riskin public space design

The previous chapter showed that the

relationship between risk and publicspace is subtle and multiaceted.Individuals perceive and react to risk indierent ways. And rather than wantingto reduce risk, designers may wish toinclude elements that are risky in orderto create vibrant and exciting spaces.

In this chapter we set out a ramework oranalysing the relationship between risk anddesign. The ramework has two levels:

1 The general attitudes and approaches torisk in society at large, and the way theyare reected in regulation, education andorganisational practices. We use Force feldanalysis to help us understand the pressuresthat are driving and resisting risk aversion.

The specifc approach to risk adopted inindividual public space design projects.We use a general model o the designprocess to help us understand howrisk actors impact at dierent stagesin the production o public space.

5


26/88

Forces driving and resisting risk

aversion in public space design

The design o public space can be thought o as acomplex decision-making process.59 This is because itinvolves a large number o stakeholders with dierentvalues and attitudes towards risk, and designers haveto deal with uncertainty about how individuals andgroups will respond to the choices they make.

Force eld analysis is a widely used technique oranalysing the actors that infuence decisions.60 Thistechnique views decisions as the outcome o a tensionbetween driving orces and resisting orces (gure one):

Driving forces are those promotinga particular change (or example, thatdesigners should be more aware o risk,or should design to minimise risk)

Resisting forces are those that actagainst the change (or example, takingthe view that existing approaches to riskare acceptable, and that elements o risk

create interest in a design).In chapter one we showed that there are powerul drivingorces promoting greater attention to risk. These are likelyto lead to risk aversion in the absence o countervailingresisting orces promoting a more moderate approach.Where resisting orces are not in evidence, or areweak, individuals and organisations will tend tolose the ability to distinguish between major andtrivial risks and will adopt uniorm risk managementapproaches, regardless o the level o risk.

Driving forces for risk aversion

Strong driving orces lead to an institutionalisation o

risk-averse practices and policies by organisations andthe individuals who work within them. This means thatstandardised approaches to risk become the norm.Institutionalisation arises rom three sets o drivingorces (gure one).61

The intention behind these processes may be one oeective risk management (to increase public saety, orexample) as much as a ear o liability or personal-injuryclaims. However, the danger is that, when taken together,they will lead to poor quality and standardised publicspaces in which risk is seen as an undesirable eature.

Strong driving forces lead to an

institutionalisation of risk-averse

practices and policiesThis means

that standardised approaches to risk

become the norm

59 Joop Koppenjan and Erik-Hans Klijn (2004) Managing uncertainties in networks

London: Routledge.

60 Kurt Lewin (1951) Field theory in social science New York: Harper and Row.

61 P. J. DiMaggio and W. W. Powell (1983) The iron cage revisited: institutional

isomorphism and collective rationality in organisational ields American

sociological review, 48 (2).

26


27/88

--

Figure one: an analysis o potential driving and resisting orces related to risk in public space design

Driving orces

Coercive orces what you must doThese are mandatory requirements imposed on designers by laws, regulations, organisational policies and client or stakeholder demands. Examples include corporate procedures or risk management adopted by organisations in order to comply with legislation , and client

requirements that risk to individuals rom trip hazards or play areas is minimised.

Normative orces what you should doThese orces concern the overall norms and values o designers and other stakeholders in the public space design ie ld that promote the idea that something is the right thing to do. This can be based on proessional, aesthetic

or similar grounds, and will develop and spread through ormalised routes such as proessional training, as well as inormal networks.

Imitat ive orces what you imitateThese include examples that designers areencouraged to copy or imitate. They areconveyed through oicial guidance, continuingproessional development, conerences and

so on. One example is Secured by Design,which promotes good practice ways oreducing anti soc ial and criminal behaviour.

Anticipated resisting orces

LeadershipInter-proessional co-ordinationon public space design insome local authorities

Interactive design with stakeholdersIncreased levels o consultationwith stakeholders

Goodpractice examplesPromotion o design that accommodates

risk in an appropriate way, produced byinterest groups and advisory bodies

Statements by regulatorsRegulators and others seeking to clariylaw and the regulatory ramework.

