The component interventionHeader has not been created yet or is not available for this content page type.

The component headerBackButton has not been created yet or is not available for this content page type.

General Overview

Type of stakeholder

EICS Framework

Region of Reference

Africa
Asia
Australia
Europe
North-America
South-America
World

Description

Mixed-use development creates inclusive, connected communities. In mixed-use areas, you can find housing, restaurants, services, schools, cultural facilities, parks, and more. This connectivity reduces the need for private vehicles, thus increasing the viability of public transport, walking, and bicycling [6].

As there are various activities located near each other, which operate at different times of day, this reduces the risk of isolation and increases the potential for witnesses to see infractions, inhibiting potential perpetrators from freely pursuing their crimes.

Facts/Illustrations/Case studies

With an increased concentration and diversity of attractions, the full realisation of mixed-use infrastructures serves the sustainable design principles, resulting in social, economical, and environmental benefits. On average, an individual’s main concerns or requirements when selecting a place of work/residence, are Low crime rates (55%), access to health services (43%), and clean streets (37%). Access to public transport is ranked 6th with 23% [2,3].
Figure: Mixed-use developments. Source: https://www.wri.org/insights/people-oriented-cities-mixed-use-development-creates-social-and-economic-benefits

Types of Impact

To/from the stop/station/rank✕
Waiting for train/bus/paratransit✓
In the vehicle✕
At interchanges✓

This intervention would impact the commuters at transport stations/interchanges, with sustainable mixed-use urban planning and designs needing to be incorporated into public transport systems.

Day-time travel✓
Night-time travel✓
Peak-time travel✓
Off peak-time travel✓

All travel time categories could be positively impacted by this intervention.

Bus✓
Train✓
Rideshare✓
4 wheelers informal✓
3 wheelers informal✓
2 wheelers informal✓
Cycling✓
Walking✓

All modes could potentially be impacted by this intervention.

Girls✓
Boys✓
Adult Women✓
Men✓
Elderly Women✓
LGBTQI+✓

All public transport users will be positively impacted by this intervention.

Resources

Monetary Resource Requirements
The monetary resources required for the full intervention are high, due to the capital expenditures required to implement new mixed-use infrastructures and practices. The associated operational costs for the full implementation are low, as they include the maintenance and service costs for the holistic operation of the said infrastructure. The costs associated with a partial implementation are low to moderate, with the mixed-use design and planning being incorporated at the initial building phase to greatly reduce the capital expenditure of the implementation, while the operational costs remain low.
Capital Cost Requirements Operational Cost Requirements
Non-Monetary Resource Requirements
Specialist skills, a long timeframe, and relatively weak political will are required to fully implement this intervention, which requires planning, design, construction, maintenance, and operation. Targeted implementation has a reduced skill requirement, with a moderate to low time constraint, accompanied by moderate political will.
Skills Time Political Will

SWOT Analysis

Perceived to be effective
It is easy to disseminate, encourage widespread use, and available to all types of passengers, for all types of trips, any time of the day, and on any mode
Long term benefits

Takes significant planning, time and cost to be implemented

Crime reduction
Improve safety

Reliant on collaborations from several parties for full functionality

Effectiveness

Several literature sources confidently indicate this to be an effective measure in improving public transport systems by reducing crime and increasing personal levels of safety. The effectiveness of the measure is considered high with both female passengers and governing bodies rating the effectiveness of this intervention as high. [1-5]

Perception by (female) passengers
Perception by governing bodies
Level of confidence in these ratings

Implementation

Implementation of the intervention is a time-intensive process, with its benefits only being fully realised upon its full implementation. The benefits are long-term, yet will require constant maintenance and upkeep for full functionality.

Implementation timeframe

0-1 year✓
1-3 years✓
>3 years✓

Timeframe to realise benefits

0-1 year✓
1-3 years✓
>3 years✓

Scale of Implementation

This intervention can be implemented at a local or city level.

National

Regional

City

Station or
Suburb

Ease of Implementation

This intervention is difficult to implement, as it requires a high level of skilled services for the planning, design, construction and maintenance.

List of References

Europe

1. University College London. (2005). Designing Mixed-use Urban Environments: The Social and Environmental Benefits.

2. Evans, G. (2014). Living in the City. In Wellbeing (pp. 1–28). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

3. Ryckewaert, M., Zaman, J., & de Boeck, S. (2021). Variable arrangements between residential and productive activities: 6Conceiving mixed‐use for urban development in Brussels. Urban Planning, 6(3), 334–349.

4. Hoppenbrouwer, E., & Louw, E. (2005). Mixed-use development: Theory and practice in Amsterdam’s Eastern Docklands. European Planning Studies, 13(7), 967–983.

North America

5. Carmelina Bevilacqua, Jusy Calabrò, & Carla Maione. (2013). The Role of Community in Urban Regeneration: Mixed Use Areas Approach in the USA. CORP - Competence Center of Urban and Regional Planning.

World

6. Zamorano, L., Kulpa, E. (2014). People-Oriented Cities: Mixed-Use Development Creates Social and Economic Benefits. World Resource Institute

SHE CAN Tool