7


28/88

Resisting orces promoting aproportionate approach to risk

We also need to consider resisting orces that promotea more proportionate approach to risk. Resisting orcesare not opposed to the identifcation and managemento risk, but promote a more balanced approach inwhich risk is considered in context and alongsideother design considerations or example its quality,interest and attractiveness to users, cost and exibility.These views see risk as something that can enhancedesign but that also needs to be handled eectively.

The essence o such resisting orces is that they donot lead to an institutionalised approach to the way in

which risk is managed. They encourage proessionaldesigners to distinguish between types and signifcanceo risk, and to make decisions in the light o the particularcontext. This is the type o approach currently beingpromoted by the HSE and the Better regulationcommission, as we discussed in chapter one.

Resisting orces include:

Leadership by key individuals and organisationsin the design profession. This can be seen in theapproach to risk adopted by design proessionals, clients

and local politicians on a specifc project. It is also evidentin recent publications by the authors o What are wescared o?and What kind o world are we building?62

The involvement of stakeholders in interactivedesign processes with multi-disciplinary proessionalteams, enabling a sharing o views and negotiationo solutions that deal sensibly with risk . However,it should not be assumed that stakeholders will beless risk averse than proessionals in all situations.

Good-practice examples that demonstrate aproportionate approach to risk. For example, guidesby the Childrens Play Council and other groupspromote improved play opportunities or children.63

However, it should also be noted that good practicecan sometimes be an imitative orce leading to theinstitutionalisation o risk-averse behaviour; or example,in standardised designs or sae play environmentsproduced by some local authorities. One size will notft all design solutions need to be context-specifc.

Statements by regulators, government, insurers,professional bodies and others that clariy the legal

position and the responsibilities o those designing andmanaging public space. For example, the recent HSEcampaign to promote sensible risk management.

Similar initiatives are being undertaken by the RoyalInstitution o chartered surveyors, the Institute o civilengineers, the Hazards forum, insurers and otherbodies in the public space feld. They are working toenhance the resisting orces by developing greaterunderstanding o the need or risk to be managedsensibly, and to strengthen communication betweenproessionals working in multi-disciplinary project teams.

These initiatives include:

The Institution o highways and transportation/CABE joint workshops on Streets orPeople, which emphasise the importanceo good design in street works

The Royal institute o british architects continuingproessional development courses on Securedby Design, the major initiative by the Associationo chie police ofcers to design out crime

The Institute o riskmanagement, ALARM: the Nationalforum or riskmanagement in the public sectorand other partners producing a risk managementstandard in order to set a common terminology, riskmanagement process and organisational structure.64

These cross-proessional discussions can contributeto a shared understanding o how risks can be

understood and managed and are likely to assist theimplementation o proportionate risk measures inthe wider context o the HSEs new guidance and itsdetailed advice or designers on the Construction(Design and Management) Regulations 1994.65

Resisting orces promote a morebalanced approach in which risk isconsidered in context and alongsideother design considerations

62 CABE Space (005) What are we scared o?London: CABE; Royal Institution o Chartered Surveyors (006) What kind o world are we building?

London: RICS.

63 Childrens play council (00) Managing risk in play provision London: Nationalchildrens bureau; Disability challengers: Children challenging disability. www.disability-challengers.org

64 www.theirm.org/

65Health and saety executive Construction (Design and Management)Regulations 1994: The role o the designer, Construction inormation sheet 41; and

Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 1994: The health and saety

plan during the construction period, Construction inormation sheet 43.

8


29/88

Mapping risk issues in thedesign process

We now turn to the second technique or analysingrisk in the public space design process. This

ocuses on the way in which risk impacts ondierent stages o the process, and the nature othe risks that come into play at these points.

The design process can broadly be

understood to comprise three stages:

PrepareWhere the idea or the project is crystallised,initial concepts are explored, the team isput together, and fnance organised

Identiy aims Develop strategy Build team Consult with stakeholders

DesignIn which the detailed design work is undertaken, includingexploring dierent options and evaluating these againstrelevant criteria in order to arrive at the preerred solution

Vision or the space Choices about unctionality Choices about quality Viability o design

ImplementWhere the project is delivered, although this may alsoinvolve some modifcations to the original design inthe light o the practicalities aced on the ground.

Delivery process Ensuring quality

Monitoring

It is likely that different types of risk will relate to

each stage of the design process. We term these:

Strategic risksThat relate to the ability to develop a viable project

Detailed risksConcerned with the design o the public space; theseare the risks to the person, proper ty and quality o lie weidentifed earlier, and are the main ocus o our study

Delivery risksAssociated with the delivery o the design on the ground.

We use the case studies later in the repor t to isolatethe nature o the risks in each o these categories. The

categorisation is not exclusive and we recognise that thereare oten no clear distinctions between risks at each stage.

The design process incorporates a complex relationshipbetween strategic choices (or example, agreeing theoverall design concept) and detailed decisions (orexample, evaluating and choosing the materials orootpaths).66Strategic choices usually set o a largenumber o such detailed decisions, but the processis also oten interactive and iterative, with explorationo detailed decisions leading to a rethink o aspectso the overall concept. Similarly, implementation o aproject can sometimes highlight that changes need tobe made and, occasionally, new eatures retroftted.

Determining the overall approach to risk is one o thestrategic choices acing designers and will aect the moredetailed ways in which the design unolds. But equally,choices about risk may only emerge over detailed aspectso the design. For example, questions about whether a watereature should be open or enced are likely to generate widerones about hazard identifcation and risk management.

Implementation o a project cansometimes highlight that changes needto be made and, occasionally, neweatures retrotted

66 C. Moughtin, R. Cuesta, C. Sarris and P. Signoreta (003) Urban design:methods and techniques Oxord: Architectual Press.

9


30/88

30

Conclusion

It is helpul to see risk judgements as a relationship betweenorces driving towards risk aversion, and those resistingand promoting proportionality. Force feld analysis oersa way o capturing this relationship. Our ramework alsopoints to the way in which risk may impact dierentially,according to the stage o the design process.

It is also clear, rom the evidence presented in chapterone, that the impact o risk on a particular project shouldbe understood in terms o attitudes and regulatoryrameworks in society at large. Beore investigatingour case studies o public space design, thereore,we turn in the next chapter to an exploration o the

views o national stakeholder organisations.

30


31/88

Chapter threeThe views o national stakeholders

Many national organisations andpressure groups concerned with

public space are actively debatingthe impact o greater risk awareness,the duty o care, potential liabilitiesrom accidents, and the changing riskculture. This sets the context withinwhich individual designers operate.

It is important or us to understand thiscontext, so we interviewed 16 representativesrom a wide range o stakeholder groups.

Interviewees included risk assessors andmanagers, health and saety proessionals,the highways and transportation sector,public space designers and user interests.We also interviewed managers responsibleor public space in three councils andsupplemented these interviews with areview o relevant reports and web-basedmaterial rom other organisations.

The interviews and literature reviewprovided evidence on our key issues that

help to illuminate the risk context withinwhich proessional designers operate:

What are the main types o risksin public space design?

What is the impact o legislation andexternal regulation on approaches to risk?

Is there risk aversion in public space design?How can designers manage risk in an

eective and proportionate way?

31


32/88

Stakeholder bodies providinginormation or this study

ALARM National forum or riskmanagementin the public sector

Better regulation commission

Camden Borough Council

Childrens play council

Communities and local government

Department or Constitutional Aairs

Department or Transport

Guidedogs or the blind association

Health and saety executive

Institute o highway incorporated engineers

Institute o riskmanagement

The Institution o highways and transportation

Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council

The Landscape institute

Local government association

London Borough o Richmond upon Thames

National federation o cemetery friends

Retail week

Royal academy o engineering

The Royal Borough o Kensington and Chelsea

Royal institute o british architects

Royal institution o chartered surveyors

Royal national institute or the blind

Urban design group

West midlands policeZurich municipal

There was also a recognition thatdesign could go only so ar inpromoting sae spaces

What are the main risks identiied bystakeholders?

The majority o stakeholders regarded risks associatedwith crime and ear o crime as a priority or everyoneinvolved in the design and maintenance o public space.Respondents thought that there was wide recognition inthe proession that users o public space should be ableto eel secure rom anti-social behaviour and criminality.

However, a number o stakeholders also acknowledgedthe need to keep this issue in proportion and avoiddesign being driven by a security agenda. They voiceda concern that giving too much weight to security mightlead to standardised responses and environments

that were less stimulating and innovative.

Other stakeholders thought a combination o standarddesign practice and innovation was possible. There wasalso a recognition that design could go only so ar inpromoting sae spaces. Consequently, the defnition oreasonable risk and proportionate risk management becomes a core issue or public space design.

Liability claims arising rom accidents are urther, majorconsiderations or national stakeholders. This relatesto the changed climate o society in which individuals,

sometimes encouraged by claims armers, resort tolitigation when they have suered an accident. In thissituation, a greater proportion o risks become signifcantand thus o concern to the public (see chapter one).

Stakeholders recognised that organisations might respondby adopting more deensive practices. This includes reducingrisk through saer design or using signage to show howor when a particular space can be used. Changes to localauthority design and regulation o play areas were highlightedas a particular instance o this trend, and indicative onormative orces driving an institutionalised response.

A number o national stakeholders thought that such deensiveapproaches were in part the result o organisations havinginadequate inormation on the legal position regarding theirresponsibility, or holding views that were more risk aversethan the legislation and regulatory ramework intended. Interms o the ramework in chapter two, this would meanthat coercive driving orces were particularly signifcant.

Recent case law or example Tomlinson v CongletonCouncil and Cheshire County Council was seenas providing a clear deence or councils by defningwhat is reasonable in terms o risk management. Such

clariying statements by regulators were identifed asa potentially signifcant resisting orce in chapter two.Nevertheless, one stakeholder elt designers might beblamed i there was a major problem with a public space,regardless o the legal position on liability or accidents.

3


33/88

The Tomlinson case

The case concerned a youth who dived into a lakein a countryside park and sustained serious injuries.There were signs at the lake saying it was unsaeor swimming, and rangers patrolled the lake,ordering any swimmers rom the water. The casebrought was that councils concerned had ailed toprevent the individual rom diving into the lake.

The Law Lords heard the case in 003 and oundunanimously in avour o the local authorities involved.

In their judgement, the Law Lords drew a number oconclusions that help defne the limits o responsibility

or regulating public space. In summary, these are:

1 There are some hazards that may injure careless persons or young children, against which it is impossible to guard by protective measures

2 Members o the public should be awareo an obvious hazard that can be clearlyseen, and thereore there is no need or theresponsible body to protect an obvious hazard

3 I there is no record o an incident or accident in an area that is regularly used by the public, and it is an obvious hazard, then it does not need urther protection

4 There should not be an automatic assumptionby an individual that because they havehad an accident, someone else must beresponsible, especially i the accident wascaused by inappropriate action (in thiscase, by an individual diving into a lake).

The guidance available in specialist documents provides a more detailed discussion o the legal context or public authorities in considering whether they have a responsibility to act.67

However, the stakeholder interviews did notfnd evidence o an increasing liability culturein the public space feld. Respondents thoughtthat anecdotal and popular perceptions o acompensation culture were not borne out inpractice. Two stakeholders commented:

[There is a] perception o a compensationculture but no evidence to support this, sinceover the last ive years [the value o] claimsdid not grow as a percentage o GDP.

[There] seems to be no increase in thenumber o [successul] personal liabilityclaims[rather] there is an increase in

the amounts awarded by the courts.

There was also evidence rom our local authorityinterviews that councils were managing this issue moreeectively, leading to a reduction in liability claims. Intwo councils, new approaches had been introducedthat were improving the quality o public spacethrough rapid action on repairs and tackling raudulentclaims. These initiatives have led to a signifcantdrop in claims. In other words, recognition o claims(which were largely or trips and alls) was leading

to practical and proportionate risk management.

The stakeholder interviews did notind evidence o an increasing liabilityculture in the public space ield

67 For example: UK Highway liability joint taskgroup (005) Highway risk andliability claims, London, December.

33


34/88

The London Borough o Camdens approach to managing liability claims

Camden Council in London has implemented two linked Having only one point in the council at initiatives to manage the problem o claims or accidents which an individual can register claimsrom trips and alls on its streets and pavements. A procedure or investigating whether the

council or another organisation (such as The frst element is increased resources targeted at a utility company) has been negligent and reducing accidents. This involves a more eective is legally liable to pay compensationprocess o repairing aults and reducing other hazards. I the claim is accepted, a settlement is

dependent on provision by the claimant oThe second aspect is to introduce a new process appropriate documentary evidence.or making claims against the council in orderto determine whether the claim

urb_promoting better public space design

Documents